Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Solutions To Recycling 20220930

Microphones will be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak. Since members are participating from different locations at todays hearing, all recognition of members such as for questions will be in the order of subcommittee seniority. Documents for the record can be sent to kylie rogers at the email address weve provided to staff. All documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing. The chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. To give our digital team some notice its important to share , with them that others comments will be accepted and will be entered into the record earlier this morning. The Supreme Court limited epas authority to protect Public Health and the environment in the face of congressional intent for a rule that is no longer on the books and never went into effect. Im completely dismayed by this decision and i do know in the days ahead, the subcommittee will study the decision and examine all options while urging epa to take renewed action , however possible, to reduce Greenhouse Gas pollution. But back to the topic of the hearing, today is an opportunity to examine four proposals to address our nations waste and recycling challenges. The American Public likes recycling. But many people have concerns that what they put out to the curb often does not end up being recycled. And these concerns are not unfounded. Far too many recyclable products end up in our landfills and Plastic Waste in particular is ending up in our environment and our oceans. This subcommittee held an oversight hearing in 2020 to better understand these issues. We learned that in recent years our nations recyclers have been under financial pressure. The closure of the chinese export market has had major impacts on the United States recycling system, causing municipalities to scale back once profitable programs, many of which are now actually costing local governments money. These changing Market Conditions, exposed deficiencies in domestic markets, education and infrastructure that had been long overlooked as long as china , was willing to accept our waste in order to get us back on track. In last years bipartisan infrastructure law, congress recognized the struggling conditions of municipal recycling systems and included a 275 Million Dollar appropriation for recycling and waste infrastructure grants and 75 million for education and outreach grants. I believe these investments will be complementary to the proposals that will be discussed today, which seek to address many of those challenges previously identified. Hr 8059, a bipartisan bill from representatives burchett and foster, seeks to improve recycling Data Collection, harmonization and reporting to allow us to better understand the state of our nations recycling and composting systems. Hr 8183, a bipartisan bill from Ranking Member mckinley and representative cheryl, would authorize a Pilot Program at epa to provide assistance to improve recycling accessibility, with the majority of funds going toward underserved communities. With the majority of funds going subtitles a through d of title 9 of the clean future act, propose a suite of policies to reduce waste and improve recycling. This includes grants for communityled zero waste initiatives, funding for Greater Consumer education and outreach requirements for manufacturers to design products to reduce environmental and Health Impacts, requirements for epa to standardize labeling guidelines and the establishment of a National Bottle Deposit Program and a task force to recommend design criteria for a National Extended Producer Responsibility program. Similarly, hr 2238, the break free from plastic pollution act from representative lowenthal, offers a comprehensive set of policy solutions to reduce the production and use of Plastic Products. Today, the amount of Plastic Products actually being recycled is pitiful. And yet we are relying more and more on plastics for packaging and other singleuse products. Many of these products are used for only a few minutes before being sent to a landfill where, under the bestcase scenario, they will sit for many lifetimes, but all too often will find a way into our environment and even our food supply. Both the clean future act and the break free bill would move us in the direction of requiring the companies that produce this future waste to have greater responsibility for its proper recycling or disposal. Several states and Foreign Countries are establishing extended producer responsibility programs, and i believe it would be wise for us to do the same. But ultimately no single policy , or program will fix our recycling system. It is going to take many complementary efforts, examples of which well be discussing today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the most effective steps that congress and epa can take to improve our nations recycling and Waste Management systems. With that, i will now recognize representative mckinley, our Ranking Member of the subcommittee on environment and Climate Change, for five minutes for his opening statement, please. Rep. Mckinley thank you, mr chairman. And thank you for conducting this hearing, again. Its been two years since we had this hearing on recycling, so its good to get back to it. We know its a problem. But let me also thank our panelists that are participating here today. We have six panelists. Mr. Chairman, i think we have to all underscore, we know solid waste and and plastics are a problem. Weve known that for decades, whether its newspapers, automobile tires, plastics, batteries. I could go on and on and on. Theyre filling up our landfills and becoming a problem for us. So, its not new. None of this is new. If you remember, paul, you and i, back in the 1960s when the recycling really began under the governmentled program, we all had separate bins outside on our curb. We were to put our papers in one , our plastics in another, our glass in another and our garbage in another. They were trying, the government was trying to change Human Behavior. They were trying to impose a change. And quite frankly, i think you all know it didnt work out real well. In fact, after 60 years, 60 years of government intrusion, theyre trying to regulate and change Human Behavior. You just mentioned it, mr. Chairman, we only recycle in america about 23 , just over 20 of all the consumable products that we use. So, we know we have a problem. But once again, it looks like democrats just want Big Government to step in one more time with two of these four pieces of legislation. They want to ban plastics. For example, of these two of the four, they called for a moratorium on any environmental permits for plastics facilities. Thats just another another name for banning the product, ultimately so, mr. Chairman, why arent we letting the free market run its course on recyclables . We know its worked for paper, oil, gas, and even steel, where were recycling steel. Why are we, why is congress trying to treat plastics differently . Look, we also know, mr. Chairman, there are problems with recycling plastics, like the cost, the separation of plastics. You have to separate by different colors, and thats done by hand. You have to worry about the the chemistry because of the plastic polymers that are being used. Some dont mix well with that. Different temperatures are necessary with it. And then thirdly, another issue with recycling plastic is the lack of recyclable facilities in rural america. Two years ago when the committee had this hearing, a witness, i think they came from Colorado State if we go back over our notes, they were making some advancements on biodegradable plastics rather than recycling, things that would ultimately break down. So, i am hoping today that our witnesses will provide us with an update on these advancements and other innovations in recycling. That way, we could tackle this issue rather than banning a product that is such a part of our nature. Lets look at the big picture not everyone lives in los angeles, new york, chicago or for you, even albany. These are cities with robust recycling programs. What about small, Rural Communities like hazzard, kentucky, petersburg, indiana . These are small towns that dont have active recycling the 70s. And we will be forcing, under some of this legislation, increases in the costofliving. We already facing high inflation and high energy costs. Why are we trying to change their costofliving . I will just say in the time i have left, only in washington do we think he can legislate changes in Human Behavior. Recycling is certainly an issue we need to deal with. And its been around for 100 years or more. And try and do it. But the free market, using innovation will find another , solution that does not require banning plastics. That has been something that consumers wanted. Its cheap, its easy to use and its easy to manufacture. So, weve got to find another way to deal with it. Banning them is not the solution. So, thank you mr chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. Chair tonko thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes representative pallone, chair of the full committee, whos been kept very busy over the last several weeks and months. So we recognize you, chairman pallone, for five minutes for your opening statement. Thank you. Chair pallone thank you, chairman tonko tanko. Today, the committee is continuing its work on important environmental and climate issues by discussing legislative solutions to our nations broken recycling system every day. Americans are doing their part by sorting their waste and tossing their used recyclable materials into a bin. But with the National Recycling and composting rate of only 32 , its clear that there are major gaps in our recycling infrastructure that we need to address. I am actually the cochair of the house recycling caucus, very proud of it, and this topic is especially important to me. Recycling is a critical tool in our toolbox to reduce pollution in our communities, boost our local economies, address Climate Change and strengthen domestic supply chain. But the system is not working as well as it should. And the system itself was upended in 2018, when china banned most Plastic Waste and mixed paper material imports. And this action prevented us from shipping recyclables overseas and it required American Communities to rely on other options. But this also begs the question where recyclable material goes. It should be recycled, not sent to landfills or incinerated. And i would like to know today whats being done to reduce the , amount of waste that actually goes to landfills or is incinerated . And i think all this requires more funding as well, and as with many programs, our recycling system is severely underfunded. Municipalities across the nation, especially small and rural towns. Especially small and rural towns, struggle to manage the recycling programs forcing scalebacks or complete cancelations of curbside pickups. And this is bad news for both recycling and the reuse side of the waist equation without adequate infrastructure to collect recyclable materials like metal, plastic, paper, cardboard, glass, our domestic manufacturers wont be able to reuse these materials in new products and will continue to look overseas for input materials. So fortunately, this congress made a significant down payment in this area by passing the bipartisan infrastructure law last november, which included 350 Million Dollars for recycling infrastructure and education and outreach grants. And this funding was a critical first step to addressing recycling infrastructure challenges and will improve recycling efforts across the nation. The congresss work must not end there. Today, the subcommittee will examine four bills which provide Different Solutions to our recycling challenges. One, hr 1512, the clean future act, which i introduced, rushes a comprehensive approach to combating the Climate Crisis and includes the title on waste reduction. The clean future act includes measures to reduce the generation of waste, including a temporary pause on permitting of new and expanded plastic production facilities. It modernizes our nations recycling system by establishing post consumer Recycled Content standards, implementing a National Bottle Deposit Program and standardizing labeling and collection of recyclable goods. The clean future act also establishes Grant Programs to invest in Community Level zero waste initiatives produced the zerowaste initiatives, reduced the amount of Landfill Waste and improved education and outreach. And many of these provisions aligned with the objectives outlined in the president s National Recycling strategy, which was released last november. Then we have hr 2238. , the break free from plastic pollution act includes a variety of recycling and waste reduction policies to address the pollution from increased plastic production and disposal. This pollution is often concentrated in Environmental Justice communities. And i think representative lowenthal for introducing this bill. And we have hr 8059, the bipartisan recycling and compost accountability act led by representatives brochette and foster. And this works to address data gaps on recycling and composting practices across the u. S. This data will be critical to informing policy decisions to improve Material Recovery and boost circularity. And we have hr 8183, the recycling infrastructure and sensibility act. Again, a bipartisan bill led by our Ranking Member mckinley and representative sherell. And i want to thank you, mr. Mckinley. For working across the aisle on this issue. This bill establishes a Pilot Program to increase access to recycling services in underserved communities struggling to keep up with increasing Waste Management demands. So, we have a lot of bills to look at. But i just want to say i heard what mr mckinley said, look, this is a problem in many in many ways, right. In other words, its the towns that dont have the money. They want to get more people to recycle. Its a problem because we have no place to ship stuff. But ultimately, what id like to see and i keep stressing it, we have to get a situation where we put less in landfills, we incinerate less and we actually recycle more. And im afraid that were getting away from that. And so, i am hoping we can get some answers to that part of the equation today, and i thank you again, chairman. Time for the gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes representative rogers, our Ranking Member of the full committee. Representative rogers, youre recognized for five minutes for your opening statement, please. Representative rogers thank you. Good morning, everyone. I want to highlight the Supreme Court decision that confirmed epa has been acting outside its Statutory Authority when issuing overreaching rules on the power sector. This decision is a victory for article one legislative authority on behalf of the people and of representative government. It is congresss clear Constitutional Authority to debate and make the law and public policy, not direct rats in the executive branch who often abused power by issuing regulations that burden our economy and peoples livelihoods. I am pleased to see this decision. We are facing an inflation an Energy Crisis with gas prices at highs, groceries busting the budgets of american families. For example, a fourthgeneration wheat grower told us at a recent forum that rising gas, diesel and Natural Gas Resources are crippling farmers from the mint in their fertilizer. Instead of working with republicans who are calling for the Biden Administration to flip the switch in American Energy production, lower the cost of food and consumer goods and help farmers, we see democrats turning to a radical climate agenda. We can and should join in better conservation policies to promote recycling. I share the germans goal to reduce the amount of product that goes to landfills or is incinerated, and recycle more. However, the bills today seek to ban new Plastic Manufacturing and certain, singleuse plastic wrote Plastic Products. This approach will cost american jobs, worsen the supply chain crisis and hurt economic development. The approaches that are proposed in these bills, banning plastics, will deprive us of lifesaving technology, lifesaving equipment, medical downs, insulated packaging for transporting vaccines. These Plastic Products have been critical in responding to the pandemic. Plastics are essential. They are essential in clean energy and emissionreducing Technology Like insulation for homes, wind turbines, solar panels. Innovation has given us so much with plasticbased technologies that make our lives better. Clean future act and the break free from plastic pollution act will reduce our quality of life, hurt economic competitiveness and make us dependent upon china. We have seen this playbook before by the majority on this committee, and their campaign for bands on new and innovative chemicals, taking a similar approach, that are essential to the manufacturing of critical goods. Whether we are promoting recycling or discouraging waste, legislation should not lead to deindustrializing the United States and not strengthening our supply chain. These bills ignore that america has some of the highest standards for manufacturing in the world. We do it cleaner and more efficiently while leading the world in reducing emissions. The other two bills today address more traditional recycling and composting policies. Conserving our resources is good policy, especially if they stop and innovation and freemarket investment in infrastructure. 8183 prioritizes rural areas for a new infrastructure grant. Rural areas are often shortchanged, so this rightly focuses on our infrastructure need to enhance recycling and i would like to understand whether additional dollars are needed, especially when we consider there was 375 million funded in the bipartisan infrastructure lawful recycling grants. Hb 8059, the composting and recycling accountability act, seeks more data on recycling and composting in the u. S. What is of concern to me is increasing government influence in both these bills. I have concerns with the government goes from supplying seed money and technical aid to regulating Curbside Collection or regulating solid waste food the epa solid waste. The epa is not here again, this is the second week we have not heard from the administration on legislative puzzles. It is important that we do. I welcome the witnesses and believe we need to hear from the administration. And with that, i back. Chair tonko the chair would like to remind members that pursuant to Committee Rules, all members written Opening Statements shall be made part of the record. I now introduce the witnesses for today. We have mr. David, senior policy analyst, lynn hoffman, copresident of eureka recycling, National Coordinator of the alliance of missionbased recyclers, stephanie is the director of circular Economy Policy at the american Sustainable Business network. Next, we have yvette, william johnson, chief lobbyist of the institute of scrap recycling and the chief of the Plastics Industry Association. The chair will recognize each for five minutes to provide an opening statement. You are set to go, sir. Thank you. For the record, i am a senior policy analyst at the Oregon Department of environmental quality. Our state conducted an examination of the recycling system and today, i will summarize our key learning from the research. Additional details are in my written testimony. In 2017, china closed its doors to shipments of wastepaper and plastics from other countries. The disruptions exposed problems with recycling in oregon. In response, the state convened a recycling Steering Committee from the public and private sectors charged with recommending changes to organ recycling systems. I cochaired that committee and we held close to 100 meetings over 29 months. The committee and department undertook Significant Research and spoke with hundreds of players in the recycling system. A few key findings stand out. First, recycling offers potential for environmental benefits. The use of recycling Product Manufacturing almost always allows those products to be produced with less energy, and oftentimes with a reduction in water and air pollution, including Greenhouse Gases. Waste prevention has even greater attentional for environmental benefits. Second, one of the greatest challenges facing recycling is contamination. Materials placed in recycling bins and carts that do not belong there. Removing this contamination is necessary but expensive. Failure to remove it threatens markets such as domestic paper mills, to use recycled paper stocks. Contaminated bail can harm people and result in significant quantities of plastics in the oceans. One leading cause of contamination is a confused public and a leading cause of confusion is misleading labels and claims of recyclability on product packages. Given how consumer goods are distributed, fixing the problems of labeling might best be done at the federal level. The economics of recycling are challenging in part because market prices fail to account for social costs. Waste prevention and recycling can and do reduce costs to society. For example, by reducing air and water pollution, recycling can reduce health care and other costs associated with illness, disease, disability and death. These are real economic benefits , but are not reflected in the market prices that drive decisions by producers, waste managers or local governments. The fact that many such costs are not reflected in market prices results in underinvestment in recycling and overinvestment in virgin resource production and use. Drawing on a consensus recommendation from the Steering Committee, the Oregon Legislature last year adopted the plastic aleutian and recycling modernization act with signed into law last summer. The act maintains existing elements of the organ recycling system that work and mandates improvements of elements that do not, including railroad recycling. It does this without banning materials. The organizing principle of the act is shared responsibility with obligations shared across all players including producers of packaged goods and printing underwriting paper. The last element is part of the trend require producers to share responsibility for a modernized, effective and responsible recycling system for the package that they put into the marketplace. While producer responsibility is new to this country, it is common in other nations. Oregon and other u. S. States already implement or than 100 similar laws addressing a variety of other materials such as electronic and pharmaceutical waste. In the last year, there has been an increase of industry support for some form of legislative reducer responsibility for packaging. I believe this stems from recognition that americas recycling system has reached of a crossroads, that decades of voluntary solutions by industry have been helpful but insufficient than that producers should play a role in solving the problems and realizing the full benefits of recycling. Thank you. Chair tonko thank you, sir. We will now recognize uh miss hoffman. Youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you chairman tonko Ranking Member mckinley members of the subcommittee. Thank you for your time and attention is very important issue. Im one of the copresident s of eureka recycling. We employ 120 amazing people with living wave living wage jobs who collect sort and market 110,000 tons of residential recycling every year. We hold a clear and bold vision for the World Without waste wally wrestle with the daytoday challenges the we are facing today. Recycling is not just a critical tool for reducing waste it has the potential to help stabilize the climate preserve critical ecosystems, protect human health, mitigate the inequitable impacts of waste and extraction on overburdened communities and support resilient regional economies and good green jobs s. We have to be clear eyed about how recycling works. We take a set of products designed to be recycled and sort them into commodities and feed them into the supply chain to be made into new products. We are seeing unprecedented disruption in Global Supply chains and increasing demand for Recycled Materials. Improving recycling improves the resilience of the u. S. Economy. Congress must support recycling with policy positions. Investments in recycling through the Infrastructure Investment and jobs act will be so much more effective if theyre supported by essential and complementary policy including Recycled Content mandates , thoughtfully designed National Container deposit system labeling, and Design Standards for packaging incentives and targets for reuse and reduction and bans on the most problematic and unnecessary materials. Another key provision in two of the bills under your consideration is a National Extended Producer Responsibility or e. P. S. System eureka is just one of over 350 recycling facilities across the country that must make frequent multiMillion Dollar upgrades just to keep up with the everchanging composition of of packaging and products. This further increases the cost of recycling programs for communities. As it stands today producers have no skin in the game when it comes to the end of life of the products and packaging they create a strong epr system could transform the way we fund and improve recycling across this country and shift the burden away from taxpayers by requiring producers to design their products to fit into existing systems and financially support the necessary infrastructure. We work with stakeholders across the supply chain from the us u. S. Plastics pact to Community Advocates to Consumer Brands and Packaging Companies and theres widespread agreement that its time for epr second. Congress should support policies that move beyond recycling towards reduction and reuse recycling is only a solution for products and packaging that are designed to be recyclable take recyclable. Take number one pet plastic we should invest in capturing the millions of tons of wasted material that are already recyclable and in high demand as domestic feedstock. For the myriad of other nonrecyclable single packaging, recycling is not a viable solution. Reduction, redesign and reuse are the most effective strategies. Congress needs to focus on effective innovation not distraction. Technological innovations are needed in recycling to improve quality, safety and transparency. Companys went to sell socalled chemical recycling were advanced were or advanced recycling schemes as new solutions. Strategies that have never been proven economically, logistically or technologically feasible. Please be wary of these green washed versions of linear consumption. As the u. S. Steps into a lead negotiating role to develop a Global Plastics treaty, congress should not miss the opportunity to pass the break free from plastic aleutian act. A model for National Action and a Game Changing transformation of recycling without massive spending. Its time for policy incentives and solutions to help secure a more stable, equitable and resilient future. Thank you. Ms. Irwin, youre recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. Ms. Irwin greetings. Thank you for convening this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to testify. My name is stephanie irwin. Im the director of circular Economy Policy for the american Sustainable Business network we network. We are a multiissue National Organization comprised of businesses, business associations, and investors which collectively represent over 250,000 businesses spanning different sectors. We are united in our shared vision of a vibrant stakeholder driven, equitable, circular, and sustainable economy. Were asking for a future where businesses use reuse and remanufacture materials in perpetuity. This will save money foster innovation and create a million new jobs all without contributing to devastating impacts on our health , communities, ecosystems, and economy. We cannot get there without urgent and decisive action. It is true that plastic has played a Critical Role in our economy however despite the Practical Applications that some of these plastics have brought , it is clear that the use of plastic particularly the use of consumer singleuse products and virgin plastic comes with significant cost to our current and future economic wellbeing. With 95 percent of plastic going to landfills and incinerators every year we are writing off an annual loss of 7 billion in commercial value from our collective Balance Sheet our. Are plastic driven economy income edition with our fragmented and inadequate recycling infrastructure also precludes the u. S. From billiondollar Market Opportunities as consumers demand more sustainable and plastic neutral products. As businesses seek to scale innovative models of consumption and production, and as firms look to invest in the companies that have consistently outperform the markets by proactively addressing climate and waste issues, but simply addressing recycling is not enough to tackle the broken system. Solutions must address challenges at each stage of the product lifecycle. The good news is that businesses are ready to be part of the solution. With 2025 and 2030 targets in place, our businesses are actively investing in circular supply chain to reduce or eliminate singleuse and virgin Plastic Products, to increase the postconsumer Recycled Content of products, scale, reuse and refill models, and to switch to functionally recycled, functionally compostable products. An epr policy like break free from plastic pollution act would help pool and direct those funds towards greater impact and transformational change. Of the bills in front of the committee today the break free act offers several strategic advantages as a solution. It accelerates the timeline for innovation and action by putting an epr system in place immediately. This would also set the us up to lead negotiations for the upcoming u. N. Plastic the global classics treaty. It creates a National Recycling blueprint and a model for enhanced publicprivate partnerships where stakeholders across the supply chain can freely share and Exchange Knowledge and adopt industrywide standards that build upon proven local and state policies. A model that does not rely solely upon taxpayer dollars it taxpayer it helps frontline dollars. Communities workers and natural ecosystems directly impacted by plastic pollution avoiding years of inaction and costly litigation as well as health and cleanup costs. The bill also includes a temporary pause on permits for new and expanded virgin plastic production facilities which allows governments industry and businesses time to update Compliance Standards for health and safety and to develop longterm strategies to invest in Plastic Recycling reuse and remanufacturing capacity. Also to expand job creation and training in recycling and recycling adjacent industries. Ultimately investing in technologies to keep the bathroom the bathtub from overflowing will never be as effective as turning the faucet even off, even temporarily. In line with our circular economy principles the break free act focuses on technologies and innovations that would aim to recycle materials at their highest value in purity which means it ensures that toxic and hazardous chemicals are designed out of plastic in order to be safely recycled and it it and it excludes waste Energy Technologies that incinerate and down cycle and market materials these waste to Energy Technology should not be qualified either as circular or renewable as renewable. As currently written in the clean futures act from the perspective of the american Sustainable Business network the break free from plastic pollution act offers a comprehensive innovative and proactive solution that takes advantage of all these strategic opportunities currently available for business industry and markets, all to grow a stronger and healthier economy. Thank you. The chair now recognizes director areano. Thank you for the invitation to speak. I am the founder and executive director of fence line watch an , Environmental Justice organization dedicated to the eradication of toxic multigenerational harm on fence line communities, communities living next to oil, gas, and petrochemical industries. My statement is composed of two key issues the Human Health Impact of plastic production and its incineration. 99 of plastic is derived from fossil fuels and houston is home with the largest petrochemical complex in our country, along a 52mile stretch called the Houston Ship Channel chemical plants and refineries share tracks of land with elementary schools, playgrounds, churches and homes. Houston also lacks zoning there lacks zoning. There are no setbacks no buffer zones our communities share experiences of smells, flares, and disasters with workers many of which are temporary contractors at these facilities. When disaster hits they evacuate to our local parks huge resin exports and holds 59 percent of the market shares of all residents from the u. S. From 2017 to 2018. Plastic resin out of houston grew an astounding 38 with an astounding 38 with polyethylene. Another plastic export increasing 62 percent currently. All three products produce odors that range from super sweet to gasolinelike. Reporting these odors is an arduous task left those of us who can wait over an hour bouncing between jurisdictions and departments. My predominantly Hispanic Community is also limited English Proficient and in efforts we try to address language barriers, for those who dont have eases of access to current reporting systems and public input opportunities, break free addresses these language barriers. The short term toxic exposure includes irritation to the eyes , nose, and throat. Headaches, fatigue, tremors, decreased blood pressure, memory loss, Central Source Central Nervous system damage. The longterm impact span from reproductive from the reproductive system to develop into problems, slowed reaction times, difficulty with balance, a regular periods and key mia. Children in utero are affected before their first breath causing low birth weights, a significant factor in child mortality. With difficulty i testify as one of many who suffer from irregular periods combustibility and skin lesions. Break free would temporarily pause new and expanding facilities and give agencies and congress the time needed to investigate cumulative impacts and ensure facilities integrate the latest technology to prevent further pollution. The university of texas school of Public Health found that children with living within a five mile radius of the Houston Ship Channel have a 56 increased risk of contracting acute leukemia compared to those living outside of 10 miles those 10 miles. Those living in the area with missions one three butadiene is strictly produced for three primary industries the primary one being Plastic Recycling they rely on burning plastic. Epa data reveals similar releases of toxic from stier styrofoam benzene. People purchase goods. We dont purchase the packaging. Producers pay the bill for the infrastructure, for a robust recycling system and a minimum recycling content for beverage containers so that Plastic Products with Recycled Content have a fair shot compared to those of virgin plastic counterparts. The externalized cost on our communities is unaccounted for and often ignored with the most vulnerable left the shelter the Industries Human health costs and environmental costs for generations to come. We support the break free act and hope you will help us in protecting communities and turning off the tap to the global plastic crisis. Thank you. Thank you. Now we will recognize mr. Johnson. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much. Good morning chairman tomko and chairman paul own. Chairman pollone. Thank you mr. Mckinley for your sponsorship of the bill. My name is billy johnson. I am the chief lobbyist for the institute of scrap recycling industries. It is always an honor to be before you today to discuss the Important Role of recycling to our economy and especially to our environment. Thank you for inviting the recycling industry, the industry responsible for collecting and processing the recyclables into specification grade communities, and to provide our thoughts about the different pieces of legislation today. Recycling is an essential solution to responsibly supply our domestic and Global Manufacturing supply chains with sustainable Raw Materials that help combat Climate Change, conserve our Natural Resources, and save energy. The recycling industry directly employs more than 164,000 people in every Congressional District in america and generates over 117 billion in annual economic activities. These numbers tell the story of a strong and vibrant u. S. Recycling industry. Let me correct this. Recycling does work but is not without its challenges. In any given year, our recycling infrastructure processes more than 130 Million Metric Tons of recyclables that otherwise might go to landfills. Residential recycling represents only 20 of the material that works its way through the nations recycling infrastructure. The other 80 comes from the recycling of commercial and industrial materials. That material tends to be cleaner. There is no one Singular Solution to the challenges we are experiencing in the residential recycling infrastructure. The ridge residential recycling chain and associated infrastructure in the u. S. Is a complex system driven by market demand is saddled with a supply chain that can be inconsistent and contain high levels of contamination and is generally not linked to current Market Conditions. To understand these challenges within the residential and municipal recycling streams, it is important to understand what makes successful recycling. Successful recycling requires market demand. If there is no end market utilize the Recycled Materials that are collected, they will not be recycled and used again regardless of the volume of material collected. Collection without market consumption is not recycling. Successful recycling requires minimal contamination as recyclables are sold by specification grade with their corresponding value and marketability directly related to the quality. Products must be designed to be recycled at the at the beginning to take care of its useful end of life for successful recycling. An Electronic Device the Consumer Product packaging and appliance or a vehicle is imperative that the product and its packaging be designed for recycling by doing so recycling is more productive which means more material is recycled and less material goes to landfills or to incineration stop what makes the recycling streams are different is that while it is subject to this aimed demand driven end markets as commercial and Industrial Recycling it is saddled with an everchanging mix of materials on the supply side and that material flows into the stream whether there is a market or not. This sets the residential recycling infrastructure apart. Because of the challenge it because of the visibility of the challenges experienced in the residential recycling or structure we have seen a growing loss of confidence on the part of the public which is of great concern to us in the recycling and Manufacturing Industries. It is imperative that we address these challenges with Effective Solutions to create a circular economy. I will talk about the legislation during questions and answers. All stakeholders must come together to develop a common understanding of the weaknesses affecting the residential stream and then Work Together to develop the menu of solutions needed. Thank you for the opportunity to explain the complexities of the systems. I look forward to taking questions. We next have mr. Sehome. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Chairman pallone, chairman tomko. In the president and ceo of the Plastics Industry Association originally founded in 1937. We strive to represent the entire supply chain of the plastics industry which nearly one million americans are employed. Our membership includes material suppliers equipment manufacturers, processors and recyclers. Let me first say i very much appreciate the commitment of this committee to pursue solutions that will increase recycling rates and reduce waste. Theres a saying in our industry. We love plastic, we hate Plastic Waste. The way we see it any molecule of plastic material that leaves the economy is a waste. We need to collect, sort and reprocess more material plain and simple. That goes for all substrates. For too long, too much of the recyclable material that was collected was shipped overseas countries like china were building the recycling infrastructure, america was asleep at the wheel. We werent significantly investing in modernization or expansion of material covering facilities with the necessary capabilities to keep up with the innovation that has transpired in Plastic Products over the last 20 years. America must play catch up. The plastics industry is investing billions of dollars in recycling technologies and will continue to do so. This is a shared effort and one that requires partnerships in government. For congress i would suggest a number of ways. First, increase investments in critical recycling infrastructure to ensure collections, sir tatian and processing can keep up with the complexities balm materials in the marketplace. The epa has started their process for granting resources included in the infrastructure, Infrastructure Investment and jobs act that stem from the legislation passed in the last congress. Its a great start. Promote and Market Development second, for the variety of plastic resins on the market to ensure that demand remains for Recycled Materials reasonable and attainable Recycled Content requirements can help spur investment and guarantee markets for recyclable material. Third, encourage innovations and recycling technologies to ensure the variety of materials that cannot economically be recovered through traditional methods are included, moving towards a more circular economy. Perhaps more importantly i urge the committee in congress to not stifle innovation in promising new technologies that are needed to get where we need to go. Standards and definitions related to recycling bringing greater efficiency to the collection, sorting, and recycling materials. Not suggesting a onesizefitsall approach to recycling but a consistent set of terms and guidance that will avoid unnecessary complexities that only make it harder to achieve our shared goals. I would add that our association our members support hr 8059 the recycling and composting accountability act as well as hr 8183, the recycling infrastructure and accessibility act, both of which are good steps in the right direction but unfortunately were very much opposed to title ix of hr15 the clean future act and h. R 2238 the break free from plastic pollution act. In my time remaining i would like to highlight the most concerning component of both bills. Proposed moratoriums on permits for new or expanded plastics manufacturing facilities would be devastating to our industry , the nearly 1 million workers we employ in the United States and the supply chains we support. By ceasing permits these proposed bills would push plastics production to other countries ones with much less stringent environmental records. This will also greatly increase the Carbon Footprint of its transport by requiring greater journeys for it to reach the american marketplace. Because the vast majority of plastic manufactured here comes from a byproduct of the natural gas refining process, the feedstock is plentiful and certainly cleaner than oilbased derivatives used elsewhere in the world. Reshoring our manufacturing supply chains is a priority that crosses party lines. Plastic is essential for the production of everything from microchips to medical devices to electric vehicles. Thats right it will be impossible for america to reach its climate goals without plastic. Is too little plastic recycled . Yes. Can we build the necessary infrastructure to greatly power increase our recycling rates . The answer is absolutely yes. Our industry will continue to invest but we would welcome the partnership of leaders like yourselves to get americas recycling system where it needs to be. Thank you for the opportunity. Now we will move to member questions. I will start by recognizing myself for five minutes. As lawmakers having access to the best and most recent data, it is critical to making informed decisions on any policy matter. This extends to recycling. H. R. 8059 the recycling and composting accountability act includes several provisions that focus on collecting data on recycling and composting uh programs. Mr. Holloway, how will access to more data on recycling of states and localities with their programs . Thank you for the question. I would like to reflect on the experience here in oregon which is recognized as having perhaps one of the best existing data sets on recycling in the nation. We have found that data can be very helpful our data driven approach is what helped oregon to avoid some false solutions that have been proposed in some other states. To really evaluate and recognize both the potential the costs of our existing programs and the potential costs and benefits of a variety of different potential policy solutions. So we were able to conduct a much more robust and transparent evaluation of the pros and cons of different policy solutions because we had a very good set of data to draw on. More data can be very helpful. There is certainly no harm in data. But i would caution against a sort of a data only approach as weve seen in our own experience and in some other places that the busyness of collecting and evaluating data can become in itself its own weather system. That consumes all the bandwidth and prevents anything else from ever being done. Data does not solve problems. Data needs to be accompanied with policy solutions. Why is Data Collection an important component of improving our recycling system . I completely agree that if without the data youre basically driving blind. You need to know how much youre collecting now and what the what youre trying to achieve. Without that i dont really understand how you can make a a make an accurate policy decision. You absolutely need the data to be able to make good decisions at the federal, state and local levels. I agree that comprehensive data will assist communities across the nation by improving and maintaining their recycling programs beyond assisting communities with their efforts data also helps businesses. Mr. Irwin, how will addressing information gaps in the recycling landscape assist businesses with their efforts to participate in what we call that circular economy . Thank you you for the question. The business end circular economy has had a lot of criticism mainly because it lacks data and the ability to understand how to use these data points. I think that data points and collecting more reporting and standardizing what data points are collected would inform better decisionmaking for businesses and also help them understand where the best opportunities are to invest in infrastructure. Thank you. By filing critical and or filling those critical information gaps, policy makers at all levels will be equipped with the right tools to make muchneeded improvements to our nations recycling infrastructure and businesses then i believe will be able to make informed investments during investments. During this hearing of sure we will hear claims about the need for singleuse plastics. The break free from plastic pollution act recognize that theres there are Certain Applications where plastics are appropriate and it does not seek to prohibit or limit their use. This includes medical and Public Health products, personal protective equipment and personal hygiene products. Its important to make these distinctions. Do the businesses that care about sustainability believe these sorts of exclusions are appropriate while still seeking to limit singleuse plastic Consumer Products that can be more easily replaced or reduced . Yes. Businesses have shown commitments across the board in different sectors especially consumer facing sectors they are sectors. They are interested in setting up these systems these new circular value chains to meet consumer demand. It is expected that the use of plastic will double in the next 20 years. Consumers largely went to switch to alternatives. 90 at this point say they dont want to see this waste in their communities. They want sustainable alternatives. I thank you for those responses and i see that my time is nearly expired. We will move to recognize representative mckinley, our subcommittee Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to direct my question to matt sehome. I thought that chairman Mcmorris Rodgers raised some good points. We should have learned through covid that we need more plastics not less. There are two of the bills herein imposed a three year moratorium on permits for plastic facilities to allow the epa to develop Environmental Air quality standards. We fully respect that after three years of developing this, they will go through a series of litigation. They always have. After that occasions resolve, or going to move to where Plastic Manufacturers will have to have design and construct those facilities. We can have a prolonged. Of prolonged period of time. My question is, how long do you think this pause could last . Thank you for the question. That is our biggest concern. It is considered a temporary pause. Because of the way it is written , there is no for certain and end date. In the meantime we have members who have to apply for permits every five years, and any expansion or renewed facilities could trigger this temporary pause and ultimately result in shutdowns or moving production to a different place. That was one of the points that i made. The moratorium is more likely to push production elsewhere that it is to stop the production of plastic. The other is that im told that at least 60 of the rules promulgated by the epa under obama have been overturned in the courts. This morning the Supreme Court did it again, said that the overreach under the Obama Administration with the Clean Air Act needed to be revisited and turned back the clean power plan. By imposing this de facto ban, is this another example of epa overreach . I will let you make that determination but our concern here is the incredible number of jobs that it does threaten. Most importantly the supply chains. The point i made about shifting these supply chains elsewhere has been exposed in recent months, in particular as weve identified the need to have supply chains that are domestic. If you take this plastic production and put it elsewhere and put it in a place where we dont have easy access, it will send ripples through the system, and i think at this point, we can recognize that the vast majority of manufactured products use plastic in some way, shape, or form. Mr. Johnson, i have two questions for you, do you think we can legislate Human Behavior and how they handle recycling . I think the recycle act that was passed within the large infrastructure bill provides great education to the American People to understand what to put in the bin and whatnot to put into the bin. In that regard, it provided the necessary education for them to recycle efficiently, to keep the contamination out of the recycling stream to begin with. I appreciate i appreciate your answer. Im afraid were trying to change Human Behavior by legislation, and i think there needs to be more free market based change. Lets go back to Rural Communities. That dont have these facilities looking at the one the legislation that i have cosponsored if we dont have these facilities, and we impose more stringent recycling, is it going to raise the cost of living for people in rural areas . I think the bill you have sponsored is a great ill to try out different approaches in different areas because one size does not fit all in the United States. I commend you for the bill. Some of the ideas or concepts like the extended producer responsibility would increase costs to the american consumer. Im out of time but i would like to get back to what advances have been made in biodegradable plastics. We talked about that two years ago if someone could give us an update. I yield back. The chair recognizes the full Committee Chair for five minutes to ask questions. The various challenges to recycling discussed today have sparked Innovative Policy Solutions at the local and state levels. These Solutions Like extended prompt producer responsibility and container Deposit Programs can be scaled up and replicated. The bipartisan infrastructure mentioned provides 350 million to Fund Improvements in infrastructure. Mr. Holloway, from your perspective how can federal funding for recycling Program Support improvements already underway at the state and local level . Thank you. The financial needs of recycling at the local and state level are possibly two orders of magnitude more than the funds provided. It is very helpful and i would hope that congress would view that with the understanding that because of the generally unfavorable economics of recycling, which is a consequence of market prices failing to account for social costs, the Economic Needs of the recycling system are much larger than what was provided in the grants program. As some of the other speakers have said, the needs of recycling across the country varies from community to community. There are some commonalities. There is a lack of collection opportunity for many households as well as businesses in this country. There are opportunities to prove who to improve access. The processing facilities which sort out the comingled recyclables are generally under invested and undercapitalized and there are important gains that could be realized by improving those processing facilities. I would also mention that the epa in many states have adopted a Waste Management hierarchy, because of the superior benefits , and there is significant potential that could be realized through simple prevention techniques such as providing infrastructure that allows people to drink tap water as opposed to relying on single use disposable bottles. Making it more economical for manufacturers to use Recycled Content compared to others. Your testimony echoes a similar message but what kind of federal policies would be most effective and impactful to provide incentives for recycled material . I would agree that both extended producer and postconsumer recycled mandates, if carefully and thoughtfully designed, would create incentives to provide and increase markets for Recycled Materials. Mr. Erwin, and your testimony, you highlight the Business Case for investing in alternatives to single use and version plastics. How can federal policy complement and accelerate this type of market shift . Thank you for the question. Right now, most businesses have voluntarily pledged to do this work and that accounts for only 20 of consumer markets. We need policy to put everyone in the room to Solutions Together and put these to put this funding and these objectives together so they can adopt these standards and circulate innovation across the value chain and the industry. Thanks so much. I see my friend billy johnson. I didnt have a question for you but i do want to thank you for being here today and for all you do to promote the industry. As i said, i share the recycling caucus, and i dont share too many things other than this committee, but i do it because i think it is important to try to continue to promote recycling and in a bipartisan way. I know there are some disagreements that we can see today but i definitely think this is something where democrats and republicans can Work Together to make a difference in something that brings people to participate and ways to improve the environment. Lets continue to Work Together and see how we can move forward. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The chair now recognizes representative rogers, full committee Ranking Member, for five minutes. Rep. Rogers thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chairmans comments on working together on Bipartisan Solutions that will encourage innovation. I believe that there are ways that we can Work Together to develop new ways to conserve our resources and recycle materials. My biggest concern is around threatening our standard of living and their economic competitiveness. Mr. Sehome, i went to ask a series of questions. The break free from plastic pollution act in title ix of the clean future act, reflects this drive to ban plastics from the u. S. Economy. When people think of a singleuse plastic, they focus on straws and lunch baggies. Would these bills only affect these items . Certainly not. You are absolutely right. The term plastic is very broad but often times gets wrongly applied. In this case, especially when looking at the moratorium on new plastics manufacturing, it would cover every type of plastic imaginable. There are really six categories of polymers but there are thousands of different types of plastics and it would cover them all. What would you consider the most important kinds of singleuse plastics, Like Health Care or safety applications or plastics that help lower carbon emissions. Without be included . That is like asking someone to choose a favorite child. We represent the entire plastics industry. All singleuse plastics have a purpose. Whether that is to protect food and keep it from spoiling or certain medical devices and ppe are things that we became acutely aware of in the value of plastic over the last couple years. This piece of legislation would cover everything from Food Packaging to automotive parts. Rep. Rogers if we were to implement a band, are there equally effective and affordable alternatives . What would eliminating or significantly limiting the use of plastic materials mean for our life . Every product or every business manufacturing a product chooses the material for a reason. That is why plastic is often the choice, whether it is performance properties, hygienic reasons, availability and safety components. Those are the choices being made. Simply saying we are going to stop using plastic does not get rid of the demand for the product in question. That is where you get movement to other materials. At the end of the day, when you look at life cycle assessments, plastic almost always wins compared to other products for the applications. Rep. Rogers i appreciate the insights. Mr. Johnson, recycling has a lot of benefits and we want to figure out how to do this effectively. Does a onesizefitsall approach makes sense for recycling . Would you speak to the role of the federal government or state and local governments in charge of residential and Curbside Collection efforts . Thank you. Onesizefitsall does not work. Recycling in spokane does not work the same in albany as it does in little rock. Residential recycling is a local issue better handled at the local level. In industrial and commercial where the vast majority of recycling happens, that is more regional issues but it is closer to that onesizefitsall. Certainly not of the residential level where you get a different mix of materials coming into the recycling stream. The residential recycling systems dont have a choice of what they accept other than through the citizens sorting that material before it goes into the system. Rep. Rogers i wanted to ask on mr. Mckinleys bill focusing on a Pilot Project for rural areas, how long should this last and do you have a sense of how much funding it would need . Im not a good guess at money. The cbo and such would be better. You definitely need a period of time, at least five years or more, to see if it works. It takes a while to get people accustomed to recycling, to recognize that it is beneficial and to understand how to do it. In the beginning as they throw too much stuff into the mix, as they get better educated about what they are putting in, they will start to reduce the contamination. Five years might be a good timeframe. Rep. Rogers thank you. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois who serves as the subCommittee Chair for Consumer Protection and commerce. Welcome representative to koski represented shikowski. I am old enough to remember the movie the graduate with dustin hoffman. It is Graduation Party a businessman looks him seriously the eye and says plastics, thats the future. I think the screenwriter was right in predicting that but i also think there have been some devastating consequences. In 2018, 30 6 million tons of plastics were generated in United States, yet less than 10 of the plastics were actually recycled. Instead we find them in our landfills, in our bodies, and our water, and even animal bodies. In the midwest, nearly 22 Million Pounds of plastics entered the great lakes, and enter the great lakes each year. More than half of that comes into Lake Michigan in my district. Scientists estimate that pound for pound, that there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans in 2050. Will recycling alone solve the Plastic Waste crisis that i believe now exists in the United States today . Im going to ask two more questions and you can answer all at once. Which common Plastic Products are the most harmful . Are there legitimate alternatives on the horizon to replace these plastics . Thank you, representative. To your first question, will recycling alone solve the problem, the answer is no. That is impossible. Recycling can make a modest contribution toward reducing the impact, but there are other Solutions Including waste prevention. We evaluated the environmental impacts of Drinking Water out of a single use plastic bottle and recycling it versus tricking tapwater in a reusable container. The reusable container was found to have a far lower environmental impact. Recycling can be beneficial. It has to be done well. I would point out a recent study in the art in the journal in the journal of science advances which estimates that the u. S. Recycling system itself may be one of this countrys largest vectors for contributing plastics into the oceans. That is because of the lack of regulation and accountability at processing facilities and our exports of contaminated bails of materials to other countries who mistreat them. Recycling cant help but it has to be done well to reduce the problem. To your other questions, which types of plastics are impactful . There are thousands of different types of plastics. I dont feel qualified at the moment to identify which of those thousands are the most harmful. That is out of my wheelhouse. Are there legitimate alternatives . Yes. I would like to find Common Ground with matt and point out that there are materials where plastics offer the superior choice, so long as the impact of Plastic Waste is handled appropriately and does not end up in the oceans. That seems like the primary challenge. How do we realize the benefits that plastics can provide while avoiding the impact on plastics production and improper disposal. Thank you for the answer. I wanted to turn to ms. Irwin. Hold on a second. I just wanted to ask 20 companies right now are responsible for most of the production. I wondered if you could suggest how can we ensure that businesses steer away from single use and version plastic production . Great question. The first thing is the pricing singles. Pricing signals. Right now it is cheaper to source and use version plastic as opposed to recycled plastics and other alternatives. That is a large component of the issue. I appreciate this. It is an issue we really have to deal with. There is an urgency about it. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. Rep. Johnson thank you, mr. Chairman. Inflation has been hitting my constituents hard. They are struggling to fill up their tanks, to buy personal care products, clothe their children, and afford food. What do my colleagues in the majority propose to ease this inflationary burden on americans who are struggling so hard to get by, to buy groceries . Their idea is to heavily regulate and shutdown the manufacturing of much of the Plastic Packaging that the foods that they buy come in. Can you believe that . How will this possibly ease inflation . The timing of these radical proposals could not be worse. Plastics quite literally make our modern life possible. Most of our Food Packaging, health products, automobiles, electronics, would not exist without plastics. Moratoriums on the manufacturing of such a widely used and important material is by definition highly inflationary and would only serve to make us more vulnerable to precarious Global Supply chains by killing thousands of good paying american jobs. Mr. Seaholm, you mentioned that much of americas plastic feedstock is derived from the refining of natural gas, which my region happens to be blessed with an abundance of. We have the massive multibilliondollar shell ethane plant coming online this summer. If title ix of the clean future act or break free act went into law, how would beneficial projects like these and ancillary Manufacturing Industries be affected . The timing of that facility im not sure where they are in the permitting process the permits are done. They are supposed to come online this summer. In that case, the next time that they come up for a renewal is probably the first time that they will end up with a question. That facility in particular is interesting. I would say it is strategic for our National Supply chains. Its the first one in the midwest that has been built. It takes away the over reliance on the houston area in particular or the gulf coast where one hurricane can significantly disrupt supply chains. You have the deepfreeze last february that saw significant impacts. If you find yourself in a place where you are building a facility and cannot get a permit, there are other concerns. Not just about supply chains in the nearby. It is national. Continuing with you, with Plastic Products being so prominent, if the government were to severely curtail their production, with this ad to the shortages of supply chain disruptions that are causing crippling inflation for so Many Americans across the country . How so . Came with a simple answer to that is yes. It would increase costs. It would reduce supply and demand would not go down. Demand is going up significantly. Any time that happens you have inflationary pressures. Even if you push the production elsewhere, it will increase the cost of transportation. Put it together and all of the packaging and Plastic Products it may not seem like much but add a penny to every package and it adds up at the checkout counter. It will also make us more dependent on foreign soys is foreign sources for the things we need in our everyday lives. That is one of our biggest concerns. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. I will yield back 30 seconds. Thank you. Next we will recognize the gentlelady from new york, representative clark for five minutes. Rep. Clark thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this important hearing. Addressing the issues of our recycling system is an important step toward a more sustainable and equitable future. As such id like to better understand some of the Environmental Justice concerns with proposals related to the management of plastic pollution turnedchemical or advanced recycling. Im concerned that chemical recycling is a false solution that does not contribute to the circular economy and increases dangerous emissions at a time when we should be finding ways to bring Environmental Justice to the front line and fence line communities. To the director, i love your first name. Thank you for your work on behalf of the fence line communities. Can you elaborate on some of the environmental and health harms that advanced recycling can cause for these communities . Thank you. The impacts we see in incineration communities and pyrolysis plants are similar to those that we see in plastic production. Thats why the entire plastic lifecycle harms communities of color. The releases include benzene styrene and toluene that will disproportionately affect our communities that are largely uninsured. This means everything from harms on the reproductive system , the developmental system, slow reaction times for children and adults. Weve seen numerous studies that link incineration and production with elevated cancer in our communities. We know that communities closer to incinerations landfills and production shell sites tend to be lower income communities. We all know too well what happens when communities are exposed to air pollutants and how that can affect longterm health and prosperity. As a longterm resident of areas near oil and gas facilities can you talk about the similarities to those facilities that burn plastic in the name of recycling . In your experience, what longterm generational impact can this type people assume it will leave as soon as the chemical disaster is over. We dont get any alarms. We do not get any news. We are not told what kinds of toxins are coming out. Neither our first responders. We have seen countless lawsuits from workers Even Police Departments are not having Accurate Information from these facilities shielded by confidential Business Information and homeland security. So we get no transparency. The information we get is too late. And we also get no resources to even go to toxicologist. We had a fire back in 2018 and we were told, go get your blood checks. One single blood test for ranks around 300 to 400 multiply that by four. That is the cost our communities is picking up. Thank you. I appreciate that. Is the operator of Materials Recovery facility or an rmf a do you consider the practice is currently used for advanced and chemical recycling to be true to the definition of recycling . Thank you for that question. The short answer is no, theyre not in with the definition of recycling because they are linear consumption. Anything thats been proven to date has been, you know, creating fuel from plastics which is then burned. This isnt circular, it doesnt keep those resources at play and it requires that we go back and continue to extract more for any continued production. Thank you miss hoffman. Oregons new recycling law does not exclude the use of chemical recycling but has environmental safeguards in place should that technology be chosen. Can you elaborate on those safeguards and why theyre important to protect communities . Thank you, representative. Yes, oregons new policy framework allows produced responsibility organizations to send materials to a chemical recycling pathway. As long as three conditions are met. First, the impact of that pathway have to be fully evaluated and disclosed and compared against alternative pathways such as mechanical recycling or landfill. Second, the chemical recycling process needs to be performed responsibly. And finally, this pathway is not allowed if there is an alternative pathway such as mechanical recycling that delivers a superior environmental outcome unfortunately my time is elapsed. Mr. Chairman, i yield back, but thank you for your response. Thank you to all of our panelists today. The gentle lady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from the state of georgia. Representative carter, welcome. For five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank all of our witnesses for being here today. You know, listening to this today, this hearing today, it just appears like its just the disagreement over fossil fuels all over again. I mean, its as if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle already predetermined a policy with an outcome in mind that doesnt really take into account real life issues and in real life implications. You know, if we want to reduce emissions and weve got a lot of options that are at our disposal to make sure that we do that. But instead it seems like the rhetoric has been that we cant have a future at all with reliable fossil fuels, even though the fossil fuel industry has done a great job of decreasing emissions and, and even if they were to go to a negative or a next zero. Zero. Met net zero. Im not sure that some of my colleagues would accept it at all. It just seems to be a war on fossil fuels. You know, in todays case, weve got two bills that were talking about and two of them basically just eliminate plastics. So it just bothers me. You know, im a pharmacist by trade and i know the importance of plastic and ppe personal protective equipment, but also in pharmaceutical manufacturing is extremely important and to say that it cant be done. I disagree. I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Ive got two examples here in georgia, Nexus Circular right now, theyre doing innovative advanced recycling. Theyre taking four types of used plastics that represent about 60 of the global Plastic Waste and including in very difficult kinds of plastics like films and breaking it down into base materials that then are used for new quality circular plastics. And this could be done in a circular fashion. Theyre doing it, theyre doing it. Even coca cola and other Georgia Company has set a goal for at least 50 of Recycled Content and their packaging by 2030, which is not that far from now. So advanced recycling is how we can achieve this and how we should achieve this. There are other exciting things that are going on. That are going on. Theres a Pilot Project right now, thats going on to create bio plastic cups. Thats thats the kind of innovation that we need. Ive always said, you know, its gonna take innovation to do this. Do you agree with miss hoffmans characterization of advanced recycling and what are your thoughts on this kind of truly advanced recycling, like i described . Well, were wholeheartedly supportive of advanced recycling. First and foremost, you know, much of the discussion today has been focused on what we cant recycle and whats difficult to recycle and how we havent kept up with the modernization of packaging. Flexible in particular is something that you just mentioned. You know, one stat thats very impressive, is 60 of flexible plastic goes into food or beverage applications. So the primary purpose of that flexible plastic is to prevent food waste, which, if it was a country in and of itself would actually be the Third Largest emitter of Greenhouse Gasses behind both china and the United States. Thats a value for climate purpose. We need to figure out ways in which we can recycle it and advanced recycling presents the best option at this point to take some of those hard to recycle, especially the multi layer films and keep them in the economy rather than saying one and done. So we absolutely support advanced recycling as one part of the puzzle. What can the federal government do to encourage this and to facilitate it . Yeah, i think what i indicated earlier was first, dont stifle it. Thats most importantly, theres a lot of innovation that is already happening. Let it continue to develop. I would say encouragement also helps. And i think there are a number of things being done. The department of energy in particular has done some studies and also promotion of this. But at the end of the day, this is billions of dollars of of research and development thats going into it and its producing things like this. This is an advanced recycled product, not to make this into a show and tell, but thats what weve gotten, you know, and and it shows that its possible. Well thank you and thank you again to all the members of the witnesses here for for this hearing. And thank you, madam. Chair and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. Representative peters youre recognized for five minutes please. Thanks mr chairman, thanks for holding this hearing. All the recycling rates have increased across the country for the past several years. Our statewide recycling rate in california has primarily been below 50 in 2014 states are still facing challenges that are hampering improvements to recycling. Market driven solutions are going to be an integral piece of the puzzle when it comes to finding Long Term Sustainable Solutions to our recycling crisis. Someone who dealt with the repercussions of the nationals from your position at the Oregon Department of environmental quality, can you explain the benefits of building domestic markets for materials that were previously exported to china . Thank you representative. Yes, the primary benefit of domestic markets really is increasing the adaptability of the recycling system. The more in markets you have the better. And also that generally speaking, domestic in markets will manage materials, manage recyclables in a more responsible way, resulting in less pollution and more better management of incoming contamination than some export markets will in some countries. Okay, mr irwin, in your testimony, you say that businesses are ready to be part of the solution and i think were all happy to hear that since we all know that private Sector Solutions will be critical to improving our nations recycling system and working towards a sustainable, more circular economy. Using alternatives and Single Use Plastics can improve circularity, but we need to enable the Market Conditions to make that possible. What are some of the challenges to scaling version and single use plastic alternatives. Great, thank you congressman. So i would say that first of all, you know, theres no incentives to change design at this time from the beginning of product design. So things like the color of the plastic, the shape of the material to be more like an aluminum can that everyone uses that same design. So thats a big part of it. I think that theres also not a lot of Knowledge Exchange happening between all the stakeholders in the value chain. So policy like break free from plastic, puts all these people in the room to come together to form a solution for a very complex challenge. Are there specific policy, federal policies that you think can address the challenges you mentioned . Should we be issuing standards for instance . Yes. I think there are some standards that are being adopted by states and by companies in reuse and also in labeling that could be quick wins for the government to adopt and you know, get industry agreement because theyre already using it. Do you have any specific state examples that you would recommend to us that we look at or that we even adopt . Yes. In reuse, theres a standard called pr 3 thats been piloted in seattle to great success. And also the recycle across america are a labeling standard which has also been adopted in National Parks and other businesses across the United States. I appreciate that very much. Its clear that we need a were were are going to need federal policy to incentivize robust markets for Recycled Materials. Im glad the committee is working on solutions. Im not as willing to close out anything. Im not willing to close out any solution thats possible to see what we can do to recycle these materials and i appreciate the hearing again and the witnesses and then well back the yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama. Representative palmer, welcome, and youre recognized for five minutes, please. Thank you. Mr chairman. And i thank my democratic colleagues for holding this hearing. I just think that that there needs to be more thought into eliminating plastics and in this effort that is being undertaken to do that, especially when you consider that theres more than 50 tons of plastic and the blades of a five megawatt winter. I just wonder how were going to go to renewables if were eliminating plastics, including the plastics that are used in solar panels and those arent recyclable. I brought this up many times and hearing about the fact that turbine blades are being buried in enormous landfills in wyoming. Its estimated that 43 million tons of blade waste, including plastics that will be accumulated by 2050. And if were going to eliminate all plastics, that means well have to eliminate the plastics that are necessary for building batteries for electric vehicles. You cant separate the cells and make them operate effectively without plastic. And i just wonder if that has been taken into account by folks that are making this attempt to eliminate all plastics . Well, i guess, i would say probably not in this case and its unfortunate because i mean , plastic is an absolute miracle material. It just is, do we need to recycle more of it . Yeah. Do we need to, you know, use less material in general . I would also say yes. So at the end of the day, i think we have a lot of shared goals. Its really the approaches to which we use to get to those goals. But i think you highlighted a couple of important applications for plastic that goes directly towards, you know, climate priorities. Well, if you replace the plastics in turbine blades for instance, youll have to build the blades with other materials that will make them much less efficient and much more expensive, which will just add to the cost of living for everybody. And its gonna be hard on low income families and families, on fixed incomes. Not only on the energy side, its also going to impact on the food side, theres a wall street journal article that recently highlighted issues that youre facing in the United Kingdom and Grocery Stores that were trying to completely eliminate all plastics. It was everything from food waste to shoplifting to using more expensive paper packaging and again, these are policies that im not sure people have thought about the unintended consequences of eliminating plastics. Is that what youre saying as well . Yeah. Typically in all of the policies that are really meant to be punitive, whether its towards the industry or the consumer, it results in unintended consequences. Thats what we seem first and foremost, its not the intention of the legislation to to cause those, but that really does become the cause. And thats where we see costs increase. We see environmental impacts that werent expected, put it all together. And thats where typically bipartisan bills like two of those before us today are much better approach. I think there needs to be a deep dive into what the cost would be of eliminating plastics, whether its the cost of energy with the cost of groceries. I just dont think families should should have to decide between filling up their gas tank or filling up their their grocery cart. The last point that i want to make is in regard to the Supreme Courts decision ruling that the epa doesnt have the authority to regulate Greenhouse Gasses. I introduced legislation in 2017 to that effect that would stop the epas overreach in that regard, would have brought that back to congress so that we were the ones who are to make those decisions. And so im grateful for the Supreme Courts actions yesterday. And and it validates something that former chairman of this committee said, congressman, john dingell, who said, who was one of the authors of the Clean Air Act. Said it was never the intent of congress, the epa to regulate Greenhouse Gasses. And thats just another example of where we as members of Congress Need to take responsibility. Thank you. Mr chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair now welcomes the representative from virginia. The gentleman from virginia, mr mceachin, youre recognized for five minutes, please. Thank you, mr chairman. It cannot be disputed that plastic pollution disproportionately affects marginalized and underrepresented communities, not only in my district, but across this nation. While we must find ways to reduce pollution and increase reuse, we must do so in a responsible and equitable manner. Mr allaway in your testimony, you state that doing oregons research on recycling, you discovered that recycling distributes burdens and benefits inequitably. Could you speak to those inequities and how does oregon in their programs seek to mitigate those inequities. Thank you, representative. Theres a number of different ways in which the recycling system, at least in our state and i presume the rest of the country distributes benefits and burdens inequitably in oregon, it is residents of Single Family homes and communities that are closer in geographic proximity to infrastructure that have better access to recycling opportunities and at lower cost. Residents of Rural Communities do not have as good access. The transition from commingled collection, excuse me, the transition to commingle collection has shifted impacts occupational hazards and health and safety impacts from collection workers to frontline processing facility workers, the individuals who are sorting these recyclables that these processing facilities oftentimes people of color, inadequate processing and unregulated exports results in Health Impacts and environmental harm to vulnerable populations in asia and elsewhere. So our act addresses this in a variety of ways. It requires changes including Collection Service improvements, special support for rural recycling and specifically to address the challenges of transportation. A living wage requirement for processing facility workers. Our act regulates processing facilities and requires a responsible in markets requirement specifically with regard to where these recyclables are going, cost internalization versus producer responsibility. Rebalances the misalignment between benefits and burdens. And our act also requires a periodic evaluation of social equity considerations throughout the states recycling system. With a periodic report to our state legislature. Thank you. Thank you for that. You know, in your testimony, you also mentioned seeking out the perspectives of workers in recycling facilities and residents in rural areas as well as residents and multi family housing. What did you all learn from that outreach . Thank you. We learned that everyone you know, regardless of geographic location or skin color, once once wants the recycling system to succeed, they want to be able to they want to be able to recycle, they want the recycling system to operate responsibly and they want to share equitably in the benefits and burdens of the recycling system. Thank you for that, director and please forgive me if im mispronouncing your name. Could you elaborate on the disproportionate short and long term Health Impacts of plastic pollution on fence line and dj ej communities. Okay. Thank you, representative and all the work that you did on ej for all. I would like to start with the fact that we have 184 plastics, plants and expansions coming our way. We dont have zoning and were not the only city, but we are the largest city that has that. So when were talking about new plastics plants, were talking about putting an elementary school, a daycare, a senior center, an entire Community Next to a plastic producing full facility. What you are saying is that our communities are disposable for an extra ketchup packet for another straw for another grocery bag. When this bill straight up tackles and says, lets improve the recycling system, lets say no to these extra plastics that nobody even asked for. Nobody asked for 20 ketchup packets in there fast food bag. So why is it that this is even a debate . What im trying to get at is that Environmental Justice communities not only do we have to deal with a lack of transparency, a lack of information over the chemicals that we live right next to no evacuation plans, no alert systems. Now were being told by the Supreme Court that we cant rely on the Environmental Protection agency to protect Environmental Justice communities and we have to rely on you all here. And so when im talking about all of the harms, this also includes multigenerational impacts, mutations to the human population living closest and worst harmed by plastic production. Let me thank you for your work and your testimony and the passion that you bring to this issue. Mr chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from utah representative curtis. Youre recognized for five minutes and welcome. Thank you, mr chairman. Hello from utah to everyone. Thanks to our witnesses and the Great Questions weve had today. You know, as ive listened to this hearing, there have been two themes almost shouting out at me and id like to address those just quickly. The first is the obvious parallels between this debate about plastic and the energy. Let me point out some of those parallels that i think are problematic for this discussion. The first is this concept that somehow its okay to close our eyes and push this overseas and prohibit here in the United States where we always do it better. We control emissions safety, human rights and this idea that somehow its okay to ban it here and allow it to go on overseas i think is a huge problem. The second parallel is this concept of jumping ahead of solutions banning plastics for, things that are critical use and medical applications and and other applications reminds me of the idea of closing down Nuclear Plants without any replacement for that energy source. And it seems to me just to be a perfect parallel in this energy debate. Another parallel is what i call the shaming or its never enough. So in the energy world, listen, i represent coal country, oil and gas country and ive seen the shaming in its full glory and were trying to do the same things to this plastic industry. And the next thing that follows is demonization of the people involved in this. And i think all of these are harmful to this discussion. And i hope we will keep these parallels in mind. The second thing thats kind of obvious to me and this was kind of fun and im sure many of you will agree with me is my time as mayor really helped me see close up some of these issues. We started as mayor with no recycling at all in our city. We eventually moved to an opt in what we call blue can, which is a blue can out at the curb. We moved from that to an opt out and weve had these conversations today about changing Human Behavior. It really makes me wonder if we shouldnt pull all our mayors together from cities, both republicans and democrats around the country. And i suspect they could give us a lot of answers on how to do this and along those lines. And now id like to direct a question to mr. Johnson as it relates to this. You mentioned the loss of confidence. I think David Allaway mentioned confusion when we talk about individual consumers and trying to get them motivated and interested in recycling. Tell me how much these two factors and the confidence confusion plays into it. And what could we be doing . Not just here at the federal level, but all levels of government to change that and get consumers more engaged. Thank you. Mr curtis. Its been a pleasure to work with your staff on a number of these issues. I think the first thing, you know, i will go back to a time when we had posters in world war ii and my mother reminds me of turning in all your, you know, metal and and other products for the recycling for the war effort. You know, i think of recycling as such a thing. It is like a war effort. We want to do this, we want the the American People want to recycle it conserves our resources, our Natural Resources for future generations, it protects our environment for everyone. And i think making people aware that you dont just throw things away. You recycle them and to make it easier for them to do it and to make them more aware of the importance of recycling for the Energy Savings for the Environmental Protection. And i think thats why mr mckinleys bill is a really wonderful start with that. You know, if we live in certain areas Like Washington d. C, theres a lot of recycling around, but its not everywhere. Trying to get out to underserved communities, be it rural, urban or where have you is terribly important. And making people aware of how important it is from, from all the things that i said, but people want to recycle, they dont want to live, you know, in in an area, you know, with trash around them, i lose my time. If you go from community to community here in utah, youll find different rules about what can go into recycling. If i talk to my kids, they theyre confused and i think we can do a much better job. The last one i havent really heard us discuss today is glass and the extreme complications from a mayor standpoint of glass, were out of time. So im just going to introduce that is problematic and yield my time. Mr chairman, thank you. I just viewed it. So let me repeat that. We welcome the gentleman from florida. Youre recognized for five minutes and thank you for joining us. Thank you, chairman. Climate change is real. Its human caused and leading to rising seas and more extreme heat days in florida and in many other areas of the country. Whats our republican colleagues plan to combat Climate Change to do nothing . Whats the Supreme Courts plan to combat Climate Change . To do nothing. The Supreme Court has made it clear. Guns deserve more constitutional protection than women or the planets. We must fight back and we will fight back. We have no other choice in order for us to help save the future of our nation and our world. At least today we see some modest bipartisan recycling reforms for the hearing, like the recycling and composting accountability act that empowers epa to assess recycling, improve efficiency and develop best practices for states, local governments and tribes members, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on, we can do this. Lets continue to Work Together on that. And then the recycling infrastructure and accessibility act, it directs epa to create a Pilot Program to award grants between a half million to 15 million indian dollars to Indian Tribes and Public Private partnerships 70 is set aside for underserved communities also bipartisan last year, my home town of kissimmee florida had to eliminate Glass Recycling quote due to the high cost associated with processing. These grants will be a game changer for communities like ours. Small towns across america often have cost barriers to reach full recycling. Would the half million to 15 million grants under the proposed recycling infrastructure and accessibility act help overcome these barriers . And if so how . Thank you. Certainly any improvement to infrastructure will help to improve the economics of the recycling system. But i would caution members of the committee from expecting that Infrastructure Improvements alone will solve the problem. The majority of the cost of the recycling system are associated with operating costs, not capital or infrastructure. So long as transportation is required and transportation is expensive. Its going to be a challenge and and markets are distant. It will be a challenge, an economic challenge to move materials to market. So this helps out but theres more with the due to invest in more we have to do to invest in the infrastructure which also is dealt with in the recycling and composting accountability act. Is that moving us in the right direction with the epa . Generally speaking yes improvements and investments in infrastructure are helpful as my written testimony details. I would also propose improvements in infrastructure by themselves at their current scope are inadequate to make a meaningful and sustained improvement in the nations recycling system. Absolutely, i agree. And we invested over 240 million in the recent new infrastructure law. But theres more that we have to do. Currently out in the pacific there is a floating garbage island that is more than double the size of your home state of texas. Its nearly three Million Metric Tons and filled to the brim with plastics and other waste. I want to give my constituents at home an idea whats the cost of inaction . If we do not reform our recycling system, plastics and recycling both to the world into and to local communities like yours. Aside from the irreversible Health Damage and costs on our communities that Community Members and low Resource Communities of color and poor communities like cant afford. Part of it is also our municipal Waste Systems that are over consumed by microfibers. And in fact a piece of the break free study includes a micro fiber study to get at the heart of how much damage this is causing local municipalities and districts. So what were saying here is, how about lets look at Synthetic Fibers right . Where states in the south like mississippi have an overwhelming economy based on cotton. Over 553 million in the south. Instead were relying on Foreign Companies to supply us with cheap fabric and goods. So the multi general operational costs are everything from jobs to our health. We see an ever increasing automation inside of exxon mobil implementing robots by boston robotics that include 75,000 for a base model. 30,000 for a camera. 25,000 for maintenance. Thats 130,000 to replace an entire person and potentially two positions. So to claim that this is a jobs issue is false. As we see just like in any other industry a move and push towards automation. Thank you. I yield back. Fed chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. Thank you for holding this hearing. I do think there is a lot of bipartisan desire to improve our recycling infrastructure. I think there is a difference between radical environmentalism that has drastic costs perhaps intended perhaps unintended. The difference between that and rational environmentalism. I think there is a lot of radical environmentalism being taught here that would have significant cost, disrupt supply and hold refinery production. That is saying a lot because the current epa is using their regulatory agenda against you name it. Epa is taking action to make it harder. Even just a few months ago he said he was not considering any dance on plastic production. I wonder if that is why the epa declined to testify at the hearing. A couple questions i have the break free from plastic on all new and renewed plastic permit and all new or such as ethylene and propylene. Those two products are byproducts of the main Refined Products which is vaseline, diesel or jet fuel. Gasoline diesel or jet full. If you are shutting down the byproduct you are in effect shutting down the refinery operation. Are we reading that correctly . Is that a plausible outcome or unintended outcome of this at a time when we need refineries the most . There are two ways to look at that. One is simply the value of the byproduct is part of the economics that make those facilities work simply taking that away certainly changes the dynamics of the viability of the facility. In addition, there could be a situation where you have a location where you have Plastic Manufacturing facilities located with refining operations and you could find yourself in a spot where the operating permit could be denied based on the language in these bills. People forget refiners have to repermit every five years. We also heard earlier, maybe i heard it wrong but a colleague on the other side asked one of the witnesses if the epa could distinguish between plastics they like and do not like during this band . How would that actually work because if you band plastic production how can any epa regulator predict where that might be sent for manufacturing . Is that reasonable . It is not. If you simply say plastic it means all polymers that are defined in the bill. There really would not be an ability to differentiate at that point. Other parts of the bill could allow for differentiation. I appreciate that. I dont think these bills take into account i want to go to director, you cited a lot of dangerous which is rubber for tires. Something we produce near the Houston Ship Channel. You cited a study that i want to clarify. You said this particular chemical is associated with risk of cancer in children. The study you provided us actually says the opposite. There is a which is long been established by many studies and the cdc. The city see pinpoints the cdc. Is there a different study you want to submit for the record to clarify . Ask there is actually two studies. There are three industries, plastic, synthetic rubber and one other chemical but subprime use is plastic. Then there is a cancer study where part of your district is actually listed as having elevated levels of childhood leukemia. Not only childhood leukemia but cervical cancer. So i can definitely submit those studies. Right but the question of course, its a pretty big question because its a serious accusation. You say this particular type of production causes cancer. You got to really be able to back that up. And the one study you did submit said said the opposite. Thats why im asking so. Please, im out of time. But please do submit the other studies for our consideration. Those are important to know and i appreciate it. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes, well, i believe that completes all of the members of the subcommittee. And so now were going to go to those who chose to waive on, were happy to have waving on a active member of the Committee Representative fletcher. The gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes and welcome. Thank you chairman tonko, thank you so much for holding this hearing today and for allowing me to participate in your subcommittees hearing. Thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony today. Im really glad to hear from all of you about the issues before us, including my fellow houstonian director ariano. Im really grateful for all of your perspectives. And of course with five minutes. I just have a couple of things that i want to follow up on that weve heard a little bit about already today, but i asked to wave on and im here today because im a longtime proponent for recycling and im interested in and appreciate the discussion of the challenges that we face in our country on these issues right now. And like many of my colleagues have noted, im really disappointed about how much of our waste is not recycled, including items that we think we are recycling. But we are learning instead are going to landfills are winding up in the ocean when people, as several witnesses have noted, want to participate, want to recycle. And so, you know, its my view that we really need to invest in our recycling infrastructure as well as find new and innovative ways of reducing and recycling our waste in this country. Last november, the epa published its National Recycling strategy report, and it stated that all options including chemical recycling should be discussed when considering methods for sustainably managing materials. And i know that there are a lot of thoughts about the merits of chemical or advanced recycling. Weve heard some of those perspectives today in the testimony, but i do want to focus a little bit on how chemical recycling might pay a play a role in recycling certain products, certain materials that currently have no substitutions like plastics that are used in healthcare, that often get thrown away because of contamination issues. And this is especially important because we saw during covid the uptick in single use plastic like masks and gloves and ppe. And it doesnt look like that is changing anytime soon. A Global Analysis by the World Health Organization found that between march 2020 and november 2021 approximately 87,000 tons of ppe was sent to countries as part of the covid 19 response and is expected to have ended up as waste. And additionally, more than 8 billion vaccine doses have been given world producing 114,000 tons of waste. In your testimony, you discussed that congress should encourage the development of new recycling technologies. Thats another theme weve heard today for materials that cant be recovered through traditional means. Do you think that chemical recycling could help address the immense amount of medical waste that is being produced . Yeah, i think the one of the best things about advanced recycling, chemical recycling, molecular recycling. However you want to phrase it is its a purification process because it is breaking the polymer back down to the monomer. Through that process you have to get rid of impurities in order to repolymeriz that molecule, so in that process, that purity that you get from the end product of it is ultimately much more safer than perhaps some of the other mechanical processes that cant get to that same level of purity. Thank you. I also want to follow up with the time i have with mr. You raised in your testimony and and representative curtis also asked about i think an issue thats really important which is the public confusion around recycling. And you know, as many have noted, there is a great deal of confusion, but theres also widespread support for recycling and so can you talk a little bit about what we in the congress can do to simplify the recycling process for consumers, and whether it would be beneficial to have a National Recycling framework. We kind of talked about the fact that so much of this is local and there are benefits, people have more access and less access depending on on where they live. Is that something that that we should be talking about or their ideas beyond the bills that were discussing today, that you think we should be looking at in congress to kind of address that consumer confusion. Thank you, representative. Well, its true that people are confused because they might live in one community and work in a Different Community and are subject to different recycling standards in those communities. I believe that a much larger source of confusion involves labeling of products within the portlands metropolitan area and the 26 local governments there who offer a uniform recycling Service Across all 26 cities, 90 of residents here believe they can recycle materials which that program does not accept and that is in spite of millions of dollars spent trying to educate them. While local government education might touch a resident a couple of times a month, residents and households have hundreds of interactions with product labels every week and many labels make claims of recyclable itty, which but theyre required to put the recycling logo and that is a major source of confusion, i believe. Well, thank you for that. Thats really helpful. And chairman tonko, i see ive gone over my time, so i want to thank you for letting me wave on if any of the other witnesses have additional insights there that they could share with us perhaps in writing. I would appreciate that. And i also appreciate the the testimony from ms irwin about bringing everyone to the table. I think thats what youve done in this hearing today. I appreciate that and i look forward to working with all of you on developing these solutions and addressing the very real concerns that all of our witnesses have addressed together. Thank you so much and i yield back. Youre most welcome and we thank you for joining us and the gentlelady yields back and now we move to the gentleman from ohio, whos also been waved down for todays subcommittee hearing. And dr. Joyce, we welcome you and recognize you for five minutes for questions, please. First, i want to thank you, chairman and Ranking Member kim mckinley for allowing me to wave onto the subcommittee hearing and thanks witnesses for appearing today. Let me be clear, recycling is important and we should strive to make these efforts as effective and efficient as possible at the state and local levels. That said i have grave concerns about the economic costs of several of these bills. At a time when americans are facing skyrocketing energy prices, we need ways to provide relief to our constituents dead creating policies like extended producer liability will it has brought 7500 construction jobs and 600 permanent family sustaining jobs to the area. As we have learned from the pandemic and continued disruption of the Global Supply chain. To have domestic manufacturing for goods that are vital to our nation. I personally used plastic devices every day in my medical practice. Not only are they used in common medical tools like surgical gloves, syringes and iv tubing, but they have replaced metals and ceramics and devices such as artificial hips and heart valves. Medical instruments came from bacterial resistant propylene are used to prevent life threatening infections in hospitals. Much of our modern medical system is heavily dependent on the benefits the plastics have provided to my patients and to consumers. Medical innovation is always on the forefront of my mind and currently the United States leads the world in this sector. This is so important during this pandemic by attacking the plastic industry, that we have created by developing new and Dynamic Medical devices . Yes, certainly possible. Any time that the supply chains get moved elsewhere, its likely that the products that use those supplies are going to be manufactured elsewhere and ultimately just shipped here. You know, as i mentioned earlier, there is a bipartisan effort underway to bring back manufacturing supply chains and i think the pennsylvania shell facility is a perfect example of a manufacturing capacity. That is right in your backyard. My next question is for mr johnson. Several years ago, a senior official from the Environmental Protection agency testified that mandating rates is a tricky proposition because it is tied to state of the economy of people and economic wills and the ability of individuals to part with their goods. Does support mandatory federal recycling rates does ursa support mandatory federal recycling rates . And why . Thank you. Does not support the federal mandate. We believe involuntary ways to achieve that. I think one of the reasons why he said it was kind of tricky is that you look at paper. Some of the mandates are, you know, were originally, you know, at 30 while currently today the the Paper Recycling has about a 95 . Its a much higher content. And its largely driven because they want that material back into their into their mills and its probably going to increase as we go on. When i mean 70 it has the 70 recycled material. I dont know how much higher you can get than 100 . So, you know, if you look at the the private sector as they look to reduce costs and to make themselves more Energy Efficient and to to build in the circular economy, theyre going to drive those rates as high as they can technically get, but giving just for no disrespect if you threw out a number of, say, i want you to be at 60 by 2025 it may not be technically possible. On the other hand, i may have already exceeded 65 . So each one of the materials is very different from the other. So it is tricky to do and you also sometimes disincentivize innovation. And that is a concern the disincentive ation of what American Ingenuity brings to the table. I see my time has expired. Thank you again chairman tonka and Ranking Member mckinley for allowing me to wave onto this important subcommittee hearing and i yield. Gentlemen yields back and youre most welcome. I believe that concludes the list of individuals are colleagues who wanted to ask questions of our witnesses. I thank you all for joining us for todays hearing. However, before we conclude business, there have been several documents that have been presented during the course of the hearing and theyve been asked to be entered into the record. So i will move to offer a request for unanimous consent to enter the following documents into into the record. We have a statement from representative Alan Lowenthal of california, a letter from the can manufacturers institute, a letter from the National Waste and recycling association, a letter from the American Cleaning institute, a statement from the american forest and paper association. An article from the alliance of Mission Based recyclers entitled chemical recycling will not save our plastics problem, a report from the alliance of Mission Based recyclers entitled the false promise of plastics to fuel technologies guidance for legislators, investors and municipalities. A letter from the American Institute for packaging and the environment, an issue brief from the Natural Resource defense council, a fact sheet from oceana entitled choked strangled, drowned the plastics crisis unfolding in our oceans. A fact sheet from oceana entitled companies are wasting time with Inadequate Solutions to the plastics crisis. A statement from representative joseph nagus of colorado, letter from the Consumer Brands association, a report from the Global Alliance for incinerator alternatives entitled all talk and no recycling and investigation of the u. S. Chemical recycling industry. A report from the International Pollutants Elimination Network and the International Pellet watch entitled Plastic Waste management hazards, waste to energy, chemical recycling and plastic fuels. A letter from novellas, a memorandum from oceana regarding a nationwide poll, a letter from recycle across america in the interNational Waste platform. A fact sheet from oceana entitled plastic is a growing threat to our future. A statement from the Paper Recycling coalition, an advocacy brief from the Global Alliance for incinerator alternatives entitled plastic to fuel a losing proposition. A letter from the u. S. Composting council. A letter from the Sustainable Food policy alliance, a letter from the Solid Waste Association of north america. A letter from the Aluminum Association in support of hr 8059. A letter from the Aluminum Association in support of h. R. 8183. A letter from tetra path, a letter from the real real, a statement from the recycling partnership, a letter from plant based products council, a letter from the recycling partnership, a statement from epa. A letter from ball corporation. A letter from the American Chemistry Council. A fact sheet from the American Chemistry Council entitled new investments in advanced recycling in the u. S. A fact sheet from the American Chemistry Council entitled the break free act, a step backward for Climate Change. A fact sheet from the American Chemistry Council entitled break free act. The break free act would cripple Us Manufacturing jobs. An article from chemical and engineering news entitled chemical recycling of plastic gets a boost in 18 u. S. States. But environmentalists question whether it really is recycling a policy brief from the Government Accountability office entitled science and tech spotlight advanced Plastic Recycling. A report from mckinsey and company entitled advanced recycling opportunities for growth. A report from the National Waste and recycling association entitled extended producer responsibility for packaging. The presentation from resource cycling systems entitled Economic Impact of beverage container deposits, a municipal recycling processing costs. An article from s and p global entitled exxon mobil lyon del collaborate to make houston a recycling circulatory circularity pub. A wall street journal article entitled russian gas cuts, threatened Worlds Largest chemicals hub and a letter from american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers. Without objection so ordered. And with that again, i thank our witnesses for joining us for todays hearing. I remind members that pursuant to Committee Rules they have 10 Business Days by which to submit additional questions for the record to be answered by our witnesses. I ask that if our witnesses would please respond properly to any such questions that you may receive, and at this time the subcommittee is adjourned. Is o5 minutes