Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Solutions To Recycling 202

Hearing. [inaudible] members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak. Since members are participating from different locations at todays hearing, all recognition of members such as four questions will be in the order of subcommittee seniority. Documents for the record can be sent to kylie rogers at the email address we have provided to staff. All documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. To give our digital team some notice, it is important to share with them that otherss comments will be accepted and will be entered into the record. Earlier this morning, the Supreme Court limited the epas authority to protect Public Health and the environment in the face of congressional a role that is no longer in the books and never went into effect. I am completely dismayed by this decision. I do know in the days ahead the subcommittee will study the decision and examine all options while urging the epa to take renewed action however possible to reduce Greenhouse Gas pollution. Back to the topic of the hearing, today is an opportunity to examine for topics to address waste and recycling challenges. The American Public likes recycling, but many people have concerns that what they put out does not end up being recycled. These concerns are not unfounded. Many recyclable products and 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 the positions. We learned that in recent years our nations are cyclers have been under financial pressure. The closure of the chinese export market has had major impacts of the United States recycling system, causing municipalities to scale back their profitable programs, many of which are now actually costing local government money. These changing Market Conditions expose efficiencies in domestic markets, education and infrastructure that had been long overlooked as long as china was willing to accept our waste. In order to get us back on track, last years bipartisan infrastructure law, congress to recognize the the municipal recycling systems. It included a 275page appropriation for recycling and waste infrastructure brands and 75 billion for education and outreach brands. I believe these investments will be complimentary to the proposals that will be discussed today. We seek to address many of those challenges previously identified. H are 80 59, a bipartisan bill seeks to improve recycling Data Collection, harmonization, and reporting to allow us to better understand the state of our nations recycling and composting systems. Bipartisan bill from Ranking Member mckinley and representative would authorize a Pilot Program at the epa to provide assistance to approve recycling accessibility with a majority of funds going to underserved communities. Subtitles a through d b in title ix have proposed a policy to improve recycling. This includes grants for communityled zerowaste initiatives, funding for Greater Consumer education and outreach, requirements for manufacturers to design products to reduce environmental and Health Impacts, requirements for epa to standardize labeling guidelines, and the establishment of a natural deposit for task force to recommend [inaudible] similarly, hr 20 to 38 comprehensive policy solutions to reduce the production and use of Plastic Products. Today, the amount of profit Plastic Products being recycled is pitiful. We are relying more and more on plastics for packaging and other singleuse products. Many of these products are used for a few minutes before being sent to a landfill. Under the bestcase scenario, they will sit for many lifetimes. Requiring the companies that produce these to have better responsibilities for proper recycling or disposal. Several states and countries are establishing extended producer responsibility. I believe it would be wise for us to do the same. Ultimately, no single policy will fix our recycling system. Its going to take comprehensive efforts, examples of which we will discuss today. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about the steps that congress and the epa can take to improve our nations recycling and Waste Management systems. With that, i will recognize representative mckinley, a Ranking Member of the subcommittee on environment and Climate Change, for five minutes for his opening statement. Senator mckinley . Thank you, mister chairman. S been two y ears since we had thank you for conducting this hearing. It has been two years since we had this hearing on recycling. Its good to get back to it. We know its a problem. Let me also thank our panelists that are participating here today. We have six panelists. I think we have to all underscore that we know solid waste and plastic is a problem. Whether it is newspapers, automobile tires, plastics, batteries i could go on and on and on. Its not new. None of this is new. If you are a member recycling began under the government led program. We had our papers in one. We had our garbage in another. The government was trying to change Human Behavior. They were trying to impose a change. After 60 years, 60 years of government intrusion and trying to regulate and change Human Behavior, you just mentioned that we just recycled about 23 . About 23 of all the consumable products that we use. Once again, it looks like democrats just want the government to step in one more time with two of these four pieces of legislation. They want to ban plastics. For example, of the two of the four that called for a moratorium on any environmental permits for blasting facilities, that is just another name for banning the product altogether. Mister chairman, why are we letting the free market run its course . 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 dont 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 biogradeable 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 dont 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. Its 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 Nations 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. Im actually the cochair of the house recycling bill. Im very proud of. Its 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 president s 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 dont have the money, they cannot get people to recycle its 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 im afraid that we are getting away from that. Im 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, its 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. Im pleased to see this decision. We are facing and inflation and energy crisis, with gas prices at alltime highs, trips to the Grocery Store busting the budgets of american families, like, for example, antijurists 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 chairmans 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 singleuse 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 its 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 Supreme Court<\/a> limited the epas authority to protect Public Health<\/a> and the environment in the face of congressional a role that is no longer in the books and never went into effect. I am completely dismayed by this decision. I do know in the days ahead the subcommittee will study the decision and examine all options while urging the epa to take renewed action however possible to reduce Greenhouse Gas<\/a> pollution. Back to the topic of the hearing, today is an opportunity to examine for topics to address waste and recycling challenges. The American Public<\/a> likes recycling, but many people have concerns that what they put out does not end up being recycled. These concerns are not unfounded. Many recyclable products and up in our landfills and Plastic Waste<\/a> in particular is ending up in our environment and our oceans. This subcommittee held an oversight hearing in 2020 to better understand the positions. We learned that in recent years our nations are cyclers have been under financial pressure. The closure of the chinese export market has had major impacts of the United States<\/a> recycling system, causing municipalities to scale back their profitable programs, many of which are now actually costing local government money. These changing Market Conditions<\/a> expose efficiencies in domestic markets, education and infrastructure that had been long overlooked as long as china was willing to accept our waste. In order to get us back on track, last years bipartisan infrastructure law, congress to recognize the the municipal recycling systems. It included a 275page appropriation for recycling and waste infrastructure brands and 75 billion for education and outreach brands. I believe these investments will be complimentary to the proposals that will be discussed today. We seek to address many of those challenges previously identified. H are 80 59, a bipartisan bill seeks to improve recycling Data Collection<\/a>, harmonization, and reporting to allow us to better understand the state of our nations recycling and composting systems. Bipartisan bill from Ranking Member<\/a> mckinley and representative would authorize a Pilot Program<\/a> at the epa to provide assistance to approve recycling accessibility with a majority of funds going to underserved communities. Subtitles a through d b in title ix have proposed a policy to improve recycling. This includes grants for communityled zerowaste initiatives, funding for Greater Consumer<\/a> education and outreach, requirements for manufacturers to design products to reduce environmental and Health Impacts<\/a>, requirements for epa to standardize labeling guidelines, and the establishment of a natural deposit for task force to recommend [inaudible] similarly, hr 20 to 38 comprehensive policy solutions to reduce the production and use of Plastic Products<\/a>. Today, the amount of profit Plastic Products<\/a> being recycled is pitiful. We are relying more and more on plastics for packaging and other singleuse products. Many of these products are used for a few minutes before being sent to a landfill. Under the bestcase scenario, they will sit for many lifetimes. Requiring the companies that produce these to have better responsibilities for proper recycling or disposal. Several states and countries are establishing extended producer responsibility. I believe it would be wise for us to do the same. Ultimately, no single policy will fix our recycling system. Its going to take comprehensive efforts, examples of which we will discuss today. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about the steps that congress and the epa can take to improve our nations recycling and Waste Management<\/a> systems. With that, i will recognize representative mckinley, a Ranking Member<\/a> of the subcommittee on environment and Climate Change<\/a>, for five minutes for his opening statement. Senator mckinley . Thank you, mister chairman. S been two y ears since we had thank you for conducting this hearing. It has been two years since we had this hearing on recycling. Its good to get back to it. We know its a problem. Let me also thank our panelists that are participating here today. We have six panelists. I think we have to all underscore that we know solid waste and plastic is a problem. Whether it is newspapers, automobile tires, plastics, batteries i could go on and on and on. Its not new. None of this is new. If you are a member recycling began under the government led program. We had our papers in one. We had our garbage in another. The government was trying to change Human Behavior<\/a>. They were trying to impose a change. After 60 years, 60 years of government intrusion and trying to regulate and change Human Behavior<\/a>, you just mentioned that we just recycled about 23 . About 23 of all the consumable products that we use. Once again, it looks like democrats just want the government to step in one more time with two of these four pieces of legislation. They want to ban plastics. For example, of the two of the four that called for a moratorium on any environmental permits for blasting facilities, that is just another name for banning the product altogether. Mister chairman, why are we letting the free market run its course . 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<\/a>, the polymers that are being used. Some of them dont 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 biogradeable 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<\/a> like hazard, kentucky or petersburg, indiana or kermit, West Virginia<\/a> . These are small towns that dont 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<\/a> 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<\/a>. 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. Its 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 Nations Program<\/a> 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<\/a> and composting rate of only 32 , it is clear that there are major gaps in our recycling infrastructure we need to address. Im actually the cochair of the house recycling bill. Im very proud of. Its 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<\/a>, 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<\/a> and mixed paper material imports, and this action prevented us from shipping recyclables overseas and require American Communities<\/a> 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<\/a> 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 president s National Recycling<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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 dont have the money, they cannot get people to recycle its 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 im afraid that we are getting away from that. Im 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<\/a> 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<\/a> decision today that confirms epa has been acting outside of Statutory Authority<\/a> 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, its our responsibility to debate and make the law. The Public Policy<\/a> 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. Im pleased to see this decision. We are facing and inflation and energy crisis, with gas prices at alltime highs, trips to the Grocery Store<\/a> busting the budgets of american families, like, for example, antijurists with the Washington Association<\/a> 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<\/a> to flip the switch on American Energy<\/a> 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 chairmans 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 singleuse Plastic Products<\/a>. This is an approach that will cost american jobs. It will worsen the supply chain crisis and hurt Economic Development<\/a> 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<\/a>. And not strengthening our domestic supply chains. These bills ignore that america has some of the highest Environmental Standards<\/a> 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 its based on innovation and free Market Investments<\/a> and infrastructure. 81 83 prioritizes rural areas for a new epa Pilot Program<\/a> 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<\/a> 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 its 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. To Committee Rule<\/a> the gentle. We would like to remind members that all members written Opening Statements<\/a> shall be made part of the record. I now introduce the witnesses for todays hearing. First we have mr. David holloway, senior policy analyst of the department of Environmental Quality<\/a> from the state of oregon miss lynn hoffman copresident of the eureka recycling National Coordinator<\/a> of the alliance of mission base for cyclers, next, we have miss stephanie erwin, the director of circular Economy Policy<\/a> at the american Sustainable Business<\/a> 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<\/a> inc. , and finally, mr. Met the home, chief executive author of plastics industry association. At this time the chair will recognize each witness for five minutes. And Opening Statements<\/a> 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<\/a> rogers, mr. Taco, and Ranking Member<\/a> mckinley. Thank you for the invitation to prevent at the days hearing. For the record, my day aim is david alleyway, im a senior policy analyst at the Oregon Department<\/a> of Environmental Quality<\/a>. 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 oregons recycling systems. I cochair that committee, which help close to 100 meetings over a 29 month period. The committee and department undertook Significant Research<\/a> 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<\/a> almost always allows those products to be produced with less energy and oftentimes, at the reduction with water and air pollution, including Greenhouse Gas<\/a>es. Waste prevention, the reduce, reuse part of the reduce, reuse, recycle hasnt 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 worlds 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 daytoday 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, oregons 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 oregons 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 theres been a significant increase in industry support for some form of legislative producer responsibility for packaging. I believe that this stems from recognition that americas 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. , sir. We will no 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 copresident of the region for recycling, and the National Commission<\/a> 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<\/a> waste, while we wrestle with the daytoday 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<\/a> chains and increasing demand for Recycled Materials<\/a>. 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<\/a> support recycling with policy solutions. Investments in cycling for the Infrastructure Investment<\/a> 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<\/a> systems, labeling and Design Standards<\/a> 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<\/a> upgrades just to keep up with everchanging 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<\/a> to Packaging Companies<\/a> and there is widespread agreement that is time for epr. Second, congress should support policies that move beyond recycling towards reduction and reuse. Recyclings 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<\/a> 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<\/a> to focus on effective innovation, not distractions. Technology innovations are needed in recycling to improve quality, safety, and transparency. However, Companies Want<\/a> to sell socalled 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<\/a> transformation for recycling without massive federal spending. Its time for policy incentives and solutions to secure a more stable, equitable, and resilient future. Thank you. Thank you. Ecognized fomiss irwin, you arew recognized for five minutes for your opening statement, please. Thank you. Greetings, chairman tonko, renting member mckinley, chairman pallone, and Ranking Member<\/a> 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<\/a> for the american Sustainable Business<\/a> network. We are a multinational, National Organization<\/a> 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<\/a> in our economy. However, despite the Practical Applications<\/a> that some of these plastics have brought, it is clear the use of plastic, particularly the use of consumer singleuse products and virgin plastic, comes with significant cost to our current and future economic wellbeing. With 95 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 plasticdriven 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a>, to increase the post consumer Recycled Content<\/a> of products, to scale, reuse, and refill models ands 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<\/a> treaty. It creates a National Recycling<\/a> blueprint and the model for enhanced public, private partnerships, where stakeholders across the supply chain can freely share and Exchange Knowledge<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> that incinerate and down cycle and market materials. These waste Energy Technology<\/a> should not be qualified, either a circular or renewable, as currently written in the clean future act. From the perspective of the American Business<\/a> 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. Its 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 im the founder and executive director of frontline watch. An Environmental Justice<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a>. 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<\/a> 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 thats sounding 38 , with polyethylene, another plastic export, increasing 50 . Currently, the Houston Ship Channel<\/a> 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<\/a> is also limited english proficient, and in effort to try to address language barriers, for those who dont 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<\/a> 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<\/a> found that children living within five mile radius is of a Houston Ship Channel<\/a> 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<\/a> dont even qualify for interNational Recycling<\/a> standards, because they rely on burning plastic. Epa data on one plant reveals similar releases of toxics from its diary, benzene, and people purchase goods. We dont 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<\/a> with Recycled Content<\/a> 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<\/a> 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. Yo 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. Its great to see you. Ranking members Morris Rogers<\/a> and mr. Mckinley, thank you mr. Mckinley, for your sponsorship of a great bill. My name is Billy Johnson<\/a>, and im the chief lobbyist for the institute of scrap reCycling Industries<\/a>. Its always an honor to be here for you today to discuss the Important Role<\/a> 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<\/a> supply chains. The sustainable Raw Materials<\/a> that help combat Climate Change<\/a> and serve our National Resources<\/a> and safe energy. Further, the recycling industry directly employs more than 164,000 people in every Congressional District<\/a> 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<\/a> of recyclables, but otherwise might go to landfills. However, residential recycling represents only about 20 of the material that works its way through the nations 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<\/a> 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. Its also saddled with the supply chain that can be inconsistent, contain high levels of contamination, and is generally not linked to current Market Conditions<\/a>. 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 theres no and market to utilize the Recycled Materials<\/a> 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 its useful endoflife 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<\/a>, 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<\/a> in the United States<\/a>, and thats 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<\/a> to develop a menu of Solutions Needed<\/a> 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<\/a> mckinley, chairman pallone, and Ranking Member<\/a> ma rogers and numbers of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to prepare before you today. My name is matt seaholm, im 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. Theres a saying in our industry. We love plastic, we hate Plastic Waste<\/a>. 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 were building that recycling infrastructure, america was asleep at the wheel. We werent significantly investing in modernization or expansion of Material Recovery<\/a> facilities, with the necessary capabilities to keep up with incredible innovation. It has transpired in Plastic Products<\/a> 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<\/a> and jobs act, which stems from the save our seas two point oh legislation passed in the last congress. Its 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<\/a>. Reasonable and attainable Recycled Content<\/a> requirements can help spur investment and guarantee merkels 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a>, 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<\/a> 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. Thats right. It will be impossible for america to reach its climate goals without plastic. Its too little plastic recycled . Yes. Can we build the necessary infrastructure to greatly increase our recycling rates . Again, the answer, its 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. The bestas lawmakers having acco the best, most recent data available, its 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 weve 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<\/a> 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 dont 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 decisionmaking 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 nations recycling infrastructure, and businesses, i believe, will be able to make investments. During this hearing, you will hear claims about Single Use Plastics<\/a>, the break free from plastic pollution act, recognize there is a Certain Applications<\/a> where plastics are appropriate, and it does not seek to prohibit or limit their use. This includes medical and Public Health<\/a> products, personal protective equipment, and personal hygiene products. I think its 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 singleuse 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. Its 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 dont want to see this waste and their communities, and they want reusable and Sustainable Packaging<\/a> alternative. Ired. 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<\/a>, 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 shouldve learned from covid. We need more plastics, not less. So, on these questions, theres 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<\/a> quality standards. Now, we fully respect after three years of developing this and we know it will take three years to develop them, theyre going to go through a series of litigation. They always have. Then, after litigations are resolved, theyre going to move over to where actually these Plastic Manufacturers<\/a> 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. Its considered a temporary pause, but because of the way it is written, theres 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 im 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<\/a> did it again, said that the overreach under the Obama Administration<\/a> with the Clean Air Act<\/a> 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 . Ill 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 weve 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 dont have easy access to it, it will send ripples through the entire system and i think at this point, we cant recognize that the vast majority of manufactured products do use plastic in some way, shape, or form. Thank you. Now, mr. Johnson, ive got two questions for you. Maybe its just a yes or no. Do you think we could legislate human change, Human Behavior<\/a>, 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<\/a> 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, im afraid were trying to, once again, trying to change Human Behavior<\/a> by legislation, and thats what i think a lot of recycling is, i think there needs to be more free market based change. Lets go back to Rural Communities<\/a>. They dont have these facilities, looking at the legislation that my cosponsor. Will this, if we dont 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<\/a>. 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, im 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<\/a> 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. Its very helpful i hope that congress would view that with the understanding thats 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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 singleuse 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<\/a> like post consumer Recycled Content<\/a> 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<\/a>, 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 . Postconsumer chairman, i woult 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> i didnt 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 dont hear too many things other than this committee, but i do it because its 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<\/a> to make a difference in something that brings people to actually participate in ways to improve the environment. So, lets just continue to Work Together<\/a> 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<\/a> for five minutes. Ask questions . Thank you, mister chairman. I appreciate the chairmans comments about working together on bipartisan solutions. Those that will encourage innovation, i believe there are ways we can Work Together<\/a> to develop new ways to curve our resources and Recycled Materials<\/a>. 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<\/a> 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 . Certainly not. I think youre absolutely right. Thermoplastic is a very, very broad one, but oftentimes, it gets wrongly applied. In this case, i think especially when were 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. When you consider the most important kinds of singleuse plastics like for health care or safety applications or plastics that help us lower Carbon Emissions<\/a> . Would that be included . Well, thats sort of like asking someone to choose their favorite child. We do represent the entire plastics industry. I would say all Single Use Plastics<\/a> 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 is what elation would cover everything from Food Packaging<\/a> to Automotive Parts<\/a> when it comes to the production of plastic. So, if we were to implement a ban, arthur 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. Thats why plastic oftentimes is the choice, whether its performance properties, whether its hygienics reasons, whether its availability and safety components of it, at the end of the day simply were gonna stop using doesnt get rid of the demand for the product in the question. Thats where you gotta 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 its 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, its great to see you. One size fits all does not work. Recycling unspoken doesnt 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 its closer to the one size fits all, but certainly not at the residential level, where you have a different mix of materials into the recycling stream. And the residential recycling system, they really dont have a choice of what they get to accept, other than you and me sorting that material, even before it gets into that system. I wanted to ask, on mr. Mckinleys bill, really focusing on a Pilot Project<\/a> for rural areas, how long will it last and do you have a sense of how much funding would need to be authorized . Im 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 chairman now recognizes from illinois, subcommittee share for Consumer Protection<\/a> and commerce, welcome senator sir kasky. Thank you, mister chairman, im all the 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<\/a>. 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<\/a> 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 dont do anything about it. Well recycling alone solve the Plastic Waste<\/a> crisis that i believe now exists in the United States<\/a> today, mr. David allaway . I will ask another question and you can answer them all at once. Which common Plastic Products<\/a>, are the most harmful, and finally, are there legitimate alternatives on the horizon to replace these plastics . Thank you, representative, do your first question will recycling alone, its impossible, it can make a modest contribution towards making these impacts but there are other solutions, we evaluated the impact of Drinking Water<\/a> 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 countrys largest vectors for continuing to have plastics in the worlds oceans. And that is because of the lack of regulation in accountability at processing facilities. Recycling can help, but it has to be done well in order to help reduce this problem. To your other question, which types of plastics are more substantial and legitimate alternatives . Thousands of different types of plastics and im afraid i dont feel qualified at the moment to identify which of those thousands are the most harmful. Thats a little bit out of my wheel house, i apologize. Are there legitimate alternatives . Yes, all materials have alternatives, i would like to find some Common Ground<\/a> with matt see home, and i would point out that there are alternatives where plastics offer the superior choice, so long as the impacts of the Plastic Waste<\/a> is managed appropriately and does not end up in oceans or bodies and that means, thats the primary challenge. How do we realize the effects that plastics can provide while avoiding the negative impacts of plastic production and improper disposal . Thank you so much, for that answer. I wanted to turn to miss stephanie irwin. I want to ask, 20 companies right now are responsible for the production. I wonder if you could suggest, how can we ensure that businesses steer away from singleuse and virgin plastic production. Great question. Thank you congresswoman. The first thing is, right now its much cheaper to source and use virgin plastic as opposed to recycled plastic and other alternatives. That is a large component of the issue. I appreciate this. Its an issue that we really have to deal with, and i think there is an urgency about it, i thank you and i yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. Thank you mister chairman, and inflation is hitting migrants deterrence in eastern and Southeastern Ohio<\/a> really hard, struggling more than ever to fill up their tanks, by personal care products, clothes the children and even afford food. So what to buy groceries, their idea is to heavily regularly, shut down the manufacturing of much of the Plastic Packaging<\/a>, that the foods that they buy actually come in. Can you believe that . How could this possibly is inflation . The timing of these radical proposals could not be worse. Plastics, quite literally make our modern life possible, most of our Food Packaging<\/a>, health products, automobiles, electronics and everything in between would not exist without plastics. So moratoriums on the manufacturing of such a widely used and important material is by definition, highly inflationary. And would only serve to make us more vulnerable to precarious Global Supply<\/a> chains, killing thousands of good paying american jobs at home. So mr. Matt seaholm, you mentioned that much of americas plastic stop is derived from the refining of natural gas, which my region happens to be blessed with an abundance of, we have the massive multi billion dollar shell methane cracker plant coming on live this summer. If title ix of the clean future act, or the brake free act, went into law, how would abundance be affected . Well, i think the timing of that facility, im not sure where they are in the permitting process but i think you have identified that their permanence are already done. They are supposed to come online this summer. In that case, the next time that they come up for renewal is probably the first time that they will end up with a question mark. I would say that that facility in particular is a very interesting one. I would say its strategic for our National Supply<\/a> chains. Its the first one really in the midwest, and because of that it takes away the overlying in the houston area, where one hurricane can significantly disrupt the supply chain. We had the deep freeze last year, where we saw significant impacts. If you find yourself in a place where you are building a facility and you cant get a permit, there are concerns not just about the supply chains nearby, its national. Continuing with you, with plastics being so prominent and every day 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 leading to crippling inflation for so many of my constituents but american constituents across the country, and if so, how so . It would increase supply, demand is going up significantly, anytime that happens you have inflationary pressures. Even if you push the production elsewhere it will increase the cost to transport it. Put it all together, all of that packaging, all of those Plastic Products<\/a> that are used, you go to a Grocery Store<\/a>, everything, it may not seem like much but you add a penny to every single one of those packages and it adds up when you go to the checkout counter. Its also going to make us much more dependent on foreign sources for the things that we need in our everyday lives, would you agree . I would. That is one of our biggest concerns. Okay. Mister chairman, thanks for the time, i will yield you back a whole 30 seconds. Thank you for the 30 seconds. We appreciate your questions and we will recognize the gentle lady from new york, representative clark for five minutes. Thank you, and thank you for holding this hearing and bringing this crucial legislation to the forefront of our discussion. Addressing the issues of our recycling system, in an important step towards a more sustainable and equitable future. As such i would like to better understand some of the Environmental Justice<\/a> concerns where proposals related to the management of traffic pollution, turns chemical, or advanced recycling. Im concerned that chemical recycling is a false solution that does not contribute to the circular autonomy and increases dangerous emissions at a time where we should be finding ways to bring Environmental Justice<\/a> to the front line and frontline communities. To director with yvette arellano, i love your first name. Can you talk about some of the environmental and health harms that advanced recycling can have on certain communities . Thank you, the impacts we see in incineration communities are similar to those that we see in plastic production, thats why the entire plastic life cycle harms communities of color. Like i said in my statement, the releases include benzene this means everything from reproductive system, harms on the reproductive system, the development system, slowed reaction times for children and adults, we have 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, landfills and production shell sites tend to be lower income communities. We all know too well what happens when communities are exposed to air pollutants and how that can affect their Long Term Health<\/a> and prosperity. A long term resident of various near oil and gas facilities, can you talk about the similarities to those facilities that burn plastic in the name of recycling . In your experience, what long term generational impact can this type of air pollution have on nearby communities . Taking toxics like benzene, people assume that they will leave the system as soon as the chemical disaster is over. When in reality if there is a chemical disaster, a fire at an incineration plant or a plastic production facility, we dont get any alarms. We dont get any news, we arent told what kind of chemicals are burning, coming out of the fume stacks. First responders and firefighters are then exposed to these kinds of conditions. We have seen countless lawsuits from workers, police departments, for not having Accurate Information<\/a> from these facilities, shielded by confidential Business Information<\/a> and homeland security, so we get no transparency, the information we get is too late and we get no resources to even go to toxicologist. We had a fire back in 2018 and we were told, go get your blood checked. Do you consider the practices currently used for chemical recycling to be true to the definition of recycling . Thank you for that question, the short answer is no. They dont fit in with the definition of recycling, because they are near consumption. Anything that has been proven today, isnt circular, it doesnt keep those resources at bay and it requires that we go back and continue to extract more for a continued production. Thank you. Mr. David allaway, should that technology be chosen . Can you elaborate on the safeguards and elaborate why they are important . The new policy framework allows producer responsibility organizations to send materials to a chemical recycling pathway, as long as three conditions are met. First, impacts of that have to be fully evaluated undisclosed in compared against the alternative pathways, such as landfilling. And it needs to be done responsibly. This pathway is not allowed, if there is an alternative pathway. Such as mechanical recycling, that delivers a superior environmental outcome. Thank you. Unfortunately my time has lapsed. Mister chairman, i yield back, but thank you for your response and to all of our panelists today. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from the state of georgia. Representative carter. Thank you all of our witnesses for being here today. Listening to this hearing today, it appears like the disagreement over fossil fuels all over again. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they have an outcome in mind that doesnt really take into account real life issues real life implications. If we want reduce emissions, we have a lot of options at our disposal, to make sure that we do that, but instead it seemed like the rhetoric has been that we cannot have a future and all with fossil fuels, even though the fossil fuel industry has done a great job of decreasing emissions, and even if they were to go to a net zero, im not sure that some of my colleagues would accepted at all, it seems to be a war on fossil fuels, and today, we have two bills that we are talking about, two of them basically just eliminate plastics. In fact, one of them is called breaking free from plastics, it bothers me, im a pharmacist by trade and i know the importance of plastic in ppe, but also with pharmaceutical manufacturing is extremely important. If you say it cant be done, i disagree, examples in georgia, right now there is innovative advanced recycling, they are taking four types of used plastics, representing about 50 of the globe Plastic Waste<\/a>, including very difficult types of plastics, films, breaking it down into materials that are then used for new quality circular plastics. It can be done in a circular fashion. Even cocacola, another georgia company, has set a goal for at least 50 of Recycled Content<\/a> in their packaging by 2030 which is not that far from now. So advanced recycling is how we can achieve this and how we should achieve this, there are other exciting things going, creating bio plastic cups, 28 mcdonald in my district, that is the kind of innovation that we need, i have always said it will take innovation to do this. I want to ask you mr. Matt seaholm, do you agree with miss hoffmans characterization of recycling, and what are your thoughts on this kind of truly advance recycling like i described . We are wholeheartedly supportive of advanced recycling, first and foremost, much of the discussion today has been focused on what we cant recycle and what is difficult to recycle, and how we havent kept up with the modernization of packaging, flexible in particular, as something you just mentioned. One step that is very impressive, 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 and in of itself, would actually be the Third Largest<\/a> emitter of Greenhouse Gas<\/a>es behind china and the United States<\/a>. That is a value for climate purposes. We need to figure out ways in which we can recycle it and advanced recycling prevents the, best option at this point to take some of those harder to recycle plastics, and keep them in the economy rather than saying one and done. We support advanced recycling as one part of the puzzle. What can the federal government do to encourage this . And facilitate it . What i indicated earlier was, first, dont stifle it, that is most importantly, there is a lot of innovation that is already happening, let it continue to develop. I would say encouragement also helps. I think there are a number of things being done, with the department of energy in particular, doing some studies and also promotion of this, but at the end of the day this is billions of dollars of research and Development Going<\/a> into it and its 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 got and it shows that its possible. Thank you and thanks again to all the members, the witnesses here, for this hearing. Thank you madam chair. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Peters. Recycling rates have increased across the country for several years, and since 2014. States are still facing challenges that are hampering improvements to recycling. Market driven solutions are going to be part of this important puzzle when it comes to long term sustainable solutions. As someone who dealt with the repercussions of the national sword, can you explain the benefits of building domestic markets for materials that were previously exploited to china . Thank you, representative, the primary benefit of domestic markets, really is increasing the adaptability of the recycling system. The more markets you have, the better. And also generally speaking, domestic and markets will management aerials, manage recyclables, in a more responsible way. Resulting in less pollution and better management of incoming contaminations, than some export markets in some countries. Miss erwin, in your testimony, you say businesses are ready to be part of the solution, and we all know that private sector will be critical to fixing our recycling system and working to more sustainable economy. Single use plastics can improve what are some of the challenges to scaling virgin and singleuse plastic alternatives . Thank you, congressman. I would say, first of all, there are no incentives to change design at this time. From the beginning of product design. So things like the color of the plastic, the shape of the material, to be more like an aluminum can that everyone uses that same design, that is a big part of it. I think there is also not a lot of Knowledge Exchange<\/a> happening between all of the stakeholders. So a policy like break free from plastic needs all people in the room to come together to form a solution for a complex challenge. Are there specific federal policies that you think could address the challenges you mentioned the standards for instance . Yes, i think there are some standards that are being adopted by states and companies, in reuse and also in labeling that could be quick winds for the government to adapt and get industry agreement because they are already using. Do you have any specific state examples that you would recommend to us to look at . In reuse there is a standard called pr3 piloted in seattle to great success. Recycle across america, which has also been adopted in National Parks<\/a> and other businesses across the United States<\/a>. I appreciate that very much, its clear that we will need federal policy to incentivize robust markets for these Recycled Materials<\/a>. Im glad the community is working on solutions, im not as willing to close out any solution if its possible to see what we can do to check limit areas. I appreciate the hearing again, and the witnesses, and i yield back. The gentleman yields back, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama, senator palmer, recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mister chairman. I will thank my democratic colleagues for holding this hearing. I just think that there needs to be more thought into eliminating plastics in this effort being undertaken, especially when you consider that there is more than 50 tons of plastic in the bleeds of a five megawatt winter. I just wonder how we are going to go to renewables if we are running plastics used in solar panels and those are not recyclable. I have brought this up many times in the hearing about the fact that durham a blades are filling up enormous landfills in wyoming. Its estimated there will be 43 million tons of blood waste including plastics accumulated by 2050. And if we are going to eliminate all plastics then we will have to eliminate the plastics that are necessary for building batteries for electric vehicles. You cant separate the cells and make them operate effectively without plastic. I wonder mr. C home, if that has been taken into account. By folks that are making this attempt to eliminate all plastics. I would say probably not, in this case, and its unfortunate because plastic is an absolute miracle material. It is. Do we need to recycle more of it . Yes. Do we need to use less material in general . I would also say yes. At the end of the day, i think we have a lot of shared goals. Its really the approach to which we use, to get to those goals. I think you highlighted a couple of important applications for plastic, that goes directly to climate priorities. If you replace the plastics and the door mob leads for instance, you will have to build the blades with other materials that would make it much less efficient and much more expensive. Which will just add to the cost of living for everybody. Its going to be hard on low income families and families on fixed incomes. And not only on the energy side, it will also impact on the boot side. There was a wall street journal article, highlighting issues that they were facing in stores and england, trying to completely eliminate all plastics. Food waste, shoplifting, using more expensive paper packaging. And these are policies that im not sure people have thought about, the unintended consequences of eliminating plastics. Is that what you are saying as well . Typically all of the policies that are really meant to be punitive whether its towards the industry or the consumer it results in unintended consequences, that is what we have seen first and foremost, its not the intention of the legislation to cause those. But that really does become the cause and thats where you see cost increase, environmental impacts, that werent expected. Put it all together and that is where typically, bipartisan bills like two of those before us today are much better approach. I i think there needs to be a deep dive into what the cost would be in eliminating plastics. Whether its the cost of energy, groceries, i dont think families should have to decide between filling up their gas tank or their grocery cart. The last point that i want to make is in regard to the Supreme Court<\/a>s decision, ruling that the epa does not have the authority to regulate Greenhouse Gas<\/a>es. I worked on legislation in 2018 to that effect. That would stop the epas overreach in that regard. And would have brought that back to congress so that we are the ones who make those decisions. So i am grateful for the Supreme Court<\/a> actions yesterday. Validating something that the former chairman of this committee said, one of the authors of the Clean Air Act<\/a>, he said it was never the intent of congress and the epa to regulate Greenhouse Gas<\/a>es. Another example of where we as members of Congress Need<\/a> to take responsibility. Thank you, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The chair now welcomes the representative from virginia, you are recognized for five minutes mr. Don mceachin. Thank, you while we must find ways to reduce pollution and increase free use, we must do so in a responsible and equitable manner. Mr. David allaway, you discovered that recycling quote distributes burdens and and how does the program seek to mitigate those inequities . Thank you, representative. There are a number of different ways in which the recycling system, at least in our state and the rest of the country, distributes burdens and good things in equitably. The transition from, to comingle collection, has shifted impacts, occupational hazards and health and safety impact from collection workers to frontline processor facility workers, the individuals who are sorting for these processing facilities. Adequate processing, result in Health Impacts<\/a> bringing harm to vulnerable populations in asia and elsewhere. So our act addresses this in a variety of ways. It requires changes including Collection Service<\/a> improvements. Special support for rural recycling. And specifically to address the challenges, a living wage requirement for process facility workers are act regulates processing facilities and requires a responsible and mark its requirement. Specifically to where these recyclables are going. Rebalances and our act also requires a periodic evaluation of considerations throughout the states recycling system, with a periodic report to our state legislature. Thank you. Thank you. In your testimony you also mentioned seeing the perspectives of workers in the recycling facilities and residents in rural areas as well as residents of multi family housing. What did you learn from that outrage . Thank you, we learned that everyone, regardless of geographic location or skin color, once the recycling system to succeed. They want to be able to recycle, they want to the recycling system to operate responsibly and they want to share equitably in the first cycling system. Thank you for that. Director, please forgive me if i am mispronouncing your name, yvette arellano, can you elaborate on the disproportionate short and Long Term Health<\/a> of plastic in egypt communities. Thank you, for all the work that you did on eeg for all. We have 184 plastic expansions coming our way. In houston we dont have so many, we are the largest city that has that. We are talking about putting an elementary school, a daycare, the Senior Center<\/a> and an entire Community Next<\/a> to a plastic facility. What you are saying is that our communities are disposable for an extra ketchup packet, for another straw, a grocery bag, when this bill straightup tackles and sets, lets improve the recycling system, say no to these extra plastics that nobody even asked for. No one asked for 20 ketchup acts in their fast food bag. So why is this even a debate . What i am trying to get at is that Environmental Justice<\/a> communities, not only do we have to deal with a lack of transparency, no knowledge of the chemicals that we live right next to, know work systems, now we are being told by the Supreme Court<\/a> that we cannot rely on the Environmental Protection<\/a> agency to protect Environmental Justice<\/a> communities. And we have to rely on you all here. And so what i am talking about, when i am talking about all the harms, this includes multi generational impact, mutations to the population living closest and worst harmed by plastic production. Let me thank you for your work and your testimony and the passion that you bring to this issue. Mister chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from utah, representative curtis. Thank, you hello from utah to everyone, thanks to our witnesses and Great Questions<\/a> we have had today. As i have listened to this hearing there have been two themes, almost shouting out at me and i would like to address those quickly. The first is, the obvious parallels between the debate and plastic, and with energy. Let me point out some of those parallels. Problematic for this discussion. The first is this concept that somehow its okay, to close her eyes and push this overseas. And prohibit here in the United States<\/a>, where we always do it better, we control emissions safety, human rights, and yet somehow its okay to ban it here and allow it to go overseas. I think that is a huge problem. The second terrells this concept of banning plastics for things that are critical use, for medical applications and other applications reminds me the idea of closing down Nuclear Plants<\/a> without any replacement for that energy source. It seems to me to be a perfect parallel in this energy debate. Another parallel is what i call the its never enough, in the energy world, i represent coal country, oil and gas country, and i have seen this in its full glory. We are trying to do the same thing to the plastic company, the next thing is the demonization of the people involved in this. All of these are bad for this discussion and i hope it will take these parallels in mine. This was kind of fun, im sure many of you will agree with me, my time as mayor really helped me to see close up some of these issues, and we started as mayor with no recycling at all in our city, eventually moving into an opt in blue can, we moved from that to an opt out. We have had these conversations today about changing of Human Behavior<\/a>. It makes you wonder if we should pull our mayors together from cities republicans and democrats around the country and i suspect it could give us a lot of answers on how to do 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. Its been a pleasure to work with your staff on a number of these issues. I think i think, i will go back to a time where we had posters in world war ii and my mother reminds me of those. Turning in all of your metal and other products for the recycling for the war effort. I think of recycling as such a thing. It is like a war effort. The American People<\/a> want to recycle. It conserves our Natural Resources<\/a> for future generations. It protects our environment for everyone. And making people aware that you dont just throw things away. You recycle them. To make it easier for them to do it, to make them are aware of the importance of recycling, for the energy savings, for the Environmental Protection<\/a>, i think that is why mr. Mckinleys bill is really a wonderful start with that. Because especially if you live in certain areas like washington, there is a lot of recycling around, but its not everywhere and i think trying to get out to underserved communities be it rural, urban or where have you, is terribly important. Making people aware of how important it is, from all the things that i said, but people want to recycle, they dont want to live in an area with trash around them. I will lose my time. I want to make some other points. If you go from community to community in utah you will find different rules about what can go into recycling. If i talk to my kids, they are confused, and i think we can do a much better job. The last one i havent really heard us discuss todays glass, and the extreme complications from a mayor standpoint, i will just introduce that as problematic and yield my time. Thank you. We welcome the gentleman from florida, representative soto. Climate change is real, human caused and its leading to intensify whether, rising seas and more extreme heat days in florida, and many areas of the country. What is our republicans plan to combat Climate Change<\/a> . To do nothing. What is the Supreme Court<\/a>s plan . To do nothing. Todays Clean Air Act<\/a> ruling is another roadblock in president bidens ability to combat Carbon Emissions<\/a>. The Supreme Court<\/a> has made it clear, guns deserve more constitutional protections than women or the planet. We on this committee might, must fight back and we will, we have no other choice. 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 lets epa for states, local government and tribes. Members of the congress, west side of the aisle, we can do this. Lets continue to Work Together<\/a> on that. And then there is cycling infrastructure and accessibility act, it directs epa to create a Pilot Program<\/a>, between half 1 million to 15 million to states, local government, Indian Tribes<\/a> and public ownerships. 70 is set aside for strict communities. My hometown of kissimmee, florida had to eliminate recycling due to the these will be a game changer for communities like ours. Small towns across america have cost barriers to reach full recycling. Half 1 million to 15 million grads under the proposed recycling infrastructure and accessibility act, will help these barriers, and if so, how . Thank you certainly any improvement to infrastructure will help the economics of the recycling system but i would caution members of the committee from expecting that Infrastructure Improvements<\/a> alone will solve the problem. The majority of the cost of there is a cooling system are associated with operating costs, not capital our infrastructure. So long as transportation is required and it is expensive, it will be a challenge and markets are distant. It will be an economic challenge. There is more we have to do to invest in infrastructure, which also is dealt with in the recycling and composting accountability act. It is that moving us in the right direction with epa, with these infrastructure needs and the assessments we need to make . Generally speaking, yes, improvements in investment and infrastructure are helpful, and written testimony details i would also propose improvements in infrastructure by themselves at their current scope are inadequate to make a meaningful and sustained improvement in the nations recycling. Thank you. I agree, we invested over 240 million in the recent no infrastructure law, but there is more that we have to do. Currently out in the pacific there is a floating garbage island that is more than double the size of your home state of texas, miss yvette arellano. I want to give my constituents at home and idea, what is the cost of inaction, if we do not reform our recycling system, plastics, or cycling both to the world unto local communities like yours . Aside from the irreversible Health Damage<\/a> and costs on our communities, that Community Members<\/a> and communities of color and poor communities cant afford, its also reusable Waste Systems<\/a> that are consumed by micro fibers. In fact, a piece of the break for a study includes a microfiber study, to see how much damage this is causing local municipalities and districts. What we are saying here is, how about we look at synthetic fibers, where states in the south like mississippi have an overwhelming economy based on cotton, over 553 million in the south. Instead we are relying on Foreign Companies<\/a> to supply us with cheap fabric and goods. The multi generational costs are everything from jobs to our health. We see an ever increasing automation inside of implementing robots by bostons robotics that includes 75,000 for a base model, 30,000 for a camera, 25,000 for maintenance, thats 130,000 to replace an entire person and potentially two positions. To claim this is a jobs issue is false. As we see just like in any other industry, a move and push towards automation. Thank you and i yield back. The gentleman yields back, the chairman now recognizes the gentleman from texas, of representative crenshaw. I do think there is a lot of bipartisan desire, to improve our recycling infrastructure, i think its quite necessary. I think there is a difference between radical environmentalism that has drastic costs. Perhaps unintended, and second, or third consequences, and irrational environmentalism. I think there is a lot of radical environmentalism being talked about here. That would have significant costs. And advances. Disrupting supply chains. I think these bills are even too radical for the current epa. Thats saying a lot because the current epa is using their agenda against the oil and gas industry, medical industry, coal industry, taking action to make it harder. Even administrator regan admonished just a few months ago. Said that he was not considering any bans on new plastic production. I have to wonder if thats why the epa declined to testify at this hearing. A couple of concerns i have, i will direct this question to mr. Matt seaholm, the break free from plastic and clean future act requires laws on new and plastic permits, and on ethylene and proper lean. Those are the byproducts of the main refined products. So Refinery Operations<\/a> are creating around their main product. But also the by product. Which in this case is often used and sold as plastic feedstock. 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 unintended, of this . When we need our refineries the most . There are two ways to look at that. One is simply the value of the byproduct part of the economics that make this facilities work. For taking over changes the dynamics of the viability of the facility itself. In addition there could be a situation where you have colocation, plastics manufacturing facilities colocated 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. And repermitting as well, refineries have to repermit every five years, the counter argument that korean refineries will be fine, thats not true. We also heard earlier, and maybe i heard it wrong, but a colleague on the other side asked one of the witnesses if the epa could distinguish between the plastics they like and they dont like during these bands. I wonder what would happen. If you are banning plastic and the feedstock for that production, how could any regulator actually predict where that stock may 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. So there really wouldnt be an ability to differentiate at that point. I think other parts of the bill could allow for some differentiation but not on the production side. Okay. Appreciate that. Again, second, third order consequences, i dont think these bills take into account, last i want to go to director yvette arellano, you cited a lot of chemicals, perhaps dangerous, one was rubber for tires, something we produce near the Houston Ship Channel<\/a>. You said in a study, i want to clarify because you said that this particular chemical is associated with risk of cancer in children however the study you provided us says the opposite, it says there is no cost to statistical link between it and cancer. There is a benzene, which has long been established by many studies and the cdc, the cdc pinpoints that to Secondhand Smoke<\/a> as really the cause of child cancer. So is there a different study that you want to submit for the record to clarify this . Yes, there are two, [inaudible] there are three industries, plastic synthetic rubber and one other chemical, that needs 13 view to dine, but the primary use is plastic. And then there is a county 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. The question of course is, its a pretty big question because its a serious accusation, you say this particular type of production causes cancer, you really have to back that up and the study submitted said the opposite. Thats why im asking. Im out of time. Pleased to submit the other studies for our consideration. Those are important to know and i appreciate it. The gentleman yields back, the chair now recognizes, i believe that completes all of the members of the subcommittee. Now we will go to those who chose to waive on. We are happy to have weaving on. An active member of the committee. The gentlelady from texas, miss fletcher. Thanks for holding this hearing today and allowing me to participate in your committee hearing. Thank you for all of your testimony today, im really glad to hear from all of you about the issues before us, including my fellow historian director yvette arellano, im grateful for your perspective. I have a couple of things that i want to follow up on. I asked to wave on it and i am here today because i have been a long time proponent for a cycling and i appreciate the discussion. Of the challenges that we face in our country right now. Like many of my colleagues have noted im really disappointed about how much of our waste is not recycled. Including items that we think we are recycling. But we are learning instead are going to landfills or winding up in the ocean, when people as several witnesses have noted, want to participate, whatever cycle. Its my view that we really need to invest in our recycling infrastructure, as well as finding new innovative ways of reducing and recycling our waist in this country. The member its stated that all options, including chemical recycling, should be discussed for sustainably managing materials. I know there are a lot of thought about the merits against recycling, we have heard those perspectives today in the testimony, but i do want to focus a little bit on how chemical recycling might play a role in recycling certain products, certain materials that currently have no substitution, its like plastics that are used in health care that often get thrown away because of contamination issues. This is especially important because we saw during covid, the uptick in singleuse plastic and it doesnt look like that is changing anytime soon. A Global Analysis<\/a> by the World Health Organization<\/a> found that in march 2020 and november 2021, 87,000 tons of ppe was sent to countries as part of the covid19 response, and ended up as waste. More than eight billion vaccine doses have been given worldwide, producing 114,000 tons of waste. So mr. Matt seaholm, in your testimony you discussed that congress should encourage the development of new technologies, for materials that cant be recovered through traditional means. Do you think that chemical recycling could help address the immense medical ways that is being produced . One of the best things about chemical recycling, molecular recycling, however you want to phrase it, is its a purification process. Cannot process, that purity that you get from the product of it is ultimately much more safer than perhaps some of the other mechanical processes that cant get to that same level of purity. Thank you. I also want to follow up with the time i have, mister al away. You raised in your testimony, representative curtis also asked about an issue which is really important. The public confusion around recycling. You know, as many have noted there is a great deal of confusion there is also widespread support for recycling. Could you talk a little bit about what we in the congress can do to simplify the recycling process for consumers. Whether it would be beneficial to have a National Recycling<\/a> framework we kind of talked about the fact that so much of this is local. There are more benefits. People have less or more access depending on where they live. Would it be beneficial to have some kind of National Framework<\/a> to address those issues is that something that we should be talking about . Are their ideas beyond the bills we are discussing today that you think we should be talking about. To address that consumer confusion. Thank you, representative. It is true that people are confused because they might live in one community and work in a different community. Might be subject to different recycling standards in that community. I believe a much larger source of confusion involves labeling of products. We conducted a poll through the metropolitan area where the 26 local governments offer uniform recycling over all 26 bras. 96 of residents here believe they can recycle programs that program does not accept. That is despite of millions of dollars of trying to educate people. While education might touch resident millions of times a month, residents in households have hundreds of interactions with product labels every week. Many labels make claims of responsibility that are inconsistent with local programs. 36 states require manufacturers to put labels on Plastic Packaging<\/a> for materials that are notnot recyclable, theyre required to put the recycling logo. That is a major source ofconfus. Thank you, that is really helpful. Chairman, i see i have gone over my time so i want to thank you for letting me wade on. If any of the other witnesses have additional insights there that they could share, i would appreciate that. I also appreciate the testimony from miss irwin about bringing everyone to i believe you have done that in this meeting. I look forward to working with all of you to do about the solutions and addressing a very real concerns that all of the witnesses have addressed. Thank you so much. I yield back. You are most welcome. We thank you for joining us. The gentlelady yields back. Now we move to the gentleman from ohio who has also been waved out for todays subcommittee hearing, dr. Joyce. We welcome you, we recognize you for five minutes for questions. I want to thank you chairman and Ranking Member<\/a> mckinley for allowing me to waive onto this subcommittee hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. Let me be fair, recycling is important. We should strive to make these efforts as effective and efficient as possible at the state and local levels that said i have great concerns about the Economic Cost<\/a> of several of these bills. At a time when americans are facing skyrocketing energy crisis, we need to find ways to provide relief to our constituents. Instead of creating policies like extending producer liability will only add cost that will be passed down to the consumers. As we saw from the shell revelation in pennsylvania, auxiliary industries have arisen because of this. Plastic manufacturing is a great example of how utilizing the resources we [inaudible] has brought manufacturing opportunities back to the state of pennsylvania. Shells pennsylvania petrochemical complex is the model for the type of Long Term Development<\/a> that is propelling our regions economic growth. It has brought 7500 construction jobs, and 600 permanent family sustaining jobs to the area. As we have learned from the pandemic, and continue disruption of Global Supply<\/a> chains, it is important to have domestic manufacturing of goods that are vital to our nation. Doctor, i personally use plastic devices every day in my medical practice. Not only are they used in common medical tools like surgical gloves, syringes, and tubing but they have replaced metals and ceramics and devices such as artificial hips and heart valves. Medical plastic is made from resistant properly in saving much of our modern medical system is heavily dependent on benefits that plastics have provided to my patients and to consumers. My first question is for mr. See home. Mr. Seeing home, medical innovation is always on the forefront of our mind. Currently, the United States<\/a> leads the world in this sector. This is so important during this pandemic. By attacking the plastic industry, we want to and do their advantage we created by making new medical advantage . It is certainly possible. Anytime supply chains get moved elsewhere, it is likely that the products that use of supplies are going to be manufactured health where. Ultimately just shipped here. I think, as i mentioned earlier, there is a bipartisan effort underway to bring back manufacturing supply chain. I think the pennsylvania show facility is a perfect example of 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<\/a> agency testified that mandating [inaudible] is a tricky proposition because it is tied to the state, the economy, and the people good will. The ability of people to part with their goods does support mandatory federal recycling rates, does mandatory feathering recycling rates and why . Thank you, mr. Joyce. We do not support the federal mandate. We believe in voluntary ways to achieve that. One of the reasons why he said it was tricky is and if you look at paper, some of the mandates were originally at 30 . Currently today papal recycling is at about 95 . It is a much higher content. And its largely driven because they want that material back into their metals. Steele, as well. 70 of American Steel<\/a> comes from completely recycled material. It is probably going to increase as we go on. Im not sure, when i say 70 i70 has 100 recycled material. I dont know how much higher you can get that 100 . If you look at the private sector as they look to reduced costs and make themselves more Energy Efficient<\/a> and to build into the circular colony, they are going to drive those rates as high as they can technically get. Given that, and no respect, if you threw out a number. Say, i want you to be a 60 by 2025, it may not be technically possible. On the other hand, i may have already exceeded 65 . Each one of the materials is very different than the other. It is tricky to do. You also, sometimes, disincentivize innovation. That is a concern. The just incentive a shun of what American Ingenuity<\/a> brings to the table. I see what my time has expired. Thank you chairman tonga and Ranking Member<\/a> chairman i yield. The gentleman yields back. It was our pleasure to have both of our colleagues we won today. I believe that concludes the list of individuals, colleagues who wanted to ask questions of our nurses. I thank you all for joining us for todays hearing. However, before we conclude business i have several documents in my position [inaudible]. They have been asked to be entered into the records. I will move to ask for unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the record. We have a statement from representative Alan Lowenthal<\/a> from california, a letter from the can manufacturers institute. A letter from the National Waste<\/a> and recycling association. A letter from the American Cleaning<\/a> institute. A statement from the american forest and paper association. An article from the alliance of Mission Based<\/a> are cyclers and titled, chemical recycling will not save our plastic for album. A report from the alliance of Mission Based<\/a> cyclers in titled, the false promise of plastics, fuel technologies. Guidance for legislators, investors, and if its penalties. A letter for the American Institute<\/a> of packaging and the environment. An issue brief from the National Resource<\/a> defense council. A fact sheet from oceania and titled choked, strangled, drowned. The plastic crisis unfolding in our oceans. A fact sheet from voting on a entitled, companies are wasting times with Inadequate Solutions<\/a> to a plastic crisis. And a letter from the Consumer Brands<\/a> association. A report from the Global Alliance<\/a> to consider alternatives entitled, all top and over second. And investigation of the u. S. Chemical recycling industry. A report from the International Pollutants<\/a> Administration Network<\/a> entitled, Plastic Waste<\/a> management hazard, wasted on, chemical recycling in plastic fumes. A letter from a mp robotics. A letter from u. S. Environment america. A letter from novella, a memorandum from oceanic regarding a nationwide poll. A letter from recycle across america and the interNational Waste<\/a> platform. A fact sheet from oceania entitled, plastic is a growing threat to our future. A statement from the paper cycling coalition. And advocacy brief from the Global Alliance<\/a> to consider alternatives entitled, plastic to fuel a losing proposition. A letter from the u. S. Posting council. A letter from the Sustainable Food<\/a> policy alliance. A letter from the Solid Waste Association<\/a> of north america. A letter from the Aluminum Association<\/a> in support of hr a 69. A letter from the elimination in support of hr 81 83. A letter from tightrope pack. A letter from rail, a statement from the recycling partnership. A letter from princeton robins. A letter for prints based product council. A letter from the recycling council. A statement from epa. A letter from the ball corporation. A letter from the American Chemistry Council<\/a>. A factually from the American Chemistry Council<\/a> entitled, new investments in advance recycling in the u. S. A factory from the American Chemistry Council<\/a> entitled, the brake free act. A step backwards for Climate Change<\/a>. A factually from the American Chemical Council<\/a> entitled, break free. Which would cripple u. S. Manufacturing jobs, resiliency. An article from Chemical Engineering<\/a> news entitled, chemical recycling of plastic gets a boost in 18 u. S. States. Environmentalists questioned whether it really is recycling. A policy from the Government Accountability<\/a> office and titled, science and tech spotlight advanced plastic recycling. A report from mckenzie in company entitled, advance recycling opportunities for growth. A report from the National Waste<\/a> and recycling association entitled, extended producer responsibility for packaging. A presentation for resource cycling systems entitled, Economic Impact<\/a> a beverage container deposits, a municipal recycling process cost. An article from s and p global entitle, next on global collaborate to make houston a recycling circularity hub. A wall street journal article entitled, russian gas cuts wreck World Largest<\/a> chemical hub. And a letter from american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers. Without objection . So ordered. With that again i thank our witnesses for joining us today for the hearing. I remind members that pursuing to Committee Rule<\/a>s they have ten Business Days<\/a> by which to submit additional questions to the record to be answered by our witnesses. I asked that half our witnesses would, please, respond promptly to any such questions that you may receive. At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government. We are funded by these television companies, and more. Including comcast. You think this is just a Community Center<\/a> . No, its way more than that. Comcast is partnering with 1000 Community Center<\/a>s to create wifi enabled lives zone so students from low income families can get the tools to be ready for anything. Comcast support cspan, as a public service, as well as these other television providers. Giving you a front row seat to democracy. Earlier today the director of the federal bureau of prisons, call it peters, testified before the Senate Judiciary<\/a> committee. Watch the hearing in its entirety tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan two. You can also watch in our free mobile video app, cspan now. Or online at cspan dot org. Republican senator ron johnson and his democratic senator Mandela Barnes<\/a> debate in u. S. Wisconsin senate race from with milwaukee watch live on friday 8 00 eastern on cspan. On our free mobile app, cspan now. Or online at cspan. Org. Next, a hearing on federal funding of virus research. The Senate Subcommittee<\/a> investigating gain of function re","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801504.us.archive.org\/2\/items\/CSPAN3_20220929_164800_Hearing_on_Solutions_to_Recycling\/CSPAN3_20220929_164800_Hearing_on_Solutions_to_Recycling.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20220929_164800_Hearing_on_Solutions_to_Recycling_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240619T12:35:10+00:00"}