Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Solutions To Recycling 20221201

impacts health and rural communities. this is just under two hours. chair: the subcommittee on environment and climate change will now come to order today. the subcommittee is holding a a hearing entitled no time to waste -- solutions for america's broken recycling system. due to the covid-19 public health emergency, today's hearing is being held remotely. all members and witnesses will be participating via video conferencing. as part of our hearing, 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 today's 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 we've 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 it's 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 epa's 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. i'm 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 nation's 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 nation's recyclers have been under financial pressure. the closure of the in order to get us back on track in last year's -- struggling conditions of municipal recycling systems. and included a 275 million dollar appropriation for recycling and waste reduction infrastructure grants and 75 date for education and outreach branch. finally, these investments will be complemented to the proposals that will be discussed today which seek to address any of those challenges previously identified. age -- 59, a bipartisan bill from representatives -- seeks to improve recycling data collection. carbon-ization and reporting to allow us to better understand the state of our nations recycling and composting systems. patriarch 8183, a bipartisan bill of ranking member mckinley and representative cheryl would authorize pilot program at epa to provide assistance to approve recycling accessibility with the majority of funds going toward underserved communities. subtitles a through b entitle nine of the clean future act propose a suite of policies to reduce waste and improve recycling. this includes grants for community-led zero-waste initiatives, funding for greater -- education and outreach, requirements for manufacturers to design products and reduce environmental and health impacts. requirements for -- and a task force to recommend design national extended produce and responsibility program. similarly, hr 20 to 38, the -- 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 single-use products. many of these products are used for only a few minutes before being sent to a landfill where under the best-case scenario, they will say for many lifetimes and all too often will find a way into our environment and even our food supply. both the clean future act and the brake free bill would move us in the direction of requiring the companies that reduce this future ways to have greater responsibility for its proper recycling or disposal. several states -- are establishing centered reduced and responsibility programs and i believe it would be wise for us to do the same. but ultimately, no single policy or -- recycling system is going to take many complimentary efforts, examples of which we will be discussing today. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and -- effective steps congress and epa can take to improve our nations recycling and waste management systems. with that, i now recognize representative mckinley, a ranking member of the subcommittee on environment and climate change, for five minutes, for his opening statement, please. representative mckinley? >> thank you, mister chairman and thank you for inducting this hearing. this has been two years since we had this hearing on recycling. so, it's good to get back to it. we know it is a problem. let me also thank our panelists that are participating here today. we have six panelists who i think miss chairman, i think we have to all underscore, we know solid waste and plastics are a problem. we have known that for decades. whether it's newspapers, on review tires, plastics, batteries, i can go on, and on, and on. they are filling up our landfills and becoming a problem for us. and so, it's not new. none of this is new. if you remember, both you and i back in the 60s, when the recycling really began under the government led program, we all had separate bins outside on our curb. we put our papers in one, our plastics in another, glass in another, and then 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 we all know it did not work out real well. in fact, after 60 years, 60 years of government incursion and trying to regulate and change human behavior, you just mentioned it, chairman, we only recycle in america about 23%. just over 20% of all the consumer 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, on this -- they called for a moratorium on any environmental permits for plastic facilities. that's just another name for banning the product altogether. so mr. the product altogether. mister chairman, why are we letting the free market run its course? on recyclables. we know that it is worth it for paper, oil, gas, and even steal. we are recycling steel. why is congress trying to treat plastics differently? we also know, mister chairman, there are problems with recycling plastics like the cost, separation of plastics. you have to separate them by different colors. that is done by hand. you have to worry about the chemistry and the plastic products, the polymers that are being used. some of them don't mix well. different temperatures or necessary. we have a lack of recyclable facilities in rural america. just two years ago, when we had this hearing, a witness discussed -- i think it came from colorado state. if we go back over our notes, i think it was colorado state. they were making advancements on biodegradable plastics rather than finding things that would break down. i think that our witness will provide us with an update on these advancements and biograde-able components. that way, we can tackle this issue rather than -- not everyone lives in los angeles, new york, chicago, even albany. the cities have robust recycling programs. what about small rural communities like hazard, kentucky or petersburg, indiana or kermit, west virginia? these are small towns that don't have an active recycling facility. what we are doing is we will be forcing some of these legislations on increasing their cost of living. we are already facing high inflation and higher energy costs. why are we trying to change their cost of living? mister chairman, i can just say it in the time i have left. only in washington do we think that we can legislate changes and human behavior. where cycling is certainly an issue we need to deal with. it has been around for 100 years or more. the free market, using innovation, we will find another solution that does not require banning plastics. that has been something that consumers wanted. it's cheap and easy to use. it is easy to manufacture. we have to find another way to deal with it. banning it is not the solution. thank you, mister chairman. i yield back. thank you. the gentleman yields. we have that recognize -- very busy over the last several weeks and months. so, we recognize you, chairman polo, for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank, you chairman tonko. they, the committee is considering its work on important environmental and climate issues were legislative solutions to our nation's program and recycling system. every day, americans are doing their part by reducing their ways and tossing views, or cycle patrols and to a ban. with a national recycling and composting rate of only 32%, it is clear that there are major gaps in our recycling infrastructure we need to address. i'm actually the co-chair of the house recycling bill. i'm very proud of. it's and the solving is especially important to be. recycling is a critical tool in our tool box to reduce pollution in our communities, boost our local economies, address climate change, and strengthen the domestic supply chain. but the system is not working as well as it should. the system itself was up and the 2018, when china banned most plastic waste and mixed paper material imports, and this action prevented us from shipping recyclables overseas and require american communities through rely on other options. this also begs the question, where recyclable material goes? it should be recycled, not sometime then landfills or ascend rated, and i would like to know today, what is being done to reduce the amount of voice that actually goes to landfills or is incinerated? and i think all this requires more funding as well. as with many programs, a recycling system is severely underfunded. the municipalities across the nation, especially small and rural towns, struggle to manage recycling programs, forcing scale backs or complete cancellations of curbside pickup. this is bad news for both recycling and the reuse side of the equation. without adequate infrastructure to collect recyclable materials like metal, plastic, paper, cardboard, glass. our domestic manufacturers will not be able to use these new materials in new products, and will continue to input materials. unfortunately, congress has made a significant -- bipartisan infrastructure law of november, which included 300 and $50 million for recycling infrastructure and education in how -- and this funding was a critical step in addressing infrastructure challenges, and will improve recycling efforts across the nations. but congress has worked their, today, the subcommittee will examine for bills which will provide different illusions to our recycling challenges. one, a chart of 15 public future act, which i introduced to chairman tonko as a comprehensive approach to combatting the climate crisis, and includes a totally on weight reduction. the future act includes measures to reduce the generation of waste, including the temporary -- permeating newer, expanded plastic production facilities. it modernizes our nations recycling system by establishing recycling content standards. establishing a national deposit program, and standardizing the labeling and collecting of recyclable goods. the future act also establish grand produced by investing in communities zero waste initiatives, reduces the amount of went for waste, and improves education outreach. many of these provisions arrive with the objectives outlined in the presidents national recycling strategy, which was released off november. then, we have h our two to 38, the -- free from plastic pollution act, which includes the reduction policies to include the -- disposal. this pollution is often consecrated in environmental justice communities, and i think representative lowenthal for introducing this bill. and then, we have hr a of 59, the recycling and the compost -- bill act, introductory foster, and this produces data gaps in recycling and compost practices across the u.s.. the south will be critical to informing policy decisions to improve recovery and boost regularity, and hr 813, the recycling infrastructure disability act. again, a bipartisan bill led by a ranking member mckinley and representative cheryl, and i want to thank you, mr. mckinley, for working on this issue. this bill establishes a pilots crew to increase access to recycling services in underserved communities struggling to keep up with increasing waste management romance. so, we have a lot of bills to look at. i just wanted to say, i heard what mr. mckinley said. this is a problem in many ways, right? in other words, the towns that don't have the money, they cannot get people to recycle it's a problem because we have no place to ship. stuff ultimately, what i would 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 i'm afraid that we are getting away from that. i'm hoping that we can get answers to that part of the equation today. i thank you again, chairman tonko. >> the gentleman yields back. the chairman that represents representative rogers, ranking member of the committee. representative rodgers, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement,. please >> thank you mister chairman. good morning everyone. first, i want to highlight the supreme court decision today that confirms epa has been acting outside of statutory authority when issuing overreaching rules on the nations power sector. this decision is a victory for article one, legislative authority on behalf of the people and representative government. it is congress clear, constitutional authority, it's our responsibility to debate and make the law. the public policy -- not elected bureaucrats in the executive branch, who often abused their power by issuing regulations that place harsh burdens on our economy and peoples livelihoods. i'm pleased to see this decision. we are facing and inflation and energy crisis, with gas prices at all-time highs, trips to the grocery store busting the budgets of american families, like, for example, anti-jurist's with the washington association of -- he is a fourth generation wait burrow, and he told us at a recent forum that rising gas, we -- are crippling farmers from the equipment to fertilizer. unfortunately instead of working with republicans who are calling for the biden administration to flip the switch on american energy production, lower the cost of food and consumer goods, and help farmers like andy, we see the democrats again turning to a radical climate agenda. we can and we should drawing in better conservation policies to promote recycling, and i share the chairman's goal to reduce the amount of product that goes to landfills or is incinerated and recycled more. however, but two democrats only lead bills today seek to ban new plastic manufacturing, and certain single-use plastic products. this is an approach that will cost american jobs. it will worsen the supply chain crisis and hurt economic development across the country. the approaches that are proposed in these bills, banning plastics, will deprive us of lifesaving technologies like ppe, syringes, vaccine production equipment, medical gowns. insulated packaging for transporting vaccines. these plastic based products have been critical in responding to the pandemic. plastics are essential, and they are essential in clean energy and emission reducing technologies like insulation for homes, like waiting vehicles, winters and solar panels. innovation has given us so much with these plastic based technologies that make our lives better. the clean future act and the break free from plastics pollution act will reduce our quality of life, hurt economic competitiveness, and make us more dependent upon china. we have seen this playbook before by the majority on this committee, and their campaign for blanket bans on new and innovative chemicals, kind of 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 the industrializing the united states. and not strengthening our domestic supply chains. these bills ignore that america has some of the highest environmental standards for manufacturing in the world. we do a cleaner, more efficiently, while also leading the world in reducing emissions. these two bills today, hr 80 59 and 81 83, address more traditional recycling and composting policies. conserving our resources is good policy, especially if it's based on innovation and free market investments and infrastructure. 81 83 prioritizes rural areas for a new epa pilot program for infrastructure grants. rural areas are often short changed, so this rightly focuses on our infrastructure needs to enhance recycling. i would like to better understand whether a new program with additional dollars are needed, especially when we consider that with 375 million of taxpayer dollars is funded in the bipartisan infrastructure law for recycling grants. the other bipartisan bill, 80 59, the recycling and composting accountability act, seeks more data on recycling and composting in the u.s.. and of concern to me is the increased federal governments influence on both of these, in both of these bills. i have concerns when the federal government goes from supplying seed money and technical aid to actually regulating or directing curbside collection or residential recycling. finally, i just want to note, the epa is not here again, this is the second week where we have not heard from the administration on these legislative proposals. i think it's important that we do. i welcome the witnesses i, look forward to the testimony, and believe we need to hear from the administration,. two with that, i yield back, mister chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. we would like to remind members that -- all members written opening statements shall be made part of the record. i now introduce the witnesses for today's hearing. first we have mr. david holloway, senior policy analyst of the department of environmental quality from the state of oregon miss lynn hoffman co-president of the eureka recycling national coordinator of the alliance of mission base for cyclers, next, we have miss stephanie erwin, the director of circular economy policy at the american sustainable business network, next, we have director yvette paul ryan oh, a executive director of best line watch. mr. william johnson, sheep lobbyists of institute of scrap for cycling industries inc., and finally, mr. met thehome, chief executive author of plastics industry association. at this time the chair will recognize each witness for five minutes. and opening statements i recognize mr. holloway for five minutes. to provide an opening statement. you are set to go there, sir. >> thank you chairman pallone, ranking member rogers, mr. taco, and ranking member mckinley. thank you for the invitation to prevent at the day's hearing. for the record, my day aim is david alleyway, i'm a senior policy analyst at the oregon department of environmental quality. our state recently conducted a deep examination on the recycling system and they, i will summarize some of our key learnings from that research. additional details are provided in my written testimony. in 2017, china abruptly closed its doors to shipments of waste, paper, and plastics from other countries. the resulting disruptions exposed numerous problems with recycling here in oregon. in response, the state convened a recycling steering committee. 16 diverse stakeholders from the public and private sectors were charged with recommending changes to oregon's recycling systems. i co-chair that committee, which help close to 100 meetings over a 29 month period. the committee and department undertook significant research and spoke with hundreds of players in the recycling system. from our research, a few key findings stands out as perhaps most important. first, recycling offers the potential for real yet modest environmental benefits. the use of recycled feedstocks and product manufacturing almost always allows those products to be produced with less energy and oftentimes, at the reduction with water and air pollution, including greenhouse gases. waste prevention, the reduce, reuse part of the reduce, reuse, recycle hasn't even greener potential. second, one of the greatest challenges facing recycling is the problem of contamination. materials placed into recycling bins and carts that do not belong there. removing this contamination is necessary, but expensive. failure to remove it threatens the -- markets such as domestic paper mills to use recycled feedstocks. exports of contaminated fails to harm people and results and significant quantities of plastics in the world's oceans, as my written testimony details. one leading cause of this contamination is a deeply confused public and the leading cause of that confusion is misleading labels and claims of recycle abilities on products and packages. given how consumer goods are distributed in this country, fixing the problems of labeling might best be done at the federal level. finally, i would highlight that 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 cost to society. for example, by reducing air and water pollution, recycling can reduce health care and other costs associated with illness disease, disability, anti death. these are very real economic benefits, but they are not reflected in the market prices that drive day-to-day decisions by producers, waste managers, and local governments. the fact is, many such costs are not reflected in those market prices. results in under investment in the recycling system and and over investment in virgin resource production use. drawing on a consensus recommendation in the states recycling steering committee, oregon's results later last year adopted the plastic pollution and recycling modernization act, which was signed into law last summer. the act maintains existing elements of oregon's recycling system that work well and mandates or intensifies improvements to elements that do not, including rural recycling. it does this without banning materials. the organizing principle of the act is one of shared responsibility, with obligations shared across all players of the system, including the producers of packaged goods in printing and writing paper. this last element is part of a growing trend to require producers to share in the responsibility for a modernized, effective, and responsible recycling system for the packaging they put into the marketplace. while producer responsibility for packaging printed paper is new to this country, it is common in other nations. oregon and other u.s. states already implement more than 100 similar laws addressing a wide variety of other materials, such as electronic and pharmaceutical waste. in the last, year there's been a significant increase in industry support for some form of legislative producer responsibility for packaging. i believe that this stems from recognition that america's recycling system has reached both a crisis and a crossroads. decades of voluntary solutions by industry have been helpful but insufficient. producers can and should play a role in solving the problems and realizing the full benefits of recycling. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. we will now recognize miss hoffman. you are recognized for five minutes, please, for your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman tonko. ranking member mckinley, members of the subcommittee, thank you for your time and attention on this very important issue. my name is lynn hoffman, and i am the co-president of the region for recycling, and the national -- commission base for cyclers. eureka is a social enterprise or. cyclotron minneapolis, minnesota. our mission is to demonstrate that waste is preventable. we employ hundreds -- with living wage jobs who collect and sort 100,000 tons of residential recycling every year. we hold a clear and bold vision for a world without waste, while we wrestle with the day-to-day challenges facing us today. recycling is not just a critical tool for reducing waste, as a potential to help stabilize the climate, preserve critical ecosystems, protect human health, mitigate inequitable impacts of waste on overburden communities, and support resilient regional economies and good paying jobs. however, to realize these benefits, we have to be clear about how recycling works. what its limitations are, and how effective policy can influence its impact. first and foremost, for cyclers our manufacturers. we take a specific set of products that are designed to be recycled. we sort them into high quality, consistent, valuable, global commodities, and we feed those into the supply chain to be made into new products. we are seeing unprecedented disruptions in global supply chains and increasing demand for recycled materials. improving recycling improves the resilience and the stability of the u.s. economy. in the following three core actions are needed to get a fair. first, congress must support recycling with policy solutions. investments in cycling for the infrastructure investment in jobs act will be so much more effective if they are supported by essential and comprehensive policy, including recycle conde mandates, thoughtfully designed national deposit systems, labeling and design standards for packaging, incentives and targets for reducing -- and bans on the most problematic and unnecessary materials. another key provision in two of the bills under consideration is a national extended producer responsibility, or epa our system. eureka is just one of 300 recycling facilities across the country, but must make frequent million dollar upgrades just to keep up with ever-changing composition, packaging, and products. this further increases the cost of recycling 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 it creates. a strong epr system could transform the way we fund and improve recycling across this country, and shift the burden away from taxpayers and requiring producers to design the products to fit into systems and financially support on the ferry infrastructure. we work with state holders across the supply chain, from the u. s. plastics act to community advocates to -- packaging companies and there is widespread agreement that is time for epr. second, congress should support policies that move beyond recycling towards reduction and reuse. recycling's only solution for products and packaging that are designed to be recyclable. take number one, p e t plastic bottles. these are only one of the few plastic packaging takes easy to sort, have shrunk markets, and yet, less than 30% are captured for recycling. this is low hanging fruit, and we should invest in capturing the millions of tons of wasted material that are already recyclable and are in high demand as domestic feedstock. for the myriad of other non recyclable, single use packaging, recycling is not a viable or effective solution. reduction, redesign, and reuse of the most effective strategies for wasteful products. finally congress needs to focus on effective innovation, not distractions. technology innovations are needed in recycling to improve quality, safety, and transparency. however, companies want to sell so-called chemical recycling or advanced recycling schemes as new solutions or low value toxic, problematic and on this is very plastics. these have been pitched for 40 years, and have never been proven economically, logistically or technologically feasible as recycling solutions. turning plastic into fuel is not recycling. please be wary of the screen washed versions of waste consumption, or have no place in a circular economy. as the u.s. stepped into renegotiating role to -- global plastic stream, congress should not misses opportunity to pass a break free from plastic pollution act as a model and blueprint for national action. and the game changing transformation for recycling without massive federal spending. it's time for policy incentives and solutions to secure a more stable, equitable, and resilient future. thank you. >> thank you. miss irwin, you are now recognized for five minutes for your opening statement, please. >> thank you. greetings, chairman tonko, renting member mckinley, chairman pallone, and ranking member rogers, thank you for communicating this hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify today. my name is stephanie erwin. i am the director of circular economic policy for the american sustainable business network. we are a multinational, national organization comprised of businesses, business associations, and investors, which collectively represent over 250,000 businesses spanning different sectors, regions, sizes across the u.s.. we are united in our shared vision of a vibrant stakeholder driven, equitable, circular, and sustainable economy. we are asking for a future where businesses use, reuse, and manufacture materials -- this will save money, foster innovation, and create 1 million new jobs. all without contributing to devastating impacts on our health, communities, ecosystems, and economy. but we cannot get there without urgent and decisive legislative action. it is true that plastic is played a critical role in our economy. however, despite the practical applications that some of these plastics have brought, it is clear the use of plastic, particularly the use of consumer single-use products and virgin plastic, comes with significant cost to our current and future economic well-being. with 95% of plastic going to landfills and incinerators every year, we are writing off the annual loss of seven billion dollars in commercial value from our collective balance sheet. our plastic-driven economy, in combination with our fragmented and inadequate recycling infrastructure, also precludes the u.s. from a billion dollar market opportunities, as consumers demands more sustainable and plastic neutral products as businesses seek to scale innovative models of consumption and production, and as firms looks to invest in companies that have consistently outperformed the markets by proactively addressing climate and waste issues. simply addressing recycling is not enough. to tackle the broken recycling system, solutions must address challenges at each stage in the product life cycle, from our endeared to design, to extraction, production, distribution, use, and end of life. effective solutions must also be material specific and effective specific, taking into account unique properties of each material and how it is used by industry and consumers alike. the good news is, businesses are ready to be part of the solution. with 2025 and 2030 targets in place, our businesses, alongside fortune 500 companies, are actively investing in circular supply chains. to reduce, or eliminate single use and virgin plastic products, to increase the post consumer recycled content of products, to scale, reuse, and refill models and's to switch to functionally compostable products. and the pr policy like break free from plastic pollution act will help cool and direct those funds for its greater impact and transformational change. of the bills in front of the committee today, the brake free act offer several strategic advantages of the solution. it accelerates the timeline for innovation and action by putting epr system in place immediately. this would also set the u.s. to lead negotiations for the upcoming un global plastics treaty. it creates a national recycling blueprint and the model for enhanced public, private partnerships, where stakeholders across the supply chain can freely share and exchange knowledge and adopt industry wide standards that build upon proven, local, and state policies. a model, i might, add that does not rely solely upon taxpayer dollars. it helps frontline communities, workers, and natural ecosystems directly impacted by plastic pollution, avoiding years of inaction and conflict education, 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 develop long term strategies to invest in plastic recycling, three years, and remanufacturing of a city. also to expand job creation and training and recycling and recycling adjacent industries. ultimately, investing in technologies to keep the bathtub from overflowing will never be as effective as turning the faucet off, even temporarily. in line with our circular principles, the brake free act focuses on breakthrough technologies that would have recycled heroes at their highest value and purity, which ensures a toxic and hazardous chemicals are designed out of plastic in order to be safely recycled. and it excludes waste energy technologies that incinerate and down cycle and market materials. these waste energy technology should not be qualified, either a circular or renewable, as currently written in the clean future act. from the perspective of the american business network, the break free from plastic pollution act offers a comprehensive, innovative, and proactive solution that takes advantage of all the strategic opportunities currently available for business, industry, and marker. it's all to grow a stronger and healthier economy. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes director ariana o, you are recognized, please, for five minutes. >> chairman taco and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to speak. for the record, my name is yvette oregano, and i'm the founder and executive director of frontline watch. an environmental justice organization dedicated to the eradication of toxic mostly generational harm on fencing communities. communities living next oil, gas, and -- industries. my statement is composed of two key issues, the human health impact of plastic production and its incineration. 99% of the plastic is thrive from fossil fuels, and some of the largest petrochemical complex in our country, along with 52 mile 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 are no setbacks, buffer zones, our community shared experience of smells, players, and disasters with workers, many of which are temporary contracts at this facilities. on disaster hits, they evacuate to our local parks. -- huge resident exports, 15% of the market shares of all residents from the u.s.. from 2017 to 2018, plastic resin out of houston grew, and that's sounding 38%, with polyethylene, another plastic export, increasing 50%. currently, the houston ship channel is home to over 90 plastics facilities with 184 pipeline. these classic industries currently make up a fourth of industrial pollution in the houston area. our lack of zoning, disproportionately effects overburdened communities of color. we face daily threats of toxic exposure, potential disaster, and river -- for deathly, high dangerous pollutants that come from plastics production and played communities like manchester include -- benzene, diving, television. all three products produce odors that range from supersweet to gasoline like. reporting these owners is an arduous test less to the of us who weigh over an hour bouncing between jurisdictions and departments. my predominantly hispanic community is also limited english proficient, and in effort to try to address language barriers, for those who don't have waste access current reporting systems and public input opportunities. break free addresses these language barriers. the short term toxic exposure includes imitation through the eyes, nose, and throat. headaches, fatigue, tremors, decreased blood pressure, memory loss, central nervous system damage. the long term impacts span from reproductive, from the reproductive system to developmental problems, float reaction times, difficulty with balance, irregular menstrual periods and leukemia. children are affected before their first breath, coughing low birth rates, a significant increase in child mortality. with difficulty, i testify as money who suffer from irregular periods, -- and skin lesions. break free would temporarily pause new and expanding facilities and give agencies to the time needed to investigate human impacts on assure facilities create the latest technology to prevent further pollution. a university of texas and public health found that children living within five mile radius is of a houston ship channel having 56% increased risk of contracting acute leukemia, compared to those living outside ten miles. those living in the area with a mission of -- also generated in incineration, have an increased risk of developing three forms of leukemia. and a primary investigator for the u t study remarked that one in three -- is produced for primary industries, the primary one being plastic. recycling schemes, chemical recycling, and energy recovery don't even qualify for international recycling standards, because they rely on burning plastic. epa data on one -- plant reveals similar releases of toxic's from its diary, benzene, and -- people purchase goods. we don't purchase packaging it comes. it break free extends producer responsibilities, so the producers pay the bill for the infrastructure for robust recycling systems and minimum recycling content for beverage containers, so plastic products with recycled content had a fair shot compared to those with virgin plastic counterparts. the externalize coughed on our communities is unaccounted for and often ignored. with most, with the most vulnerable left to shoulder the industries human health cost and environmental cost for generations to come. we support the brake 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, sir, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. good morning, chairman taco. chairman pallone, and thank you for mr. pallone for, your longtime commitment to the recycling caucus. it's great to see you. ranking members morris rogers and mr. mckinley, thank you mr. mckinley, for your sponsorship of a great bill. my name is billy johnson, and i'm the chief lobbyist for the institute of scrap recycling industries. it's always an honor to be here for you today to discuss the important role of recycling to our economy and to our environment. thank you for inviting the reflecting industry, the industry responsible for collecting and processing the recyclables into great commodities. and to provide our thoughts about the different pieces of legislation today. recycling is an essential solution to responsibly supplier domestic and global manufacturing supply chains. the sustainable raw materials that help combat climate change and serve our national resources and safe energy. further, the recycling industry directly employs more than 164,000 people in every congressional district in america. but also generates over 117 billion dollars in annual economic activities. these numbers to tell the story of a strong and vibrant u.s. recycling industry. first, let me correct a misperception. recycling does work. although it is not certainly, without its challenges. in any given year, our countries for cycling infrastructure processes more than 130 million metric tons of recyclables, but otherwise might go to landfills. however, residential recycling represents only about 20% of the material that works its way through the nation's recycling infrastructure. the other 80% comes from the recycling commercial and industrial materials, and that material tends to be cleaner. second, there was no singular solution to the challenges we are experiencing in the residential recycling infrastructure. it was the residential recycling chain and associated infrastructure in the u.s. as a complex system, which is driven by market demands. it's also saddled with the supply chain that can be inconsistent, 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 is important, first, to understand what makes fortress actually recycling. first, successful recycling requires market command. if there's no and market to utilize the recycled materials of the collective, they will not be recycled unused again in manufacturing, regardless of the volume of material collected. collection without market consumption is not recycling. second, successful recycling requires minimal contamination, as recyclables are sold by specification grade with their corresponding value and marketability directly related to the quality. a third, products must be designed to be recycled, at the beginning. to take care of it's useful end-of-life or cycling for successful recycling to take place, whether the profit is a device, packaging, or a vehicle, it is imperative for the product and its packaging be designed for recycling. by doing so, recycling is more productive, which means more materials recycled endless material goes to landfills or incineration. what makes the residential recycling stream so different is that while it is subject to the same demand driven and markets as commercial and industrial recycling, it is saddled with an ever changing mix of materials on the supply side. that material flows into the string whether there is a market for it or not. this sets the residential recycling infrastructure apart from commercial and industrial recycling in the united states, and that's why the man needs a unique approach. -- the challenges experienced in a residential recycling infrastructure, we have seen a growing loss of confidence and recycling on the part of the general public. this is a great concern to all of us in recycling and manufacturing industries. it is imperative that we address these challenges with affective solutions to create a truly circular economy. i will go ahead and talk about the legislation during questions and answers at that point, but he is believed to all the stakeholders must come together to develop a common understanding of the weaknesses affecting the residential stream, and work together to develop a menu of solutions needed to be put in place. thank you for this opportunity to explain the complexities of the recycling systems, and i look forward to taking your questions. thank. you >> thank you, sir. we next half mister see home. you are recognized, sir, for five minutes, please. >> thank you. good afternoon, chairman tonko, ranking member mckinley, chairman pallone, and ranking member ma rogers and numbers of the committee. thank you for giving me the opportunity to prepare before you today. my name is matt seaholm, i'm president and ceo of the plastics industry association, originally founded in 1937 of the society of plastics industry, we strive to represent the entire supply chain of the plastic industry, which nearly 1 million americans are employed. our membership includes material suppliers, equipment manufacturers, processors, and are cyclers. let me first say, i very much appreciate the commitment of this committee to reduce solutions that will increase recycling rates and reduce waste. there's 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 ultimately reprocess more material, plain and simple. that goes for all sub straits, not just plastic. for too long, too much of the recycled material that was collected for recycling and was shipped overseas. countries like china we're building that recycling infrastructure, america was asleep at the wheel. we weren't significantly investing in modernization or expansion of material recovery facilities, with the necessary capabilities to keep up with incredible innovation. it has transpired in plastic products over the past 20 years. now, america must play catch up. plastics industry has invested billions of dollars in recycling technologies, and will continue to do so with billions more announced. this is a shared efforts, the one that requires partnerships at every level of government. for congress i would suggest a number of ways that together, we can improve recycling rates in our country. first, to increase investments in critical recycling infrastructure, to ensure collections, exhortation, and processing to keep up with the complexities of the marketplace. the epa has started the process for granting resources including the infrastructure investment and jobs act, which stems from the save our seas two point oh legislation passed in the last congress. it's a great start, but certainly more is needed. second promotes and markets irrelevant for the variety of plastics on the market to ensure demands remains for recycled materials. reasonable and attainable recycled content requirements can help spur investment and guarantee merkel's for recyclable materials. third, encourage innovations in recycling technologies, to ensure the variety of materials that cannot economically be recovered through traditional methods are included. moving towards a more circular economy, but perhaps more importantly i urge the committee in congress to not stifle innovation, in promising new technologies needed to get where we need to go. and fourth, develop national standards and definitions related to recycling, bringing greater efficiency to the collection, sorting, and recycling materials. not suggesting a one size fits all approach to recycling, but a consistent set of terms and guidance that will avoid and this is very complex of these that only make it harder to achieve our shared goals. i went at the hour association of members supports hr 59 the recycling and composting accountability act, as well as hr 81, 83, the recycling infrastructure and accessibility act, both orchid step in the right direction. unfortunately, we are very much opposed to title nine of hr 15, the climate future act, and hr 20 to 30, to break free from prosecution. at my time remaining, i would like to highlight the most concerning component of both bills. propose moratoriums on permits for new or expanded plastics manufacturing facilities would be devastating to our industry in nearly 1 million workers who are employed 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 majorities 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 oil based derivatives use of her in the world. reassuring our manufacturing supply chain -- party line, plastic is essential for the production of microchips to medical devices to electric vehicles. that's right. it will be impossible for america to reach its climate goals without plastic. it's too little plastic recycled? yes. can we build the necessary infrastructure to greatly increase our recycling rates? again, the answer, it's absolutely yes. our industry will continue to invest, but we welcome the partnership of leaders like yourself to give americas recycling system where it needs to be. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, mister see home. now, we will move to number questions. i will start by recognizing myself for five minutes. as lawmakers having access to the best, most recent data available, it's absolutely critical to make an informed decision on any policy matter. this extends to recycling, for certain. hr 80 59th, the recycling and accountability act, includes several provisions on collecting data and recycling and composting programs. mr. allaway, how will access to more recycling data help states and localities with their programs? >> chairman tonko, thank you for the question. i would like to reflect on the experience here in oregon, which recognizes as one of the best existing data set on recycling. 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 for voters in other states, and to really evaluate and recognize both the potential be p costs of our logistics 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. 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. i would caution against be taken only approach, as we've seen in our own experiences and some other places, that the busyness of collecting, evaluating data can become, in itself, its own mother system that consumes all bandwidth and prevent anything else from being done. data does not solve problems. data needs to be accompanied with policy solutions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. johnson, why is data collection and component of improving our recycling system? >> thank you. i completely agree. without that data, you are basically driving blind. you need to know how much you are collecting now, and what you are trying to achieve. without that, i don't really understand how you can make an accurate policy decision. so, you absolutely need the data to be able to make good decisions at the federal state and local levels. >> i agree that competence of data will assist communities across the nation by improving and maintaining their recycling programs. it will assist communities with their efforts and also helps businesses. miss erwin, 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 for the question, toronto. so, on the business and, circular economy have had a lot of criticism, mainly because it lacks data and the ability to understand how to use these data points. how can you track progress? i think that data points and collecting more reporting and standardizing what data points are collected would inform better decision-making for businesses, and also help them understand where the best opportunities are to invest in infrastructure and new technologies. >> all right, thank you for that. by filing those critical information gaps, policy makers at all levels will be equipped with the right tools to make much needed improvements to our nation's recycling infrastructure, and businesses, i believe, will be able to make investments. during this hearing, you will hear claims about single use plastics, the break free from plastic pollution act, recognize there is a 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. i think it's important to make these distinctions amongst these specific uses. myth irwin, the businesses that care about sustainable -- leave these sources of exclusion are important, while seeking to limit single-use plastic on certain products that could be more easily replaced reduced? >> yes. businesses have thrown commitments across the board in different sectors, especially consumer facing sectors. they are interested in -- these new circular value chains to meet customer demand. it's expected that they used to plastic will double in the next 20 years, and consumers largely want to switch to alternatives. i think 90% at this point. so, they don't want to see this waste and their communities, and they want reusable and sustainable packaging alternative. >> i thank you for those responses, and i see that my time is nearly expired. we will move to recognize representative mckinley, subcommittee ranking member, for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, chairman. again, i would like to direct my question, first, to matt seaholm, because i thought but chairman waiting kathy moore rogers was a good point, because the problem we should've learned from covid. we need more plastics, not less. so, on these questions, there's two of the bills impose a three year moratorium on permits for plastic in facilities, and as to allow the epa to develop the environmental air quality standards. now, we fully respect after three years of developing this and we know it will take three years to develop them, they're going to go through a series of litigation. they always have. then, after litigations are resolved, they're going to move over to where actually these plastic manufacturers will have to have designed and construct those facilities. we could have a prolonged period of time. my question is, how long do you think this pause could actually last? >> thank you for the question. that, certainly, is our biggest concern. it's considered a temporary pause, but because of the way it is written, there's no for certain and state for that both. in the meantime, we have got members who have to apply for permits every five years, and in the expansion or new components of their facilities could trigger this temporary pause, and ultimate 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 than it is to actually stop the production of plastic. >> thank you. the other is that i'm told that at least 60 to 70% of the rules that were promulgated by that eta under obama have been overturned in the courts. just 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 plant. madam, by imposing this de facto ban, is this just another example of the epa overreach? >> i'll let you make that determination. once again, our concern here is the incredible number of jobs it does threaten. most important, the supply chains. the point i made about shifting these supply chains elsewhere, i think, has been exposed in recent months. in particular, as we've identified, we need to have supply chains that are domestic. if you take this plastic production and put it elsewhere, and you put it in a place where we don't have easy access to it, it will send ripples through the entire system and i think at this point, we can't recognize that the vast majority of manufactured products do use plastic in some way, shape, or form. >> thank you. now, mr. johnson, i've got two questions for you. maybe it's just a yes or no. do you think we could legislate human change, 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 in the ban. so, in that regard, i think it provides a necessary education for them to recycle efficiently, to keep the contamination out of the recycled streams to begin with. >> i appreciate your answer. i think you are not, my question, i'm afraid we're trying to, once again, trying to change human behavior by legislation, and that's what i think a lot of recycling is, i think there needs to be more free market based change. let's go back to rural communities. they don't have these facilities, looking at the legislation that my co-sponsor. will this, if we don't have these facilities, yet we impose more stringent recycling, is it going to raise the cost of living for people in rural areas around this country? >> well, i think the bill that you have sponsored is a great bill to try out different approaches in different areas. one size does not fit all in the united states. so, i commend you for the bill. some of the ideas or concepts, like the extended produced a responsibility, would increase costs to the american consumer. >> in closing, i'm running out of my time, i do hope mr. seaholm will get back to us, because i would like to know from his members what advances have been made in biodegradable plastics. we talked about that two years ago, if someone could give us an update on the progress we are making on that. thank you, and i yield back to. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair in a represents -- 4% of polo, cooking many chair for five minutes to ask questions, please. >> thank you, chairman thank. oh the various challenges to -- discuss today have sparked innovative policy at the local and state levels, and the solutions like extended producer responsibility and container deposit programs, could be scaled up and replicated across the country. so, the bipartisan infrastructure bill -- can fund improvements, mr. all away, from your perspective, how can federal funding for recycling programs support improvements already underway at the state and local level? >> thank, you chairman pallone. the financial needs of the recycling system at the local and state level are at least an order of magnitude of possibly two orders more than the funds provided in the federal infrastructure act. it's very helpful i hope that congress would view that with the understanding that's because of the generally unfavorable economics of recycling, which is a consequence of market price is failing to account for social costs, the economic needs of the recycling system are much larger that was provided in the advanced program. as some of the other speakers have said, and i would agree, that needs of the recycling system across the country very from community to community. recycling is very different in different communities. there are, however, some commonalities. there is generally a lack of reflection opportunity for many households, as well as businesses in this country. so, there are opportunities to provide access to collection. very importantly, the processing facilities, which sort out recyclables, excuse me, are generally under invest and under capitalized, and there are important games that could be realized by improving those processing facilities. i would also mention that epa in many states have adopted a waste management hierarchy that prioritizes prevention and reuse of recycling, because of the superior -- benefits, and there is significant the tension that could be realized between simple prevention techniques such as providing infrastructure that allows people to drink tap water as opposed to relying on single-use disposable bottles. thank you. >> i want to ask another question, because in my clean future act, we have language that creates a variety of incentives for recycled materials like post consumer recycled content standards, and extended producer responsibility program. i think these policies would help expand markets to recycle materials by making it more economical for manufacturers to use recycled content, compared to new or virgin materials. let me issue briefly, because i have another question. your testimony has a similar message. briefly, what kind of federal policies would be most effective and impactful to provide incentives for recycled material? >> chairman, i would agree that both extending the responsibility and post consumer recycled -- it carefully and thoughtfully designed, would create incentives to provide and increase markets for recycled material. >> all right, thanks. let me ask mr., miss irwin, in your testimony, you highlight the business case for investing in alternatives to single use virgin plastics. how can federal policy compliment and accelerate this type of market shift, if you will? >> thank you for the question, chairman pallone. right now, most businesses have voluntarily pledged to do this work. that accounts for only 20% of consumer markets at this time. we need policy to put everyone in the room to come two solutions together and put this funding and these objectives together so they can adopt these standards and circulate innovation across value chain and across the industry. >> all right, thanks so much. i see my friend billy johnson i didn't have a question for you, but i do want to thank you for being here today. and thank you for all you do to promote the industry. i really think, as i said, i chair the recycling caucus and i don't hear too many things other than this committee, but i do it because it's very important, i think, for us to continue to try to promote recycling and do it in a bipartisan way. i know there is some disagreements at obviously, we can see today. i definitely think this is something where democrats and republicans can work together to make a difference in something that brings people to actually participate in ways to improve the environment. so, let's just continue to work together and see how we can move forward in a positive way. thank you, mister chairman. >> thank you, mr. pallone. >> the gentleman yields back. you are most welcome. the chair now recognizes mrs. rogers, representative rogers, full committee ranking member for five minutes. ask questions? >> thank you, mister chairman. i appreciate the chairman's comments about working together on bipartisan solutions. those that will encourage innovation, i believe there are ways we can work together to develop new ways to curve our resources and recycled materials. i believe my biggest concern is around threatening our standard of living and our competitiveness, which i think we also need to consider. mr. seaholm, i wanted to ask a series of questions to help me better understand. the break free from plastic pollution act, entitled ninth of the future act, reflects this drive to ban plastic from the united states economy. i just want to ask some questions to better understand. when people think of a single use plastic, they focus on straws and lunch bags. would these bills only affect these items?>. you are absolutely right. got it >> certainly not. i think you're absolutely right. thermoplastic is a very, very broad one, but oftentimes, it gets wrongly applied. in this case, i think especially when we're looking at the moratorium on new plastics manufacturing facilities, it would cover every type of plastic imaginable. there is really about six polymers, six categories of polymers, but there are hundreds if not thousands of in front of the plastics out there. it would cover them all. >> would you consider the most important kinds of single-use plastics like for health care or safety applications or plastics that help us lower carbon emissions? would that be included? >> well, that's sort of like asking someone to choose their favorite child. we do represent the entire plastics industry. i would say all single use plastics have a purpose, and whether that is to protect food and keep from spoiling, or certainly medical devices and ppe are the things we have become acutely aware of, and the valley of plastic over the last couple of years. so, once again, these this legislation would cover everything from food packaging to automotive parts when it comes to the production of plastic. >> so, if we were to implement a ban, are there equally affected and affordable alternatives? what would eliminating were significantly limiting the use of plastic materials used for our economy and way of life? >> every product, every business made manufacturing a product, uses the material they did for a reason. that's why plastic oftentimes is the choice, whether it's performance properties, whether it's hygienic reasons, whether it's availability and safety components of it, at the end of the day simply were gonna stop using doesn't get rid of the demand for the product in the question. that's where you get a movement on other materials. at the end of the day, when you look at the assessments, plastic almost always wins when compared to other products before the applications that it's used for. thank you, i appreciate those insights. mr. johnson, no doubt recycling has a lot of benefits and we want to figure out how to do this. does a one size fits all approach makes sense for recycling and could you speak to the role of the federal government, -- >> it's great to see you. one size fits all does not work. recycling unspoken doesn't work the same as in albany, as in little rock. let me caveat that. the residential recycling is a local issue, that is better handled at the local level. and more of the industrial and commercial where the vast majority of recycling happens, it does have some regional issues but it's closer to the one size fits all, but certainly not at the residential level, where you have a different mix of materials coming into the recycling stream. and the residential recycling systems, they really don't have a choice of what they get to accept, other than you and me, the citizens, sorting that material before it gets into that system. >> i wanted to ask, on mr. mckinley's bill, really focusing on a pilot project for rural areas, how long will it last and do you have a sense of how much funding would need to be authorized? >> i'm not a good guess of money on that for you, the cbo and such would be better at that, but i think you do need a period of time, at least five years or more, to see whether 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. and how to do it right. and at the beginning, if you throw too much stuff in the mix, they get better educated about what they are putting in there, they will start to reduce the contamination and it will get better, and i think five years might be a good timeframe. >> thank, you mister chairman, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes from illinois, subcommittee chair for consumer protection and commerce, welcome senator sir kasky. >> thank you, mister chairman, i'm old enough to remember the 1960s movie the graduate. dustin hoffman was the graduate and a businessman looked very seriously in the eye to give him advice, and he said, plastics, plastics, that is the future. i actually think that certainly the screenwriter was right in predicting that but i also think that have been some very devastating consequences. in 2018 about 36 million tons of plastics were generated in the united states. he had less than 10% of the plastics actually recycled. instead, we find them in our landfills, bodies, water, even in animals bodies. in the midwest, nearly 22 million pounds of plastics entered the great lakes, each year, more than half of that comes into like michigan, in my district. and scientists estimate that pound for pound, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans in 2050 if we don't do anything about it. will recycling alone solve the plastic waste crisis that i believe now exists in the united states today, mr. david allaway? i will ask another question and you can answer them all at once. which common plastic products, are the most harmful, and finally, are there legitimate alternatives on the horizon to replace these plastics? >> thank you, representative, to your first question, will recycling alone solve the problem, it's impossible, it can make a modest contribution towards reducing these impacts but there are other solutions, we evaluated the impact of drinking water out of a single use p e t bottle and recycling it, versus drinking tap water, and even when the impacts of the dishwasher were taken into account, the reusable option was found to be a far superior, much lower environmental impact. so to be beneficial, it has to be done well. a recent study in the journal of science advances estimates that the u. s. recycling system itself may be one of this country's largest vectors for continuing to have plastics in the world's oceans. and that is because of the lack of regulation in accountability at processing and our exporting of contaminated matures other countries through this history. recycling can, help but it has to be done well in order to help reduce this problem. to your other questions, which types of types of plastic are most impactful, and are there legitimate alternatives? there are thousands of different types of plastics and i'm afraid i don't feel qualified at the moment to identify which of those thousands are the most harmful. that's a little bit out of my wheelhouse. i apologize. are there is legitimate alternatives? yes, all materials have alternatives. but i would like to find some common ground with with matt see home, and point that there are instances, there are materials, plastics that offer this is pure environmental choice. so long as the impacts of the plastic waste is managed appropriately and does not end up in oceans or peoples bodies. and that to me, seems like the primary challenge here. how do you realize the benefits that plastics can provide will avoiding any negative impacts a plastic prediction improper disposal? >> thank you so much for that answer. i won it but to turn to miss erwin. how -- what's the, hold on a second. i didn't guess i just wanted to ask, just 20 companies right now responsible for most of the production. i wondered if you could suggest how can we ensure that businesses steer away from single-use and virgin plastic production? >> great question, thank you, congresswoman. so, the first thing is the pricing signals. right, now it's much cheaper to source and use verging plastic as opposed to recycled plastic and other alternatives and other substitutes. that is a large component of the issue. >> i appreciate this. it's an issue that we really have to deal with, that i think there is an urgency about it. i thank you, and i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio. representative johnson, recognized for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, thank you mister chairman. you know, inflation is hitting my constituents and eastern and southeastern ohio really her. they are struggling more than ever to fill up their tanks, to buy personal care products, pulled their children, and even afford food. so, 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, shut down the manufacturing of much of the plastic packaging that the foods that they buy actually come in. i mean, 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, and everything in between would not exist without plastics. and so, moratoriums on the manufacturing of such a widely used an important material is by definition highly inflationary. and would only serve to make us more vulnerable to precarious global supply chains, while killing thousands of good paying american jobs here at home. so, mr. see home, you mentioned that much of america's plastic feedstock is derived from the refining of natural gas, which might happens to be blast within an abundance of. for instance, we have the massive multi billion dollar shell methane cracker plant in monacans, pennsylvania, coming on the summer. if title ix of the clean future act, or the brake three act went into law, how would benefits our projects like these and insular manufacturing industries be affected? >> well, i think the timing of that facility, i'm not sure where they are in their permitting process. but i think you've identified -- >> their permits are already done. they were supposed to come online this summer. >> okay, well, in that case, the next time they come up for a renewal is probably the first time that they are going to end up with a question mark. but i would say that that facility in particular is a very interesting one. i would say strategic for our national supply chains. it's the first one, really, in the midwest that has been built. and because of that, it takes away the over reliance on the houston area in particular, or the gulf coast, where one hurricane can significantly disrupt a supply chain. in addition, you had the deep freeze last february, now we saw significant impacts. so, if you find yourself in a place where you are building a facility and you cannot get a permit, there are other concerns not just about the supply chains nearby, it's national. >> okay, well, continuing with you, mister seaholm, with plastic products being so prominent in our everyday lives, if the government were to severely curtail their production, with this ad, in your opinion, to the shortages and supply chain disruptions that are causing crippling inflation for so many, not only my constituents, but americans across the country, and if so, how so? >> i think the question -- i think the simple answer to that is yes, it would increase costs. it would reduce supply, well demand would not go down. in fact, demand is, as we've heard today, going up significantly. anytime that happens, you've got inflationary pressures. and even if you push the production elsewhere, it is going to increase the cost to transport it. put it all together, all of that packaging, all of those plastic products that are used to to a grocery store every day. you know, it may not seem like much, but you add a penny to every single one of these packages, and it adds up when you go to the track of counter. >> and it's also going to make us very much more dependent on foreign sources for the things that we need in our everyday lives, which he will agree. >> i absolutely would. and that's one of our biggest concerns. >> yeah, okay, well, mister chairman, thank you for the time, i'm going to yield you back oh old 30 seconds. >> well, thank you sir for the 30 seconds. we appreciate your questions. and next we will recognize the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york, representative clark for five minutes, please. >> thank you mister chairman. thank you for holding this important hearing and bringing this crucial legislation, the clean future zach, to the foreign of our discussion. addressing the issues of our recycling system is an important step towards a more sustainable and equitable future. as such, i would like to better understand some of the environmental justice concerns with proposals related to the management of plastic pollution, turn chemical, or advanced recycling. i am concerned that chemical recycling is a false solution that does not contribute to the circular economy. it increases dangerous emissions at a time when we should be finding ways to bring environmental justice to the frontline and fence like communities. so, to direct -- first of, all 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 advance recycling can cause for eeg communities? >> thank you represent of clark. the impacts we see on incineration communities and plants are similar to those we see in plastic production. that's why the entire plastic life cycle harms communities of color. and so, like i said in my statement, the releases include benzene, starring, and tell you mean, that will disproportionately affect our communities who are largely uninsured. this means everything from reproductive system, harms on the reproductive system, the developmental system, slow reaction times for children's and adults, we've seen numerous studies that link incineration and production with elevated cancer in our communities, specifically the closer you are. and we know that communities closer to incineration, landfill and production 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 their long term health and prosperity. as a long term resident of areas near oil and gas facilities, can you talk about a similarities to those facilities that burn plastic in the name or cycling? and your experience with more traditional energy facility, what long term generational impacts can this type of air pollution have on nearby communities? >> taking top six like benzene, people assume that they will leave the system as soon as the chemical disaster is over, right. when in reality, if there is a chemical disaster of fire at a unseen ration plant, or at a plastic production plant, we do not get any alarms. we don't get any news. we are not told what kind of chemicals are coming out of the stacks. neither our first responders and firefighters who are then exposed to these kinds of conditions. we have seen countless lawsuits from workers, temporary workers, even please departments, for 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 to light. and we also get no resources to even go to toxicologists. we had a fire back in 2018. and we are told, go get your blood checked. one single blood test for benzene, toluene, or styrene, ranks around 300 $400. multiply that by four, that is the cost our communities is picking up. >> thank, you i appreciate. that miss hoffman, as the operator of a material recovering facility, or a rmf, do you consider the practices currently used for advanced chemical recycling to be true to the definition of recycling? >> thank you for that question. the short answer is no. they are not in with the definition of recycling because they are linear consumption. anything that is improving to date has been creating fuel from plastics, which is then burnt. this is not circular. it does not keep those resources at play. and our cars that we go back and continue to extract more for any continue production. >> thank, you ms. of men. mr. -- , our new recycling bill in oregon does not exclude the use of chemical recycling, but as environmental safeguards in place, should that technology be chosen? can you elaborate on those safeguards and why they are important to protect communities? >> thank you, representative. yes, oregon's new policy framework allows producer responsibility organizations to send materials to a chemical recycling pathway as long as three conditions are met. first, the impacts of that pathway have to be fully evaluated and disclosed and compared against alternative pathways, such as mechanical recycling or landfilling. secondly, the chemical recycling process needs to be confirmed responsibly. and finally, this pathway is not allowed if there is an alternative pathway, such as mechanical recycling that delivers a superior environmental outcome. >> thank you mr. allaway. unfortunately, my time is elapsed. mister chairman, i yield back. but thank you for your response. thank you to all of our panelists today. i yield back. >> the general loony now leans back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the state of georgia, senator carter, welcome for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. and thank you all of our witnesses for being here today. you know, listening to this, to this today, this hearing today, it just appears like the disagreement over fossil fuels all over again. i mean, it is as if my colleagues -- already predetermine a policy with an outcome in mind that does not really take into account real life issues and real life implications. you know, but if we want to reduce emissions, we have a lot of options at our disposal to make so, to make sure that we do that. but instead, it seems like the rhetoric is that we cannot have a future at all with reliable fossil fuels. even those, even those, the fossil fuel industry has done a great job of decreasing emissions. you know, even if they were to go to a net negative or a net zero, i am not sure that so my colleagues would've accepted at all. it just seems to be a war on fossil fuels. in today's case, we have two bills that we are talking about. and two of them basically just eliminate plastics. in fact, one of them is called breaking free from plastic. so, it just bothers me. you know, i'm a pharmacist by trade. and i know the importance of plastic and ppe, personal a quid -- personal protective equipment, but also for manufacturing it's extremely important. and to say it can't be done. i disagree i have to wholeheartedly disagree. i've got two examples here in georgia, nexus circular, right now they are doing innovative advanced recycling. they're taking four types of use plastic that represent about 60% of the global plastic waste, and including in very difficult kinds of plastic, like films and breaking it down into basement heroes that then are used for new birthing quality circular plastics. this can be done in a circular fashion. they're doing it, they're doing in this country, even coca-cola, another georgia company has set a goal for at least 50% of recycled content in their packaging by 2030, which is not that far from them. so, advanced recycling is how we can achieve this and how we should achieve this. there are other exciting things that are going on. there is a project going on right now that is going on to create bio plastic caps and cups, bio plastic cups, at 28 mcdonald's in my district, bio plastic cups. that is the kind of innovation that we need. i have always said, you, know it is going to take innovation to do this. i want to ask you, mr. seaholm, do you agree with ms. hoffman's characteristics -- characterization of advanced recycling, and what is your thoughts on the truly advance recycling like i have described? >> well, we are wholeheartedly supportive of advanced recycling. first and foremost, you know, much of the discussion today has been focused on what we cannot recycle and what is difficult to recycle and how we have not kept up with the modernization of packaging, flexible and particular is something that you just mentioned. you know, one stat that is very impressive is that 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 gases behind both china and the united states. that is a value for climate purpose. we need to figure out ways in which to recycle it. and advance recycling presents the best option at this point to take some 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. >> mr. seaholm, what can the federal government do to encourage this and consolidate it? >> i think what i indicated earlier was first, do not stifle it. that is most important. there is 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 research and development that is going into it. as producing things like this. this is an advanced recycled product. not to make this into a show and tell. but that is what we have gotten. and it shows that it is possible. >> well, thank you, and thank you again to all of the members of the, the witnesses here for this hearing. and thank you madam -- , i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, representative peters, you're recognized for five minutes, please. >> thank you mister chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing. but although recycling rates have increased across the country for a several years, our statewide recycling rate in california has primarily been below 50% since 2014. states are still facing challenges that are hampering improvements to recycling. and market driven solutions are going to be a piece of the puzzle when it comes to finding long-term sustainable solutions to our recycling crisis. mr. allaway, as someone who dealt with the repercussions of the national -- imposition in oregon, can you explain the benefits of the building domestic markets for materials that were previously exported to china? >> thank you, representative. the primary benefit of domestic markets really is increasing the adaptability other cycling system, the more markets you, have the better. and also that generally speaking, domestic markets will management heroes, manage recyclables in a more responsible way, resulting in less pollution and more better management of incoming contamination, then some export markets will in some countries. >> okay, mr. irwin, in your testimony, he said businesses are ready to be part of the solution. i think we are all happy to hear that, because we all know that private sector solutions are critical to improving our nations recycling system and working towards a sustainable more circular economy. using alternatives to version and single use plastics -- enable market conditions to make that possible. what are some of the challenges to scaling virgin and single-use plastic alternatives? >> great, thank you congressman. so, i would say that first of all, you know, there is no incentives to change design at this time. from the beginning of the product design. so, things like the color the plastic, the shape of the material to be more like an aluminum can that everyone uses that same design. so, that is a big part of it. i think that there's also not a lot of knowledge exchange happening between all of the stakeholders in the value chain. so, policy like break free from plastic puts all these people in the room to form a solution for very complex challenge. >> are there specific policies, federal policies, that you think can address the challenges you mentioned? should 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 winds for the government to adopt. and you know, get industry agreement, because they are already using it. >> miss erwin, do you have any specific state examples that you would recommend to us that we look at that can even the -- >> yes, in reuse, there is a estimate are called but pr3 that is been piloted it in seattle to great success. and recycle across america, raa labeling standard, which has been adopted in national parks and other businesses across the united states. >> i appreciate that very much. it's clear that we are going to need a federal policy to incentivize robust markets for recycled materials. i'm glad the committee is working on solutions. i am not as willing to close out anything. i'm not willing to close out any solution, impossible, to see what we can do to recycle these materials. and i appreciate the hearing again, the witnesses, and i go back. >> the gentleman lethal -- yields back, and now recommends the gentleman from alabama. representative bomber, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. i think my democrat colleagues for pulling this hearing from. i just think that there needs to be more thought into eliminating plastics and a separate thing be undertaken to do that. especially when you consider that there is more than 50 tons of plastic in the blades of a five megawatt wind turbine. and i just wonder how we are going to go to renewables if we are eliminating plastics, including the plastics that are used in solar panels. and those are not recyclable. i brought this up many times in the hearing, about the fact that turbine blades are being buried in enormous landfills in wyoming. it's estimated there will be 43 million tons of blade waste, including plastics, that will be accumulated by 2050. and if we are going to eliminate all plastics, that means we'll have to eliminate the plastics that are necessary for building batteries for electric vehicles. you can't separate the cells and make them operate effectively without plastic. i just wonder, mr. seaholm, it 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 it's unfortunate because, 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. it's really the approaches to which we used to get to those goals. but i think you highlighted a couple of important applications for plastic that goes directly towards climate priorities. >> if you replace the plastics and -- you will 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 for everybody. it's going to be hard on income -- low income families and families on fixed incomes. and not only on the energy side, it's also going to impact on the food side. there's a wall street journal article that recently highlighted the issues that you are facing and the united kingdom's, grocery stores that are trying to completely eliminate all plastics. it was everything from food waste, shoplifting, to using more expensive paper packaging. and again, these are policies that i am not sure people thought about the unintended consequences of eliminating plastics. is that what you are saying as well? >> typically, in all the policies that are really meant to be punitive, whether it's towards the industry or the consumer, it results in unintended consequences. that is what we see first and foremost. it is not the intention of the legislation to cause those. but that really does become the cause. and that's where we see cost increase. we see environmental impacts that were not expected. put it all together, and that is typically where bipartisan bills, like two of those before us today, are much better approach. >> i think they need to be a deep dive into what the cost would be of eliminating plastics. whether it's the cost of energy, the cost of groceries, i just do not think family should have to decide between filling up their gas tank are filling up their grocery cart. the last point that i want to make is in regard to the supreme court decision's ruling that the epa does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. i introduced legislation in 2017 to that effect that would stop the epa's overreach in that regard. would have brought that back to congress. so that we are the ones who make those decisions. and i am grateful for the supreme court's actions yesterday. and it validates something that the former chairman of this committee said, congressman john dingell, who said -- who is one of the authors of the clean air act, said it was never the intent of congress for the epa to regulate greenhouse gases. and that's just another example of where we as members of congress need to take responsibility. thank you mister chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now welcomes the representative from virginia, the gentleman from virginia. mr. mceachin. you are recognized for five minutes, please. >> thank you mister chairman. it cannot be disputed that plastic pollution disproportionately affects marginalized and under representative communities, not only in my district, but across this nation. well we must find ways to reduce pollution and increase the use, we must do so in a responsible and equitable manner. mr. allaway, in your testimony, you state that in oregon's research on recycling, you discover that recycling, quote, distributes burdens and benefits in equitably. could you speak to those inequities, and how does oregon in their program seek to mitigate those inequities? >> thank you, representative. there is a number of different ways in which the recycling system, at least in our state and i presume the rest the country distributes benefits and burdens in equitably. in oregon, it is residents of single family homes in communities that are closer in geographic proximity to infrastructure that have better access to recycling opportunities and lower cost. residents of rural communities do not have as good access. the transition from comingled collection to the transition to comingled collection has shifted impacts, occupational hazards and's health and safety impacts from collection workers to frontline processing facility workers, the individuals who are sorting these recycles at the processing facility are often time people of color. inadequate processing and -- exports result in health impacts 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 rural recycling, and specifically to address these challenges of transportation, a living wage requirement for processing facility workers, our act regulates processing facilities and requires a responsibility markets requirement, specifically with regard to where these recyclables are going. -- 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 of multi family housing. what did y'all learn from that outreach? >> thank you. we learned that everyone, you know, regardless of geographic location of skin color, once they're recycling system succeed. they want to be able to recycle. they won 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 i mispronounce your name, arellano, good you labyrinth on the disproportionate short and long term health impacts of plastic pollution on fence line and eda communities? >> i can. thank you representative mceachin for all the work you did on egypt for all. i'd like to start with the fact that we have 184 plastic plants and expansions coming our way. like i said earlier, in houston, we don't have -- we are not the only city. but we are the largest city that has that. so, when we are talking about new plastic plants, we are talking about putting an elementary school, a daycare, a senior center and an entire community next to a community -- next to a plastic producing facility. but you are saying is that our communities are disposable for an extra catch-up packet, for another straw, for another grocery bag, when this bill straight-up tackles and says let's improve the recycling system, let's say no to these extra plastics that nobody even asked for. nobody asked for 20 catches packets in their fast food bag. so, why is it that this is even a debate? what i'm trying to get at is 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, know evacuation plans, no alert systems, now we are being told by the supreme court that we cannot rely on the environmental protection agency to protect environmental justice communities. and we have to rely on you all here. so, when i'm talk about all the harms, this also includes multi generational 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 you bring to this issue. mister chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from utah. representative curtis. you are recognized for five minutes. and welcome. you know, as i've l>> thank you, mr. ranking member, hello from utah from everyone. thanks to our witnesses in the great questions we've had today. you know, as i've listened to this hearing, there have been two themes almost showing out at me. and i would 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 it's okay to close our eyes and push this overseas, and prohibit here in the united states, where we always do it better. we control a mission safety, human rights, and this idea that it somehow okay to ban it here and allow -- cities is a huge problem. the second parallel is this concept of jumping ahead of solutions, banning plastics for things that are critical use in medical applications 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 the never enough. in the energy world, listen, i represent coal country, oil and gas country, and i have seen the shaming in it's full glory. and we are trying to do the same things to this plastic industry. and the next thing that follows is demonization of the people involved in this. i think all of these are harmful to this discussion. and i hope we will keep these parallels in mind. but the that second thing that is kind of obvious to me, and this was kind of fun, and i'm sure many of you will agree with me, it is my time as mayor really help 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 on the curb. we move from that to an opt out. and as we've had these conversations today about changing human behavior, it really makes me wonder if we should not pull all of 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 this. along those lines, and i would direct the question to mr. johnson, as it relates to this, you mentioned a loss of confidence, when we talk about individual consumers, and trying to get them motivated and interested in recycling, tell me how much these two factors, confusion plays into it, and what could we be doing not at a federal level but all levels of government to change that, and get consumers more engaged? >> thank you, mr. curtis. it's 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 those, of turning in all of your, you know, metal 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. the american people want to recycle. it conserves our resource, our natural resources, for future generations. and protects our environment for everyone. and i think making people aware that you do not just throw things away. you recycle them. and to make it easier for them to do and to make them more aware of the importance of a cycling for the energy savings, for the environment to protection, i think that's why mr. mckinley's bill is a really environment -- really wonderful start with that. because especially if we live in certain areas, like washington, d.c., there's a lot of recycling around. but it's not everywhere. and i think trying to get out to underserved communities, the rural, urban, or where have you, is terribly important. and making people aware of how important it is from all the things that i said. but people want to recycle. they don't want to live in an area, you, know what traps around. i'm >> i'm gonna lose my time. but i'd like to make another quick point. if you go from community to community here in utah, you will find different rules about what can go into recycling. and if i talk to my kids, they are confused. and i think we can do a much better job. the last one, i have not really heard it discussed today, it's glass. and extreme complications from a mayor standpoint for glass. but we are out of time. some don't introduce that is problematic, and yield my time, mister chairman. >> thank you. [silence] >> i just unmuted. let me repeat that. we welcome the gentleman from florida, representative soto. you are recognized for five minutes. and thank you for joining us. >> thank you chairman. climate change is real. it's human caused. and it's leading to intensifying whether, rising seas, and more extreme heat days in florida and many other areas of the country. what's our republican colleagues plan to combat climate change? to do nothing. what's the supreme court's plan to combat climate change? to do nothing. today's clean air act ruling is another roadblock in president biden's ability to combat carbon emissions. the supreme court has made it clear, guns deserve more constitutional protections than women or the planet. we on this committee 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 the epa to assess recycling, improve efficiency, and develop best practices for states, local governments, and tribes. members, regardless of what side the aisle you are on, we can do this. let's continue to work together on that. and then the recycling infrastructure and accessibility act. it directs the epa to create a pilot program to award grants between half 1 million to $15 million to states, local governments, indian tribes, and public private partnerships. 70% is set aside for underserved communities. also, bipartisan. last year, my hometown of kissimmee, florida, had to eliminate glass recycling, quote, due to the high cost associated with processing. these rates will be a game-changer for communities like pars. mr. allaway, small towns across america often have cost barriers to reach full recycling. would the half 1 million to 50 million grants under the proposed recycling infrastructure and accessibility act help overcome these barriers? and if so, how? the >> representative, thank you. certainly, any improvement to infrastructure will help to improved economics as a recycling system. but i would caution members of the committee from expecting infrastructure prevents alone will solve the problem. the majority of the cost of the recycling system are so shaded with operating costs, not capital or infrastructure. so long as transportation is required, transportation is expensive, it's going to be a challenge, and markets are distant, it will be a challenge, and economic challenges to move materials to market. >> so, this helps out, but there's more we could 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 and some of these infrastructure needs and our assessments we need to make? >> representative, generally speaking, yes, improvements in investments in infrastructure are helpful. there are written testimony details, i would also propose improvements in infrastructure by themselves and their current scope are inadequate to making a meaningful and sustained improvement in the nation's a cycle system. thank. you >> absolutely, i agree, and we invest over 240 million and the recent new infrastructure law. but there's more that we have to do. ms. arellano, currently out of the pacific, there is a floating garbage island that is more than double the size of your home state of texas. what's 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 can't 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 we're saying here is, how about let's 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 we're 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. that's 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 re-permit 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 don't 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, it's a pretty big question because it's 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. that's why i'm asking so. please, i'm 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 we're going to go to those who chose to waive on, we're 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 subcommittee's hearing. thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony today. i'm really glad to hear from all of you about the issues before us, including my fellow houstonian director ariano. i'm 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 we've heard a little bit about already today, but i asked to wave on and i'm here today because i'm a longtime proponent for recycling and i'm 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, i'm 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, it's 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. we've 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 doesn't 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. that's another theme we've heard today for materials that can't 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 it's 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 can't 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 that's really important which is the public confusion around recycling. and you know, as many have noted, there is a great deal of confusion, but there's 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 we're discussing today, that you think we should be looking at in congress to kind of address that consumer confusion. >> thank you, representative. well, it's 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 portland's 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 they're required to put the recycling logo and that is a major source of confusion, i believe. >> well, thank you for that. that's really helpful. and chairman tonko, i see i've 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 that's what you've 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. >> you're most welcome and we thank you for joining us and the gentlelady yields back and now we move to the gentleman from ohio, who's also been waved down for today's 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, it's 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%. it's a much higher content. and it's largely driven because they want that material back into their into their mills -- and it's probably going to increase as we go on. when i mean 70% it has the 70% -- recycled material. i don't 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, they're 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 you're 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 today's hearing. however, before we conclude business, there have been several documents that have been presented during the course of the hearing and they've 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 world's 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 today's 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.

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Georgia ,Alabama ,Texas ,Washington ,China ,Florida ,Minnesota ,Illinois ,California ,Virginia ,Togo ,Oregon ,Russia ,Toronto ,Ontario ,Canada ,Michigan ,Egypt ,Petersburg ,Sankt Peterburg ,Colorado ,Pennsylvania ,Houston ,Ohio ,Chicago ,Utah ,Americans ,America ,Russian ,American ,Flynn Hoffman ,David Holloway ,Alan Lowenthal ,William Johnson ,Ma Rogers ,Billy Johnson ,Los Angeles ,Stephanie Erwin ,Dustin Hoffman ,Moore Rogers ,