[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, REFORM: ADDRESSING 
                            AMERICA'S PLASTIC WASTE CRISIS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE 
                                  CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 4, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-109

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
      
                    govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-688 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                           

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, prepared statement.....................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Jenna Jambeck, Ph.D., Professor, College of Engineering, 
  University of Georgia..........................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Enrique C. Zaldivar, General Manager, Los Angeles Sanitation and 
  Environment Bureau, City of Los Angeles........................    35
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Answers to submitted questionsI60138.........................
Lynn Hoffman, Co-President, and CEO, Eureka Recycling............    46
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
Denise Patel, U.S. Program Director, Global Alliance for 
  Incinerator Alternatives.......................................    52
    Prepared statement...........................................    54
Keith Christman, Managing Director, Plastic Markets, American 
  Chemistry Council..............................................    61
    Prepared statement...........................................    63
 William Johnson, Chief Lobbyist, Institute of Scrap Recycling 
  Industries.....................................................    70
    Prepared statement...........................................    72

                           Submitted Material

Letter of March 3, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from Rep. Dean 
  Phillips, submitted by Mr. Tonko...............................   102
Letter of March 3, 2020, to Mr. Tonko, et al., from Ted Michaels, 
  President, Energy Recovery Council, submitted by Mr. Tonko.....   104
Letter of March 3, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from 
  Alison A. Keane, President and CEO, Flexible Packaging 
  Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................   108
Letter of March 4, 2020, to Mr. Tonko, et al., from Biotechnology 
  Innovation Organization, submitted by Mr. Tonko................   114
Letter of March 3, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from 
  Jessica Bowman, Executive Director, Plant Based Products 
  Council, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................   120
Letter of March 2, 2020, to Mr. Tonko, et al., from Steven 
  Crawford, Senior Vice President, Chief Technology and 
  Sustainability Officer, Eastman Chemical, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................   122
Letter of March 4, 2020, to Mr. Tonko, from Scott DeFife, 
  President, Glass Packaging Institute, submitted by Mr. Tonko...   124
Letter of March 4, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from CHZ 
  Ernest Zavoral, CEO, CHZ Technologies, Henry Brandhorst, Jr. 
  Ph.D., Managing Director, CHZ Technologies, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................   127
Chart ``4 Pressure Points in Recycling,'' submitted by Mr. Tonko.   130
ISRI's 2019 Recycling Industry Yearbook, submitted by Mr. Tonko 
  \1\
Letter of March 4, 2020, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, from Sean 
  O'Neil, Senor Vice President, Government Affairs, Portland 
  Cement Association, submitted by Mr. Tonko.....................   131
Article ``Wind Turbine Blades Can't Be Recycled, So They're 
  Piling Up in Landfills,'' by Chris Martin, Bloomberg, submitted 
  by Mr. Tonko...................................................   133

----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20200304/110639/HHRG-116-IF18-20200304-SD005.pdf.

 
  REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, REFORM: ADDRESSING AMERICA'S PLASTIC WASTE 
                                 CRISIS

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in 
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Peters, McEachin, 
Blunt Rochester, Soto, Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone 
(ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee ranking member), McKinley, 
Long, Flores, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Cardenas and Bucshon.
    Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; 
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Anthony Gutierrez, Professional 
Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff Member; Rick 
Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Directory, Energy and 
Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Nikki Roy, 
Policy Coordinator; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Environment and Climate Change; Tyler Greenberg, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, 
Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate 
Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; 
and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, 
Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Environment and 
Climate Change will now come to order.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an 
opening statement, as we welcome our panel of witnesses.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to begin to 
examine our nation's waste challenges as well as some potential 
solutions. Reducing waste and encouraging recycling can play an 
important role as we seek to make our nation more sustainable 
and transition to economywide net zero greenhouse gas 
emissions. I think I am safe in saying that every Member and 
every witness likes recycling, and the broader public likes 
recycling, too, but many people have concerns that materials in 
their curbside bins often do not end up being recycled. We know 
that many recyclable products end up in landfills, and plastic 
waste, in particular, is ending up in our environment and our 
oceans.
    So, this is a very serious issue, and I am happy to see 
many Members wanting to get engaged. In the past few months, 
there have been numerous pieces of legislation introduced which 
I expect we will hear about today. These bills cover marine 
debris, recycling infrastructure, consumer education, and 
plastic waste.
    Undoubtedly, this interest has been driven by China's 
decision in 2018 to impose restrictions on imported waste. For 
decades, we relied on China as a dumping ground, especially for 
our low quality and contaminated waste. The closure of this 
market has had major impacts on the United States recycling 
system, causing municipalities to scale back once profitable 
programs, many of which are now actually costing local 
government money.
    While China's National Sword Policy has surely caused an 
upheaval, I think we would be mistaken if we simply blamed 
China for no longer wanting our waste. This episode has exposed 
longstanding issues in our system. We have been sweeping 
deficiencies in domestic markets, education, and infrastructure 
under the rug so long as China was willing to accept our waste. 
I hope we can see this as an opportunity to reevaluate our 
domestic efforts and try to understand how the Federal 
Government can play a constructive role in improving recycling 
outcomes.
    But we risk falling into a trap if we begin to believe that 
recycling can be the solution to our nation's waste issues. It 
is not a silver bullet. It is worth reminding everyone that we 
teach children the importance of reduce, reuse, and recycle.
    There is a reason recycling is third in that slogan. We 
need to put a much greater emphasis on reducing, first and 
foremost. There are meaning reduction opportunities for all 
materials, but especially plastics, where there are growing 
numbers of alternatives for many single-use products. Many 
state and local governments are now tackling this issue head-
on. So, it is an appropriate time to consider the role of 
reduction as part of the strategy to address plastic pollution.
    We also need to consider how to reduce contamination of 
waste stream. American contamination levels are at 25 percent, 
meaning that one out of every four items placed in a recycling 
bin should be thrown into trash. This is particularly 
challenging for paper products, which often do have viable 
domestic markets if collection and sorting processes work 
properly, but can be easily contaminated.
    Today, we will hear about a wide range of potential 
solutions: improving consumer education, encouraging 
standardized packaging, designing products to be more easily 
recycled, and incentivizing recycled content in manufactured 
products, which can have significant energy reduction and 
climate benefits.
    I look forward to our witnesses advising us on a path 
forward because, knowing the environmental and climate impacts 
of plastic waste, as well as the newfound economic pressures on 
local governments' recycling programs, now is the time for us 
to come together and embrace some of these common-sense 
solutions for our nation's waste issues.
    I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to 
the discussion at today's hearing.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to begin to 
examine our nation's waste challenges as well as some potential 
solutions.
    Reducing waste and encouraging recycling can play an 
important role as we seek to make our nation more sustainable 
and transition to economy-wide, net-zero greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    I think I am safe in saying that every Member and every 
witness likes recycling.
    And the broader public likes recycling, too, but many 
people have concerns that materials in their curb-side bins 
often do not end up being recycled.
    These concerns are not unfounded.
    We know that many recyclable products end up in landfills, 
and plastic waste in particular is ending up in our environment 
and our oceans.
    So this is a very serious issue, and I am happy to see many 
Members wanting to get engaged.
    In the past few months, there have been numerous pieces of 
legislation introduced, which I expect we will hear about 
today. These bills cover marine debris, recycling 
infrastructure, consumer education, and plastic waste.
    Undoubtedly, this interest has been driven by China's 
decision in 2018 to impose restrictions on imported waste.
    For decades, we relied on China as a dumping ground, 
especially for our low-quality and contaminated waste.
    The closure of this market has had major impacts on the 
U.S. recycling system, causing municipalities to scale back 
once profitable programs, many of which are now actually 
costing local governments money.
    While China's National Sword policy has surely caused an 
upheaval, I think we would be mistaken if we simply blamed 
China for no longer wanting our waste.
    This episode has exposed longstanding issues in our system.
    We have been sweeping deficiencies in domestic markets, 
education, and infrastructure under the rug so long as China 
was willing to accept our waste.
    I hope we can see this as an opportunity to reevaluate our 
domestic efforts and try to understand how the Federal 
Government can play a constructive role in improving recycling 
outcomes.
    But we risk falling into a trap if we begin to believe that 
recycling can be the solution to our nation's waste issues.
    It is not a silver bullet.
    It is worth reminding everyone that we teach children the 
importance of ``reduce, reuse, and recycle.''
    There is a reason recycling is third in that slogan. We 
need to put a much greater emphasis on reducing, first and 
foremost.
    There are meaningful reduction opportunities for all 
materials, but especially plastics, where there are growing 
numbers of alternatives for many single use products.
    Many state and local governments are now tackling this 
issue head on, so it is an appropriate time to consider the 
role of reduction as part of the strategy to address plastic 
pollution.
    We also need to consider how to reduce contamination of 
waste streams.
    American contamination levels are at 25 percent, meaning 
that one out of every four items placed in a recycling bin 
should be thrown in the trash.
    This is particularly challenging for paper products, which 
often do have viable, domestic markets if collection and 
sorting processes work properly, but can be easily 
contaminated.
    Today we will hear about a wide range of potential 
solutions--improving consumer education, encouraging 
standardized packaging, designing products to be more easily 
recycled, and incentivizing recycled content in manufactured 
products, which can have significant energy reduction and 
climate benefits.
    I look forward to our witnesses advising us on a path 
forward, because knowing the environmental and climate impacts 
of plastic waste as well as the newfound economic pressures on 
local governments' recycling programs, now is the time for us 
to come together and embrace some of these commonsense 
solutions for our nation's waste issues.
    I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to 
the discussion.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to begin to 
examine our nation's waste challenges as well as some potential 
solutions.
    Reducing waste and encouraging recycling can play an 
important role as we seek to make our nation more sustainable 
and transition to economy-wide, net-zero greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    I think I am safe in saying that every Member and every 
witness likes recycling.
    And the broader public likes recycling, too, but many 
people have concerns that materials in their curb-side bins 
often do not end up being recycled.
    These concerns are not unfounded.
    We know that many recyclable products end up in landfills, 
and plastic waste in particular is ending up in our environment 
and our oceans.
    So this is a very serious issue, and I am happy to see many 
Members wanting to get engaged.
    In the past few months, there have been numerous pieces of 
legislation introduced, which I expect we will hear about 
today. These bills cover marine debris, recycling 
infrastructure, consumer education, and plastic waste.
    Undoubtedly, this interest has been driven by China's 
decision in 2018 to impose restrictions on imported waste.For 
decades, we relied on China as a dumping ground, especially for 
our low-quality and contaminated waste.
    The closure of this market has had major impacts on the 
U.S. recycling system, causing municipalities to scale back 
once profitable programs, many of which are now actually 
costing local governments money.
    While China's National Sword policy has surely caused an 
upheaval, I think we would be mistaken if we simply blamed 
China for no longer wanting our waste.
    This episode has exposed longstanding issues in our system.
    We have been sweeping deficiencies in domestic markets, 
education, and infrastructure under the rug so long as China 
was willing to accept our waste.
    I hope we can see this as an opportunity to reevaluate our 
domestic efforts and try to understand how the Federal 
Government can play a constructive role in improving recycling 
outcomes.
    But we risk falling into a trap if we begin to believe that 
recycling can be the solution to our nation's waste issues.
    It is not a silver bullet.
    It is worth reminding everyone that we teach children the 
importance of ``reduce, reuse, and recycle''.
    There is a reason recycling is third in that slogan. We 
need to put a much greater emphasis on reducing, first and 
foremost.
    There are meaningful reduction opportunities for all 
materials, but especially plastics, where there are growing 
numbers of alternatives for many single use products.
    Many state and local governments are now tackling this 
issue head on, so it is an appropriate time to consider the 
role of reduction as part of the strategy to address plastic 
pollution.
    We also need to consider how to reduce contamination of 
waste streams.
    American contamination levels are at 25 percent, meaning 
that one out of every four items placed in a recycling bin 
should be thrown in the trash.
    This is particularly challenging for paper products, which 
often do have viable, domestic markets if collection and 
sorting processes work properly, but can be easily 
contaminated.
    Today we will hear about a wide range of potential 
solutions-improving consumer education, encouraging 
standardized packaging, designing products to be more easily 
recycled, and incentivizing recycled content in manufactured 
products, which can have significant energy reduction and 
climate benefits.
    I look forward to our witnesses advising us on a path 
forward, because knowing the environmental and climate impacts 
of plastic waste as well as the newfound economic pressures on 
local governments' recycling programs, now is the time for us 
to come together and embrace some of these commonsense 
solutions for our nation's waste issues.
    I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to 
the discussion.

    With that, I will yield to the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, Representative 
Shimkus, for 5 minutes.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, for this 
opportunity to speak about today's hearing on recycling and 
waste management, including plastics.
    I want to personally welcome Billy Johnson here--he is a 
good friend and ally for many, many years--and, of course, the 
American Chemistry Council, who helped so much on TSCA. So, we 
have developed great relationships with those.
    For the last 12 years, Chairman Pallone and I have also 
served as co-chairs of the House Recycling Caucus. It has been 
a great opportunity to learn more about the benefits of 
recycling as well as the challenges faced by the larger 
recycling industry. And then, you learn about the great 
diversity in the recycling world.
    Recycling is an issue that I believe makes great sense for 
both the environmental and economical perspectives. We have 
heard a lot about the demise of recycling in America after 
China ended imports of recyclables from the U.S. The recycling 
industry, however, remains extremely important to the U.S. 
economy.
    Additionally, recycling conserves our natural resources and 
permits obsolete, previously-used surplus and byproduct 
materials to be processed into specific commodities that are 
used to manufacture new products. In 2018 alone, more than 120 
million metric tons of scrap material was processed in the 
United States for reuse, generating $109.78 billion in economic 
activity and directly employing 164,000 Americans.
    Is recycling perfect? Absolutely not. Are some recycling 
sectors better positioned than others? Of course, they are. Are 
global markets and individual commodity prices determinative on 
whether certain items are recycled and the quality of those 
products? Of course. Is there room for improved education, 
infrastructure, and research? Certainly, there is. These are 
all worthy subjects that I hope we can get to today.
    Unfortunately, I am worried about a few undercurrents that 
appeared in the testimony. There are ideas there that I cannot 
support and would encourage others not to support as well.
    The first is getting the Federal Government involved in 
dictating the terms of how local governments should collect and 
manage discarded solid waste. The Solid Waste Disposal Act has 
a well-established delineation of authorities between the 
Federal Government and the states. The Federal Government takes 
the lead on hazardous waste management, and states and local 
governments are primary in the solid waste arena. I do not 
support dismantling that wall between the two and injecting the 
Federal Government to setting curbside collection requirements 
and recycling standards for discarded items that are not 
hazardous.
    The second bothersome item for me in some of the written 
testimony was the desire to place new federal costs on 
manufacturing of non-hazardous items and federal mandates on 
material content and design of those items. This kind of policy 
strangles innovation and initiative on the business end and, 
ultimately, shifts costs to consumers in the form of higher 
taxes or increases in consumer goods and prices.
    The last bothersome thing I found in the testimony was the 
view that we need to reduce manufacturing in the United States, 
whether from virgin materials or entirely out of recycled ones. 
This sentiment included agriculture, timber, and mining--
important industries in flyover country, where I currently 
reside, and rural areas across the country. These types of 
industries are essential in keeping us a strong nation with a 
high standard of living.
    We all want a clean environment, but we cannot fund it in a 
competitive global marketplace if Americans' ingenuity 
consciously recedes into a place where our manufacturing sector 
has a GDP of a third-world country. At a minimum, items break 
down and you need to replace them.
    On the subject of plastics, there is a good deal that we 
need to learn about the plastics issue and what is happening 
today and in the future. I hope we will explore solutions to 
both marine debris and mitigating greenhouse gases released 
from landfills or a manufacturing plant. I know some people 
think it would be easier to ban plastic, but I do not believe 
that it is a good policy to ban materials just because you 
don't like them. We should explore whether banning plastic 
would actually exacerbate the problems Congress thinks it is 
solving with a ban, as well as what other risk tradeoffs occur 
from taking such an action.
    That said, I join Chairman Tonko in welcoming our witnesses 
here today, and I thank them for their time and their 
expertise.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Thank you, Chairman Tonko, for this opportunity to speak 
about today's hearing on recycling and waste management, 
including plastics.
    For the last 12 years, Chairman Pallone and I have served 
as co-chairs of the House Recycling Caucus. It has been a great 
opportunity to learn more about the benefits of recycling as 
well as the challenges faced by the larger recycling industry.
    Recycling is an issue that I believe makes great sense from 
both an environmental and an economic perspective. We've heard 
a lot about the demise of recycling in America after China 
ended imports of recyclables from the U.S. The recycling 
industry, however, remains extremely important to the U.S. 
economy.
    Additionally, recycling conserves our natural resources and 
permits obsolete, previously used, surplus, and byproduct 
materials to be processed into specific commodities that are 
used to manufacture new products. In 2018 alone, more than 120 
million metric tons of scrap material was processed in the 
United States for reuse; generating $109.78 billion in economic 
activity and directly employing $164,000 Americans.
    Is recycling perfect? No.
    Are some recycling sectors better positioned than others? 
Yes.
    Are global markets and individual commodity prices 
determinative on whether certain items are recycled and the 
quality of those products? Of course.
    Is there room for improved education, infrastructure, and 
research? Certainly.
    These are all worthy subjects that I hope we can get to 
today.Unfortunately, I am worried about a few undercurrents 
that appeared in the testimony. There are ideas there that I 
cannot support, and would encourage others not to support as 
well.The first is getting the Federal Government involved in 
dictating the terms of how local governments should collect and 
manage discarded solid waste. The Solid Waste Disposal Act has 
a well-established delineation of authorities between the 
Federal Government and the States: the Federal Government takes 
the lead on hazardous waste management and states and local 
governments are primary on solid waste. I do not support 
dismantling that wall between the two and injecting the Federal 
Government into setting curbside collection requirements and 
recycling standards for discarded items that not hazardous.
    The second bothersome item for me in some of the written 
testimony was a desire to place new Federal costs on the 
manufacturing of non-hazardous items and Federal mandates on 
the material content and design of those items. This kind of 
policy strangles innovation and initiative on the business end 
and ultimately shifts costs to consumers in the form of higher 
taxes or increases in consumer goods prices.
    The last bothersome thing I found in the testimony was the 
view that we need to reduce manufacturing in the United 
States--whether from virgin materials or entirely out of 
recycled ones. This sentiment included agriculture, timber, and 
mining--important industries in ``flyover country'' and rural 
areas across this country. These types of industries are 
essential to keeping us a strong nation with a high standard of 
living.
    We all want a clean environment, but we cannot fund it in a 
competitive global marketplace if American ingenuity 
consciously recedes into a place where our manufacturing sector 
has the GDP of a third-world country. At a minimum, items break 
down and you need to replace them.
    On the subject of plastics, there is a good deal that we 
need to learn about the plastics issue and what is happening 
today and, in the future. I hope we will explore solutions to 
both marine debris and mitigating greenhouse gases released 
from landfills or manufacturing plants. I know some people 
think it would be easier to ban plastic, but I do not believe 
that it is a good policy to ban materials just because you 
don't like them. We should explore whether banning plastic 
would actually exacerbate problems Congress thinks it is 
solving with a ban as well as what other risk trade-offs occur 
from taking such an action.
    That said, I join Chairman Tonko in welcoming our witnesses 
here today and thank them for their time and expertise.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Chairman Pallone, chair of the full committee, for 5 
minutes for his opening statement, please.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Recycling has long been an essential tool in our 
environmental protection toolbox. Unfortunately, it is clear 
from the plastic pollution in our oceans that our recycling 
system is simply not working. Plastic pollution is 
contaminating our air, our land, and our water, and 
contributing to the climate crisis.
    I was going to mention that Mr. Shimkus and I are co-chairs 
of the House Recycling Caucus, but he already mentioned it. And 
he doesn't seem to be too happy this morning. I don't know why, 
but usually he smiles more.
    [Laughter.]
    But I did want to sound a more somber note if I can say to 
Bill Johnson that I do miss Mark Reiter. He at ISRI was always 
the main person who would remind me about all the things we 
needed to do with recycling and the future of recycling. So, I 
do miss him today, Bill, but it is good to see you here, Bill.
    Recycling can play an important role in addressing climate 
change and reducing pollution in our communities while also 
boosting local economies, but we will only realize those 
benefits if we modernize what is becoming an outdated system. 
At the same time, we can't forget that recycle is the third 
``R'' in ``Reduce, reuse, recycle.'' As we examine ways to 
address the plastic waste crisis, we must consider what happens 
to materials both before and after they reach the consumer, and 
that means reducing the amount of waste we generate in the 
first place, while also creating the right incentives to reuse 
recyclable material.
    And we now understand the important role composting can 
play in reducing waste going to landfills and contaminants in 
our recycling system. This is particularly important if we 
substitute compostable products for single-use plastics and 
other difficult-to-recycle items.
    Now, for decades, we know the U.S. shipped most of its 
recyclables, including 70 percent of its plastic, to China for 
processing, and this was profitable for American recyclers and 
hid any environmental cost from the American public. But the 
truth was that up to 30 percent of that material exported was 
contaminated, making it unrecyclable. In 2018, China banned the 
import of most plastic waste and mixed paper material as part 
of an effort to curtail pollution, and this policy shift has 
changed the U.S. recycling market and is forcing us to 
recognize that much of what we thought we were recycling was 
actually being discarded.
    Some municipalities have been forced to scale back their 
recycling programs, while others are canceling curbside 
collection altogether. With no viable alternatives, many 
communities have been left with no choice but to direct their 
waste to landfills, and many are looking beyond recycling to 
efforts to reduce waste to solve the problem. Others are 
considering outright adopting bans on plastic bags, straws, and 
other single-use plastics. And some cities are employing 
incineration to turn waste to energy, and this offers climate 
benefits compared to landfilling, but does not offer the same 
level of environmental benefits as recycling or source 
reduction.
    For certain materials, the recycling system is working 
relatively well. Aluminum, for example, 90 percent of that is, 
I guess, recyclable. And of all the aluminum ever produced in 
North America, 75 percent remains in use today.
    But that is not the same for plastics. Over the last 60 
years, about eight billion tons of plastic have been produced 
globally and about 75 percent has become waste. And it is often 
cheaper to make new plastics from fossil fuels than to recycle 
it. And because plastic takes more than 400 years to degrade, 
most of this waste is either languishing in landfills or found 
in the environment as litter. One study estimates that there 
will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.
    And this pollution contributes significantly to climate 
change. Last year, global greenhouse gas emissions from plastic 
production, transport, and disposal was equal to the emissions 
from 189 coal-fired power plants. And that footprint is 
projected to more than triple by 2050, consuming up to 13 
percent of the planet's remaining carbon budget.
    So, solving the climate crisis will require strong action 
to address emissions from production and disposal of plastic. 
This committee has been hard at work developing legislative 
solutions to address the climate crisis. In January, we 
released the Clean Future Act, which will put the U.S. on a 
path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. When we 
released that draft, we noted several areas needing further 
work, including recycling issues.
    So, I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today to 
continue that work, and I look forward to hearing the 
witnesses' perspectives on how we can modernize our recycling 
system and our economy, particularly to solve the plastic waste 
crisis.
    So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very important 
hearing.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Recycling has long been an essential tool in our 
environmental protection toolbox. Unfortunately, it is clear 
from the plastic pollution in our oceans that our recycling 
system is simply not working. Plastic pollution is 
contaminating our air, our land, and our water, and 
contributing to the climate crisis.
    As Co-Chair of the House Recycling Caucus, which I am 
pleased to lead with Subcommittee Ranking Member Shimkus, this 
topic is especially important to me. Recycling can play an 
important role in addressing climate change and reducing 
pollution in ourcommunities, while also boosting local 
economies. But we will only realize those benefits if we 
modernize an outdated system.
    At the same time, we cannot forget that "recycle" is the 
third "R" in "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." As we examine ways to 
address the plastic waste crisis, we must consider what happens 
to materials both before and after they reach the consumer. 
That means reducing the amount of waste we generate in the 
first place, while also creating the right incentives to reuse 
recyclable materials. And we now understand the important role 
composting can play in reducing waste going to landfills and 
contaminants in our recycling stream. This is particularly 
important if we substitute compostable products for single use 
plastics and other difficult to recycle items.
    For decades, the U.S. shipped most of its recyclables--
including 70 percent of its plastic--to China for processing. 
This was profitable for American recyclers and hid any 
environmental cost from the American public. But the truth was 
that up to 30 percent of the material exported was 
contaminated, making it unrecyclable.
    In 2018, China banned the import of most plastic waste and 
mixed paper materials as part of an effort to curtail 
pollution. This policy shift has changed the U.S. recycling 
market and is forcing us to recognize that much of what we 
thought we were recycling was actually discarded.
    Some municipalities have been forced to scale back their 
recycling programs, while others are canceling curbside 
collection altogether. With no viable alternatives, many 
communities have been left with no choice but to direct their 
waste to landfills. Many are looking beyond recycling, to 
efforts to reduce waste to solve this problem. Others are 
considering or outright adopting bans on plastic bags, straws, 
and other single-use plastics. And some cities are employing 
incineration to turn waste to energy. This offers climate 
benefits compared to landfilling, but does not offer the same 
level of environmental benefits as recycling or source 
reduction.
    For certain materials, the recycling system is working 
relatively well. Aluminum is typically the most valuable 
material found in home recycling bins, and its recycling 
process saves 95 percent of the material and energy. Of all the 
aluminum ever produced in North America, 75 percent of remains 
in use today.
    Unfortunately, that is not the same for plastic. Over the 
last 60 years, about eight billion tons of plastic has been 
produced globally, and about 75 percent -or 6.3 billion tons--
has become waste. Why is this the case? It is often cheaper to 
make new plastic from fossil fuels than to recycle it. And 
because plastic takes more than 400years to degrade, most of 
this waste is either languishing in landfills or found in the 
environment as litter. One study estimates that there will be 
more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050. That is simply 
unacceptable.
    And this pollution contributes significantly to climate 
change. Last year, global greenhouse gas emissions from 
plastics production, transport, and disposal were equal to the 
emissions from 189 coal-fired power plants. That emissions 
footprint is projected to more than triple by 2050, consuming 
up to 13 percent of the planet's remaining carbon budget.
    Clearly, solving the climate crisis will require strong 
action to address emissions from the production and disposal of 
plastic. This Committee has been hard at work developing 
legislative solutions to address the climate crisis. In 
January, we released the CLEANFuture Act, which will put the 
United States on a path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 
2050. When we released that draft, we noted several areas 
needing further work, including waste and recycling issues. I 
am pleased that we are holding this hearing today to continue 
that work.
    I thank our witnesses for being here today. I look forward 
to hearing their perspectives on how to modernize our recycling 
system and our economy to solve our plastic waste crisis and 
the climate crisis.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Tonko. The Chair now recognizes Representative Walden, 
the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his 
opening statement, please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. Good morning.
    Mr. Walden. And thanks to our witnesses today, and we 
appreciate the hearing on recycling, waste management, 
plastics, and how these play a role in our society and the 
environment, something I think we all care deeply about, 
especially with all the stories about plastic floating around 
out in the ocean and the sources of that waste.
    I think it is a really interesting topic and it does give 
us a chance to jump in more deeply into an issue that has 
gained a lot of traction, especially since China fully 
implemented its National Sword Policy which bans the importing 
of plastics and other recyclables, and in so doing, it will 
force us to consider many other issues that could raise 
significant and long-term policy impacts on the quality of life 
in the U.S.
    Mr. Chairman, I want us to do work that points us to 
targeted solutions. I want us to do work that will bring 
meaningful results. I am concerned, though, that this hearing, 
between its title, explanatory press statement, and the limited 
number of witnesses, is trying to pack an awful lot of issues 
into one thing. And the subcommittee may not be able to 
adequately cover or make progress on any individual subject.
    It is particularly true if this non-specific hearing is 
meant to satisfy some regular order requirement for any pieces 
of legislation because these are really important issues, and 
we need to be able to dive deeply on each one of them to get it 
right.
    First, the existing legal structure in the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act has, for the last four and a half decades, had the 
Federal Government setting policy for hazardous waste, but left 
curbside collection of ordinary trash and recyclables up to 
states and local governments. Some of our witnesses are 
suggesting a federal takeover--at least that is my term--of 
some of these responsibilities or precluding use entirely of 
sources of waste management such as incineration. Now those 
kinds of moves could strand billions of dollars in existing 
municipal investment and create waste collection management 
disruptions and confusion. If this is the direction the 
committee wants to go, we need to hear from the EPA; we need to 
hear from states--I know our counties are in town right now--
and local governments because they will all be impacted. So, 
hopefully, we would hear from all of those elements.
    Second, recycling rates, regardless of the item being 
recycled, are driven by quality feedstocks, high commodity 
prices, efficient collection, infrastructure resources, and 
effective public education. Now some sectors, like paper 
recyclers, have done a good job making investments to build out 
the infrastructure and pursue high-quality paper economically. 
Others are suffering because either the price of their 
commodities is low or they don't have a good collection 
infrastructure, or both.
    As for plastics, there are really two big issues, global 
marine debris and domestic management of plastics. We know EPA 
is actively working on its Trash-Free Waters Program to help 
capture or prevent marine litter from reaching the ocean, 
something that the EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler spoke about 
during last week's subcommittee hearing.
    In addition, the private sector I know is making major 
investments in attacking this problem. I think we could find a 
lot of collaboration on that matter. The domestic management 
has interesting permutations to it, from single-use plastics to 
low recycling rates. Plastic also shares the lack of domestic 
collection infrastructure that led to Asian importation policy 
against U.S. exports of these items.
    I wish we could have heard from the various sectors today 
to completely explain all these situations for us, so we could 
better understand plastics and the forces in Asia driving their 
waste laws.
    Third, plastic usage also brings up questions about climate 
change risks and the use of fossil fuels to make plastic. 
Before people look to remove plastic from the economy on the 
criteria alone, I think it would be good to have a discussion 
of what alternatives look like, and not only what their carbon 
footprint is, but also whether these items make our society 
safer or more secure. Moreover, we need to look at whether the 
tradeoff in lifestyle emissions is worse, rather than better, 
as it relates to climate and the environment.
    So, Mr. Chairman, we do have a serious challenge we are 
trying to tackle today. The answer is innovation, preparation, 
conservation, adaptation. And I welcome our witnesses and look 
forward to hearing from them.
    As a final footnote, we do have another subcommittee going 
on downstairs. So, some of us have to bounce back and forth, 
but we do have your statements. We appreciate your input.
    It is really an important issue. Oregon, my home state, led 
in these areas. My father in 1971 supported the bottle bill in 
Oregon. I think Oregon and maybe one other state were the 
first. So, it means a lot to Oregonians and me personally. We 
look forward to working together.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman for recognizing me to speak on our 
hearing about recycling, waste management, plastics, and how 
these play a role in our society and the environment.
    This is an interesting topic that will give all of us a 
chance to jump more deeply into an issue that has gained 
traction since China fully implemented its National Sword 
policy that bans importing of plastics and other recyclables. 
In doing so, it will force us to consider many other issues 
that could raise significant, long-term policy impacts on the 
quality of life in the United States.
    Mr. Chairman, I want us to do work that points us to 
targeted solutions that will bring meaningful results. I am 
concerned that this hearing, between its title, explanatory 
press statement, and the limited number of witnesses, is trying 
to pack in so many issues that the subcommittee may not be able 
to adequately cover or make progress on any individual subject. 
This is particularly true if this non-specifichearing is meant 
to satisfy "regular order" requirements for any piece of 
legislation.
    First, the existing legal structure in the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act has--for the last four and a-half decades--had the 
Federal Governmentsetting policy for hazardous waste but left 
curbside collection of ordinary trash and recyclables to states 
and local governments. Some ofour witnesses are suggesting a 
federal takeover of some of these responsibilities or 
precluding the use entirely of sources of wastemanagement, like 
incineration. Such a move would strand billions of dollars in 
existing municipal investment and create waste collection 
andmanagement disruptions and confusion. If this is the 
direction the Committee wants to go, we need to hear from the 
EPA, states, counties,and local governments that will be 
impacted.
    Second, recycling rates--regardless of the item being 
recycled--are driven by quality feedstocks, high commodity 
prices, efficient collection, infrastructure resources, and 
effective public education. Some sectors, like paper recyclers, 
have done a good job making investments to build out their 
infrastructure and pursue high quality paper economically. 
Others are suffering because either the price of their 
commodities is low, they don't have a good collection 
infrastructure, or both.
    As for plastics, there are really two issues: global marine 
debris and domestic management of plastics.
    According to the publication Nature, Asia produced 81 
metric tons of plastic waste, followed by Europe at 31 metric 
tons, and North America at 29 metric tons--0.3 metric tons of 
which were improperly disposed. EPA is actively working on its 
Trash Free Waters program to help capture or prevent marine 
litter from reaching the ocean, something Administrator Wheeler 
spoke about during last week's subcommittee hearing. In 
addition, the private sector is making major investments in 
attacking this problem.
    The domestic management has interesting permutations to it: 
from single use plastics to low recycling rates. Plastic also 
shares the lack ofdomestic collection infrastructure that lead 
to Asian importation policy against U.S. exports of these 
items.
    I wish we could have heard from the various sectors today 
to completely explain all these situations for us so we could 
better understand plastics and the forces in Asia driving their 
waste laws.
    Third, plastic usage also brings up questions about climate 
change risks and the use of fossil fuels to make plastic. 
Before people look toremove plastics from the economy on that 
criteria alone, I think it would be good to have a discussion 
of what the alternatives look like and notonly what their 
carbon footprint is, but also whether these items make our 
society safer and more secure. Moreover, we need to look at 
whetherthe trade-off in lifecycle emissions is worse, rather 
than better as it relates to the climate and the environment.
    Mr. Chairman, we have a serious challenge we are trying to 
tackle today. The answer is innovation, preparation, and 
adaption. I welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing 
from them.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made 
part of the record.
    I now will introduce the witnesses for today's hearing. 
Again, welcome to each and every one of you.
    We begin with Dr. Jenna Jambeck, professor at the College 
of Engineering at the University of Georgia.
    Seated next to her is Mr. Enrique Zaldivar, general manager 
of the Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment Bureau, the city 
of Los Angeles.
    Next is Ms. Lynn Hoffman, co-president of Eureka Recycling.
    Next to her, Ms. Denise Patel, U.S. program director of the 
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.
    Next, we have Mr. Keith Christman, managing director of 
plastic markets, American Chemistry Council.
    And finally, Mr. William Johnson, chief lobbyist of the 
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Incorporated.
    Welcome again to each.
    Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting 
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will 
initially be green. The light will turn yellow when you have 
one minute remaining. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at 
that point. The light will turn red when your time has expired.
    So, I now recognize Dr. Jambeck for 5 minutes to provide an 
opening statement, please.

STATEMENTS OF JENNA JAMBECK, PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 
 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA; ENRIQUE C. ZALDIVAR, GENERAL MANAGER, 
  LOS ANGELES SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENT BUREAU, CITY OF LOS 
 ANGELES; LYNN HOFFMAN, CO-PRESIDENT, EUREKA RECYCLING; DENISE 
 PATEL, U.S. PROGRAM DIRECTOR, GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR INCINERATOR 
   ALTERNATIVES; KEITH CHRISTMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLASTIC 
MARKETS, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, AND WILLIAM JOHNSON, CHIEF 
LOBBYIST, INSTITUTE OF SCRAP RECYCLING INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED

                   STATEMENT OF JENNA JAMBECK

    Ms. Jambeck. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairman 
Pallone, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Members Shimkus and Walden, 
and the rest of the Environment and Climate Change 
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Jenna Jambeck. I am a professor of environmental 
engineering at the University of Georgia and a National 
Geographic Fellow. I have been conducting research on solid 
waste for over 24 years with projects on marine debris and 
plastic for 19.
    I have submitted a longer written testimony today. My 
testimony is my opinion based upon my background and 
experience.
    Just two weeks ago, I was picking through trash taken from 
public trash cans and hotel rooms, sorting waste just like you 
and I throw away every day, into 18 different categories. There 
is nothing else quite like it--pizza crust, hotdogs, rice, and 
yogurt all mixed together with packaging of all shapes and 
sizes, mostly plastic.
    We are working collaboratively with a U.S. community 
conducting our Circularity Assessment Protocol, so that they 
can be empowered with data for decisionmaking. The activity of 
literally digging through and classifying waste really causes 
you to reflect on what we use, consume, and the waste we 
generate when we throw something away. It also viscerally 
brings home the message that the best thing you can do 
environmentally is not produce waste in the first place. No 
matter if material is reused or recycled, it all takes effort, 
energy, and often transportation. So, not having to manage 
waste at all is best.
    I say this for us to keep in mind as we discuss how we 
manage our waste today--the logistics, the practicalities, the 
human dimension, and expenses associated with it--that not 
producing it in the first place should be our primary goal. But 
the reality is that, even as we move towards circular materials 
management, which is a critical step towards a circular 
economy, we will still have waste to manage. And right now, the 
U.S. leads the world with waste generation.
    Globally, two billion metric tons of waste is generated. In 
the U.S., the per-person waste generation is two to six times 
the waste generation of many countries around the world. While 
we are the third most populous country, we only have four 
percent of the population, but we generate 16 percent of the 
world's waste stream; currently, about 329 million metric tons 
of waste annually.
     Plastic in the waste stream has continued to grow by mass 
from .4 percent to 13 percent now, and the sheer variety of 
plastic items that can be made, which is often why we utilize 
the material, creates a multitude of challenges in terms of 
waste management.
    Everyone should keep recycling as best they can, and it 
gives us all kinds of benefits in terms of carbon, jobs, and 
the economy. But the reality is, we cannot be saved by 
recycling as it is now. Our recycling rates have never risen 
above about a third of our waste stream, and we are currently 
at about 25 percent. We have been exporting half of that 
overseas, which has impacted lower-income countries and, also, 
was impacted by the ban from China. And we still landfill over 
half our waste.
    The recycle rate is driven by high-value items, with 
plastics being the least recycled material at about 8 percent. 
I made a list of the most recycled items reported by the EPA, 
and I looked at them to see what they had in common. They are 
either regulated, like lead acid batteries, which are nearly 
100 percent recyclable, or sometimes source-separated valuable, 
and ironically, pretty heavy--so, cardboard and metals.
    Contrary to carbon discussions and light-weighting 
packaging for transportation, it is the materials that are most 
dense that have the most value. This is just one example of a 
tradeoff when examining making changes to our current system.
    Life cycle assessments analyze data from cradle to grave in 
a holistic, quantitative manner and may include things like 
waste, use, energy, carbon footprint, and other emissions data, 
but there are some impacts that a product may have at its end 
of life that are not included. The cost of management of things 
like blowing plastic bags in a landfill, downtime at a 
materials recovery facility, or plastic bags choking turtles 
and filling the stomachs of whales, those don't fit 
conveniently into an LCA and illustrate more tradeoffs.
    But I am optimistic that together we can collaboratively 
come up with ideas for change, and here are some to start:
    Better data collection. We need standard definitions, 
methods, and tracking of materials, especially plastic. This 
seems critical to me to be able to make informed decisions.
    Reduce our waste generation. It is not just about personal 
choice, although this does play a role, but we need to 
facilitate innovation in businesses to get products to people 
without producing waste.
    The circular economy means changing value propositions, 
services, and creative use of technology; promoting high-value 
materials and product designs that are easy to capture and 
recycle. This could mean some materials and products get 
banned, fees, deposit/return schemes, or otherwise standardized 
or regulated packaging. The bottom line is our material and 
product designers taken end-of-life management into account 
and, if needed, extend or produce the responsibility which can 
be used to promote collaboration and provide resources for 
infrastructure.
    Consider source-separating organic and other materials. 
Source-separating food waste can reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions to landfills, and source separation may be needed for 
cleaner commodities, or at least to remove contaminants from 
the waste and recycle stream.
    Community-based data. Engage our citizens. They need to be 
empowered with information about their materials flow and waste 
for decisionmaking. After all, communities are on the front 
lines of this issue and don't often have a voice.
    Input also needs to come from the people that manage our 
waste daily. And I am glad to see at least two facilities 
represented here today.
    We absolutely need leadership from companies and 
government. If companies and governments are more thoughtful 
about products, materials, and waste, citizens will be, too.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jambeck follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Jambeck.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Zaldivar for 5 minutes, 
please.

                STATEMENT OF ENRIQUE C. ZALDIVAR

    Mr. Zaldivar. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Tonko, 
Ranking Member Walden, Ranking Member Shimkus, honorable 
members of the committee.
    My name is Enrique Zaldivar. I am the director and general 
manager of the Sanitation and Environment Agency for the city 
of Los Angeles. I report to Mayor Garcetti. I have served in 
this capacity for over 12 years and have worked in the 
department for over 30 years.
    Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on the 
state of recycling in the city of Los Angeles, as your 
committee looks at broader aspects of the nation's solid waste 
management systems. The scope of my testimony is limited to the 
state of the recycling markets for commodities collected in the 
city's residential curbside blue bin program, be it aluminum, 
steel, glass, plastic, or paper/fiber materials.
    LA's curbside program is one of the most mature and one of 
the largest programs in the nation. In operation since the 
early '90s, LA's recycling system has fully been established 
and fused into the everyday lives of Angelenos. The culture of 
separating and recycling for the greater good of conserving and 
recovering resources is fully ingrained in the mindsets of 
Angelenos.
    Much as Angelenos do their part on the front end, the 
processing and marketing systems of the commodities were 
working equally well on the back end for over three decades, as 
we have come to rely, perhaps complacently, on China as our 
single-source destination market. It is well-known that China 
began restricting the type of recyclable commodities starting 
in 2013, culminating in a virtual ban of all U.S. recyclables 
in 2019 under the China Sword Policy.
    LA's curbside program collects over 200,000 tons of 
recyclables per year. Up until 2013, we raised over $4 million 
a year in net positive revenue from the sale of recyclables. 
Then, the recycling markets crashed. Last year in 2019, the 
program cost a net negative $8 million. And this year, we 
estimate it to close at $12 million net negative.
    Using the loss in revenue alone as an indicator, it 
compellingly points to a state of crisis in the recycling 
markets. But there is something even greater at risk--the gains 
we have made as Angelenos, as Californians, and as Americans in 
making recycling and resource recovery the centerpiece of our 
environmental ethos.
    On behalf of Mayor Garcetti and the City Council, I want to 
be clear that Los Angeles and Angelenos remain unequivocally 
committed to keeping recycling front and center of our solid 
waste management system. In fact, Mayor Garcetti's zero waste 
goal for LA to go landfill-free by 2050 is our roadmap to waste 
reduction and resource recovery.
    Our immediate challenge is to restore stability to our blue 
bin program, resuscitate and recover the markets for 
recyclables, and to develop reliable and sustainable markets 
domestically and within North America; that is, within the 
U.S., Mexico, and Canada. We cannot any longer rely on overseas 
markets.
     Such an effort requires the full participation of the 
Federal Government in collaboration with state and local 
governments and in partnership with the private sector and 
environmental organizations, which is why we are so 
appreciative of your committee in demonstrating the necessary 
leadership to make this issue of national interest.
    I want to thank Congressman Cardenas and Congressman 
Bucshon for their bipartisan leadership in introducing H.R. 
5115, the RECOVER Act, which is an example of the kinds of 
bills Congress will need to pass in order to support the 
recycling industry in the United States.
    And because the fundamental aspirations of any and all 
recycling systems anywhere in our nation is to ensure that the 
recovered resources get reintroduced into the normal channels 
of commerce, it is critical that the supply industry reach the 
logistics of commerce and trade to recognize and embrace the 
importance of recycling.
    We recommend that your committee consider an assignment of 
a recovery fee on products introduced into the marketplace 
across the country. We also recommend that products brought 
into the market have recyclability fully considered, if not 
required, before introduction into the marketplace.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Zaldivar follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Zaldivar.
    Next, we will go to Ms. Hoffman. You are recognized for 5 
minutes, please, with your opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF LYNN HOFFMAN

    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Chairmen Pallone, Tonko, Ranking 
Members Shimkus and Walden, and members of the committee.
    Eureka Recycling is a nonprofit, social enterprise recycler 
based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with a mission to demonstrate 
that waste is completely preventable. We employ 109 amazing 
people with living-wage jobs who collect, sort, and market 
110,000 tons of curbside recycling every year. We have an 
annual operating budget of $14 million and the two largest 
residential recycling contracts in the State for the cities of 
Minneapolis and St. Paul. We are on the front lines of waste 
reduction, holding a strong belief in our bold vision for a 
world without waste, while we wrestle with the day-to-day 
challenges facing recycling today.
    The impacts of the National Sword Policy have presented 
real challenges for us and the communities that we serve over 
the past two years. We lost almost 50 percent of our revenue, 
and the cities went from receiving tens of thousands of dollars 
per month in revenue-share to paying tens of thousands of 
dollars in additional to cover just the base-level processing 
costs.
    While very challenging, this time also offers opportunity 
to rebuild a recycling system that actually delivers on its 
potential to address climate change, mitigate the inequitable 
impacts of waste, support healthy regional economies, and good 
green jobs.
    In my written testimony, I share six lessons that we have 
learned through our experience, three of which I will touch on 
today, in hopes they will inform the subcommittee's ongoing 
work in this area.
    Lesson 1 is about prioritizing investments. Our domestic 
recycling infrastructure urgently needs investment. However, we 
need the right criteria to prioritize where we are spending 
those much-needed dollars. We need to start with low-hanging 
fruit, targeting materials that are currently authentically 
recyclable, in demand, and being lost by the millions of tons 
to landfills and incinerators.
    For example, No. 1, PET bottles like water and soda 
bottles, highly recyclable and, in theory, in great demand from 
brands who are making new public comments to use more recycled 
PET in their packaging. Yet, right now, only 1 in 10 PET 
bottles are recycled in the U.S., and prices for recycling PET 
on the market remain far too low because we are competing with 
cheap, heavily-subsidized virgin ethylene derived from fracking 
and other extraction. Policies like recycle content mandates 
and thoughtfully-designed container deposit legislation are 
proven solutions to these challenges.
    Now, compare PET bottles to other plastics that have less 
or no value, no end markets, and major challenges to collect 
and sort, such as No. 6, polystyrene, or No. 3, PVC. Rather 
than spend the billions of dollars needed upfront to create 
entirely new systems to recycle these items, a less costly and 
more effective approach would involve bans and fees to 
encourage the reduction, redesign, and phaseout of the most 
problematic materials.
    Lesson 2 is who pays. Beyond just prioritizing investments, 
we need to consider where or who the money is coming from. At 
Eureka, we just invested $2 million worth of equipment in order 
for our facility to keep up with the changing composition of 
packaging that we get, especially the ever-increasing amount of 
plastic.
    Like all the other recycling facilities in the country, we 
are needing to make investments like these with increasing 
frequency, making it more expensive to provide the services our 
communities require. The burden is falling entirely on the 
individual taxpayer. As it stands today, producers have no skin 
in the game when it comes to the end of life of the products 
and packaging that they create. To remedy this imbalance, we 
need strong, extended producer responsibility legislation that 
requires all stakeholders to pay their fair share.
    Lesson 3 is that recycling is just part of the solution. 
Perhaps the most important lesson is we cannot recycle our way 
out of our consumption and climate crisis. Recycling is one 
important and viable solution for some products and packaging. 
However, as Chairmen Tonko and Pallone spoke to, the majority 
of things we discard, and even recycle, will be best addressed 
through upstream strategies like reuse and reduction.
    According to the World Resources Institute, for every can 
of garbage at the curb, there are 87 cans worth of waste 
generated upstream before that product even gets to consumers. 
The more we buy and discard, and even recycle, the more 
consumption emissions we generate and the faster climate change 
accelerates.
    With the explosion of emerging technologies, it is also 
important to be cautious of false solutions that are sold under 
the banner of circularity. If a technology ultimately destroys 
the resource it is processing, such as creating a fuel that 
will be burned, it is not recycling.
    Finally, we are encouraged by the momentum and the interest 
we are seeing from policymakers in waste reduction. Eureka has 
contributed to the development and we support the Zero Waste 
Act and the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act. These bills 
and the RECYCLE Act are important pieces of the puzzle, and we 
stand ready to work with all Members on the diverse array of 
additional solutions we need.
    We are part of a growing community of zero waste advocates 
and organizations that have been addressing these issues for 
decades, as well as members of the Alliance of Mission-Based 
Recyclers who have important knowledge to share and leadership 
to provide at this critical time.
    Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hoffman follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Hoffman.
    And next, we will move to Ms. Patel. You are recognized for 
an opening statement for 5 minutes, please.

                   STATEMENT OF DENISE PATEL

    Ms. Patel. Thank you, Chairmen Tonko and Pallone, and 
Representatives Shimkus and Walden, and members of the 
Subcommittee on Climate and Environment. It is an honor to be 
here today.
    I am the U.S. program director at the Global Alliance for 
Incinerator Alternatives, a network of organizations working to 
build zero waste solutions. Our members are primarily 
grassroots and frontline organizations living near 
incinerators, waste pickers and workers, and allies in the 
environmental and social justice movement.
    The United States is facing both a climate crisis and a 
waste crisis. In 2018, greenhouse gas emissions from waste were 
the sixth greatest source of stationary emissions in the U.S., 
after petrochemical-related activities, and it is only getting 
worse.
    The combination of cheap new plastic from shale gas and a 
lack of end markets for recycling has led to more plastic waste 
going to landfill and incineration. Incinerators emit more 
greenhouse gas emissions than coal-fired power plants per unit 
of energy generated. That figure increases when more plastic is 
burned.
    Incinerators also emit more harmful copollutants than 
fossil fuel power plants. These copollutants include 
particulate matter, dioxins, lead, and mercury that are known 
to cause asthma, cardiovascular disease, developmental 
disorders in children, and cancers. Seventy-nine percent of 
municipal solid waste incinerators are located in environmental 
justice communities which are already disproportionately 
impacted by pollution. Many are also in desperate need of 
upgrades and repairs to prevent harmful emissions that are 
often passed on to local governments, even as they face 
financial challenges, for waste collection and recycling 
operations. The toxic ash produced from incineration must, 
then, be landfilled, adding to the environmental health burden 
of environmental justice communities, exposing them to more 
pollution as the ash leaches into local water supplies or 
drifts into homes with the wind. These same communities are 
also hardest hit by the impacts of climate change, whether 
severe storms, deadly heat waves, spikes in food prices, or 
allergy- and pollution-induced asthma attacks and are less able 
to deal with these impacts.
    Meanwhile, plastic and plastic additives are present in our 
bodies and have reached the most remote parts of the earth. 
Yet, faced with an accelerating climate, plastic, and health 
crisis, fossil fuel and plastic companies plan to quadruple 
production over the next 30 years, and the remedies they are 
offering are woefully inadequate. If the business-as-usual 
approach continues unmitigated, cumulative greenhouse gas 
emissions from growth in plastic production and incineration 
alone through 2050 will consume up to 13 percent of the total 
remaining global carbon budget we have to keep global 
temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
    Only 9.1 percent of the plastic produced since 1915 has 
ever been recycled. More than 15 percent has been incinerated. 
History shows that we cannot recycle or incinerate our way out 
of this crisis. We also cannot rely on complicated, expensive, 
and unproven methods like chemical recycling and plastic to 
fuel, as the industry suggests. The little information that we 
do know shows chemical recycling technology is not yet proven 
to work and is energy-intensive, and produces more greenhouse 
gas emissions and toxic waste. The recent attention to plastic 
pollution in the ocean shines a light on the systemic problems 
of how waste is created and managed in the United States, but 
there are real human dimensions to this problem.
    Our key recommendations are embodied in the Break Free From 
Plastic Pollution Act and the Zero Waste Act. In addition to 
those, I would like to highlight that we would call for a ban 
on incineration and minimize landfilling to the greatest extent 
possible, due to their contribution to the climate crisis and 
disproportionate impact to environmental justice communities. 
For those same reasons, incineration should never be classified 
as a clean and renewable energy source.
    We agree that single-use plastics and plastics that cannot 
be mechanically recycled should be banned. We believe that we 
should reduce plastic production and level the playing field 
upstream and downstream by halting permits for new and 
expanding plastic production facilities and ending subsidies to 
fossil fuel extraction. And we believe that we should 
incentivize innovation in new reuse and refill businesses and 
systems across the country, while mandating manufacturers to 
use high levels of recycled content in new products and 
packaging.
    The reality is that we simply cannot prevent catastrophic 
climate change without also addressing the crisis of the waste. 
We see these two issues as completely in sync. Waste is a 
byproduct of a system designed for overproduction and over 
consumption that is historically dumped on the poor and 
marginalized, particularly communities of color across America. 
It is a failed system.
    Any new law, policy, regulation, or investment should 
prioritize the needs and desires of and invest in those 
communities that have been most impacted by it. And to correct 
the system, solutions must also aim for zero waste and reject 
false solutions. Simply put, emissions from waste cannot exist 
if we don't produce the waste in the first place.
    I thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak with 
you today, and I look forward to the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Patel follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Patel.
    Next, we recognize Mr. Christman for an opening statement 
for 5 minutes, please.

                  STATEMENT OF KEITH CHRISTMAN

    Mr. Christman. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, 
thank you for the opportunity to be here today to address this 
subcommittee on plastic recycling and recovery opportunities.
    ACC and our members are deeply committed to ending plastic 
waste and other waste in the environment and creating a more 
circular economy for plastics. The benefits of plastics are 
diminished when it ends up in the environment.
    We believe these challenges, while significant, are 
ultimately solvable. The stakes are high. Plastics are critical 
to modern society. From lightweight car parts that save energy 
to insulating our offices and homes, to delivering essential 
health care, to preserve food and preventing food waste, 
plastics play an essential role in our society.
    Let me start with helping to end plastic waste in the 
environment. Last year, global companies in the plastics value 
chain from manufacturer to disposal, including many ACC 
members, announced the creation of the Alliance to End Plastic 
Waste. This global, nonprofit organization is committing $1.5 
billion over five years to help end plastic waste in the 
environment.
    Unquestionably, China's ban on imports of plastic and other 
recyclables has caused significant short-term disruption to our 
recycling systems, but this disruption has also created a new 
opportunity to create a circular economy for plastics and other 
materials. ACC and our members have committed to help create 
this circular economy. For example, we have committed to 
reusing, recycling, and recovering all plastic packaging by 
2040 and making all plastic packaging recycling by 2030 in the 
United States. This will take policy, innovations, and 
investment.
    We are now seeing that investment. Since China's Sword 
Policy was implemented, we have seen more than $4.2 billion in 
new investments in mechanical and advanced plastic recycling, 
with potential to convert 6 billion pounds of plastic into new 
products every year. These technologies offer significant 
economic and environmental potential. DOE has estimated that 
one of these advanced recycling technologies, for example, 
would reduce fossil energy use by 96 percent and fresh water 
use by up to 58 percent.
    Demonstrating the market viability of these projects, there 
are now 40 advanced recycling facilities already operational 
and with more planned. For example, Nexus Fuels in Atlanta is 
transforming post-use plastics into liquids that are being used 
by Shell to make a new range of chemicals. In addition, Agilyx 
and Americas Syrenics in Tigard, Oregon, are currently 
converting thousands of tons of post-use polystyrene back to 
styrene for new plastics. And Brightmark Energy expects their 
new $260 million advanced recycling facility in Ashley, 
Indiana, to be operational by the end of 2020. It will convert 
100,000 tons of plastics into products. ACC projects that the 
U.S. could support 260 advanced recycling facilities, 
generating nearly 39,000 jobs and $9.9 billion in economic 
output.
    In addition to our efforts to help end plastic waste in the 
environment, we believe policy is important. ACC and our 
members support the bipartisan Save our Seas Act, both 1 and 
2.0, as well as the RECOVER Act, the RECYCLE Act, and the 
PLASTICS Act.
    We would particularly like to thank full committee members 
Tony Cardenas and Larry Bucshon for introducing the RECOVER 
Act. The RECOVER Act establishes a recycling infrastructure 
program within EPA.
    The RECYCLE Act will improve recycling education. Studies 
show that about 25 percent of recyclable materials are lost due 
to lack of knowledge.
    While ACC strongly supports efforts in plastic waste and 
the environment, and improved circularity, ACC must oppose 
proposals that would ban many plastic products or impose a 
moratorium on new plastic facilities. These proposals would 
increase environmental impacts by switching to alternatives. 
For example, the environmental accounting firm True Cost 
recently found the environmental cost of alternatives to 
plastics across 16 consumer goods sectors was four times 
greater than the environmental cost of plastic.
    In conclusion, the American Chemistry Council is working to 
end plastic waste in the environment and to create a circular 
economy for plastics.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Christman follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Christman.
    We next recognize Mr. Johnson for an opening statement for 
5 minutes, please.

                STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. JOHNSON

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko, and good 
morning to you and to Mr. Shimkus. It is an honor to be here 
before you to discuss the important role of recycling in our 
society.
    Recycling in the United States is an important economic 
engine, job creator, and environmental steward. The recycling 
industry directly employs more than 164,000 Americans while 
generating $110 billion in economic activity. These numbers 
tell a story of a strong U.S. recycling industry, but not one 
without challenges in key segments. To understand these 
challenges, it is important to first understand what makes for 
successful recycling.
    First, successful recycling requires market demand. If 
there is no end market to utilize the recyclable materials that 
are collected, they will not be recycled and used again in 
manufacturing. And collection without market consumption is not 
recycling.
    Second, successful recycling requires minimal contamination 
as recyclables are products sold by specification grade with 
their corresponding value and marketability directly related to 
quality.
    Recycling in the U.S. involves far more than what is placed 
in the blue bin. The recycling infrastructure in the U.S. 
touches almost every part of our economy from retail stores, 
office complexes, residential neighborhoods, schools, 
factories, and even military bases.
    The vast majority of the recyclable material that flows 
through the recycling infrastructure does so without any 
problems and is transformed by recyclers into clean, high 
quality, commodity grade materials used globally in 
manufacturing.
    Specifically, what makes the residential stream so 
different is that, while it is subject to the same demand-
driven end markets, it is saddled with an ever-changing mix of 
materials on the supply side, and that material flows through 
into the stream, whether there is a market for it or not. This 
sets the residential recycling infrastructure apart from 
commercial and industrial recycling in the U.S., and that is 
why it demands a unique approach.
    Because of the challenges being experienced in the 
residential recycling infrastructure, we are seeing a growing 
loss of confidence in recycling on the part of the general 
public, which is of great concern to all of us in the recycling 
industry.
    First, recycling does work, although it is not without 
challenges. Our country's recycling infrastructure processes 
more than 138 million tons of recyclables annually. However, 
residential recycling only is about 30 percent of that. The 
other 70 percent comes from recycling of commercial and 
industrial materials that tends to be cleaner.
    Second, there is no one singular solution to the challenges 
we are experiencing in the residential recycling 
infrastructure. The residential recycling chain and associated 
infrastructure in the U.S. is a complex system which is driven 
by market demand, but saddled with a supply chain that is 
generally not linked to current market conditions.
    There are four major pressure points that we see in the 
current residential recycling infrastructure.
    The first point is right before the material enters the 
recycling stream, when the decision is made whether to put an 
item in the bin, and that is where education can play a very 
important role.
    The second pressure point is between the municipality and 
the MRFs, or the materials recovery facilities, where there is 
a need for contracting policies and procedures that provide 
flexibility for market fluctuations.
    The third pressure point is processing where, despite 
investments that are already being made, there is a need for 
additional upgrading of equipment and facilities.
    The fourth pressure point is at the point following 
processing when the recyclables enter the end market. This is 
where market development is needed.
    At ISRI, we believe that all stakeholders must come 
together to develop a common understanding of the weaknesses 
affecting the residential stream, and then, work together to 
develop a menu of solutions that need to be put into place.
    Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the 
complexities of the recycling systems.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And again, thanks to 
each and every witness for your opening statements.
    We will now move to member questions, and I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Jambeck, I was interested in the charts in your 
testimony showing recycling rates for different types of 
products. Granted, there are different environmental risks and 
volumes of materials, but it seems that we have figured lead 
acid battery recycling. Can you help us understand the major 
factors in recycling rates? What makes some products so high 
compared to others?
    Ms. Jambeck. Sure. That is a great question.
    So, what I did was make this chart specifically of items 
that were very highly recycled and, then, sort of make some 
notes. Lead acid batteries are very regulated, and they are 
required to be brought back and recycled, and places are 
required to have the facilities to do that. In other cases, 
these are high-value materials and, as I said, they are often 
heavy. They have substance, right? So, metals and cardboard. 
Cardboard is often source separated. So, a lot of companies get 
cardboard in and it remains very clean, and then, it has a 
higher commodity. Steel and aluminum are very easy to separate 
at an MRF with magnets or eddy current separators. So, the 
technology is there.
    As we get to kind of lower rates, we can kind of see 
plastic itself gets very hard to separate. It gets mixed with 
paper. Paper itself can get contaminated by other items. But 
the two highest items I wanted to point out in plastic are 
HDPE, which is clear milk jugs and it specifically said 
``clear'' because, of course, that has a higher value because 
it can be colored and reused, and PET, which was mentioned here 
as well, again, sort of a heavy substance.
    So, I think when we look at this, and when we think about 
design of materials, it is actually the substance that can have 
more value and makes it recyclable.
    Mr. Tonko. Now we know the state and local roles in 
recycling, but what types of policies could the Federal 
Government consider to help improve these rates?
    Ms. Jambeck. I think that if something doesn't have 
inherent value, as we sort of talked about here, then a very 
thoughtful container deposit/return scheme that was brought up 
even by Ranking Member Walden here for Oregon. So, those kinds 
of schemes give values to items, so that they will come back 
into the system.
    Mr. Tonko. And what is the right balance between sticking 
to incentivized better markets for some of the lower-value 
materials versus incentivizing manufacturers to consider using 
different materials from the outset?
    Ms. Jambeck. That is a great question that I think involves 
looking at tradeoffs a bit holistically. But, certainly, there 
are materials and products that require redesign, I think, to 
actually enter the system, and some of them that may not be 
worthwhile at all with a circular system.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, your testimony suggests that design for 
recycling could continue to be an important part of the 
solution. Do you believe manufacturers are giving this concept 
greater consideration today?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I do. In fact, we give an award every 
year for companies that design their products to be recycled 
and considering reducing toxic materials in them; and also, 
considering the ways that those products will end up being 
recycled, being broken down, and how that happens. So, yes, 
they do, and we have awarded our award for over 20 years to a 
variety of companies from electronics to chair manufacturers, 
and on and on.
    Mr. Tonko. How much more can be done to improve 
recyclability in the early stages of product and packaging 
design?
    Mr. Johnson. Oh, I think quite a bit. And I know that the 
companies are working on it. Their customers are demanding it 
right now. And so, I think that is going to speed their 
motivation up quite a bit.
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Zaldivar and Ms. Hoffman, can you give us a 
sense of how the economics of local recycling programs have 
changed since China's National Sword Policy went into effect?
    Mr. Zaldivar. Certainly for Los Angeles, Chairman, we have 
gone negative. It has become a cost, all burdened by the 
ratepayers. Clearly, the value of the recycling commodities as 
a whole has gone negative. And so, there is just no financial 
incentive now for seeking revenue from the recyclables, which 
is why my call for urgency to recover the markets.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Ms. Hoffman?
    Ms. Hoffman. I can give a few specific examples maybe about 
commodities. In particular, cardboard has decreased for us from 
2018 being at $91 a ton to now about $45. Aluminum has 
decreased from about $1600 a ton to about $1,000 in that same 
time period. Our entire basket value, meaning the average kind 
of scoop you would take out of the pile, that value has gone 
down from $72-73 to about $48 in that time period.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    I will now recognize Representative Shimkus for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I see Scott has his metal water bottle prominently 
displayed. We have a plastic pitcher here, and we have a non-
recyclable cup, and I am using these two.
    I am pro-plastic. OK? Plastic is a material consisting of 
any of a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic 
compounds that are malleable and can be molded into solid 
objects. That is the definition of it, and it has made our 
lives better in this process. So, any move to ban plastics in 
our society would meet with, I think, a lot of objection 
throughout our society.
    And let's talk about this China National Sword Program. Mr. 
Johnson, why did China institute this policy?
    Mr. Johnson. There is a couple of reasons. The first one 
was a reputational issue with China, that they felt that they 
were getting trash and lower-quality material. They were also 
trying to eliminate corruption in their country by restricting 
this material. And lastly, they are developing their own 
domestic recycling infrastructure there. So, there is really 
sort of three major reasons why they did that.
    We look at it as a wake-up call to the United States and to 
our residential recycling programs to improve our quality of 
the material that we are getting in here. And that is going to 
be, again, educating the public about what to put into the bin 
and what not to put into the bin. That might even be more 
important as to what not to put into the bin and to get a 
higher quality material, which will raise the price and also 
having more recycled content in new products.
    Mr. Shimkus. So, I think most of the panelists have said, 
obviously, China's National Sword Program has been a wake-up 
call for all of us to try to do a better job, get better 
material, source it better.
    Mr. Johnson and Mr. Christman, there is legislation 
introduced in the House and Senate that would authorize grants 
to states, local governments, and Indian tribes, nonprofits, 
and public-private partnerships to educate and inform consumers 
about residential and community recycling programs. I would 
assume you would agree that that is a good idea. Mr. Christman?
    Mr. Christman. Yes, we support that.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes. In general, yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. And most Americans think of recycling in terms 
of blue curbside bins, as has been mentioned here before. And 
while individual consumer actions are noble, the reality is 
most recycled material comes from commercial and industrial 
stakeholders. Can you briefly speak to the quantity of 
recyclable material we are talking about in terms of curbside 
versus commercial. Let's start with Mr. Johnson with the 
association.
    Mr. Johnson. Certainly. Well, it is about 138 million 
metric tons of materials processed in the United States, and as 
I said, it is about 30 percent of that is from the residential 
stream; 70 percent comes from the commercial and industrial 
recycling.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Christman, do you want to add anything?
    I mean, one of my roles in the Recycling Caucus is to make 
sure that that part of that story is told. All my colleagues, 
we all visit manufacturing facilities. And a good manufacturing 
facility is going to trim the metal and throw it back into the 
bin and re-melt it. A good plastic company is going to trim off 
the little nubbies and stick them back into the feeder to 
recreate the same bottle that the original pieces were going to 
be involved with. So, we do appreciate it.
    Let me go to Ms. Hoffman. Your organization is a not-for-
profit?
    Ms. Hoffman. That is correct.
    Mr. Shimkus. So, in your testimony you talked about, in 
essence, baking in some more cost in this process. My question 
is, why haven't you done that in your bid proposals for the 
recycling efforts that you have in the Twin Cities?
    Ms. Hoffman. That is a good question. I think the average 
contract period is typically five to seven years when you sign 
a contract with the city. And so, the National Sword has 
impacted and changed the markets in a way before contracts were 
able to be renewed. I think we are seeing a big shift in the 
marketplace. Again, as I mentioned before, I think cities will 
bear the burden of the increased cost to produce quality 
recyclables and to operate in this marketplace as it is.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, some contractual obligations have 
clauses--and I am not a lawyer and I don't write them--but 
externalities; when there are other pressures placed on, then 
you can go and renegotiate the contract.
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. I mean, that is part of what the revenue-
share model is in our contracts, too. So, there is shared risk 
and reward in high and low markets.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. I appreciate you all being here.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Chairman Pallone of the full committee for 5 minutes 
to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I wanted to ask some questions about the plastic waste 
crisis, because I do think it is a crisis. And maybe what I 
will do is just ask each of you to answer yes or no to this 
first question, going down the line.
    Do you believe that we can effectively address our plastic 
waste crisis without reducing the amount of plastic we produce 
in the first place? Just yes or no, starting with Ms. Jambeck. 
No?
    Ms. Jambeck. No.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Mr. Zaldivar?
    Mr. Zaldivar. It is possible.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Mr. Zaldivar. It is possible.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Ms. Hoffman?
    Ms. Hoffman. No, I don't.
    Ms. Pallone. OK. And then, Ms. Patel?
    Ms. Patel. No, I don't.
    Ms. Pallone. And, Mr. Christman?
    Mr. Christman. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. Pallone. And, Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I think it is possible.
    Ms. Pallone. OK.
    Mr. Johnson. I hope it is, too.
    Ms. Pallone. What did you say, Bill?
    Mr. Johnson. I hope it is, too.
    Ms. Pallone. OK. I think that addressing this plastic waste 
crisis is going to require efforts to reduce the waste stream, 
not just recycle it. That is my view. And I think we have to 
learn from our past experience with recycling and avoid relying 
again on strategies like exporting contaminated materials, 
which allowed us to ignore our waste without actually 
addressing it.
    And again, our patchwork of recycling programs creates 
confusion for consumers. Particularly the move towards single 
stream recycling has, I think, made it easier for consumers to 
recycle, but harder for processes to manage the waste system, 
especially when unrecyclable materials inadvertently wind up in 
the recycling bins.
    So, let me go back to Dr. Jambeck. How can we improve 
science and tracking to ensure we are actually addressing the 
waste we produce?
    Ms. Jambeck. Yes. So, I have seen a few programs throughout 
the world in terms of tracking materials better. Some of them 
include RFID tracking of materials, which we have done here. In 
some cases when people get their waste collected at their home, 
there was a program called Recycle bank, and that was sort of 
credited to those people.
    I think, in general, I would love to see more collaboration 
about understanding how much material we are wasting and using. 
As we do science looking at potential mitigation options for 
this, it has been hard to get actual quantities of materials 
that go into certain products, and then, the use of those 
products, and then, the waste stream. We have different 
metrics--count, mass. So, all of those have been a little 
confounding as we have tried to do science around this issue.
    Ms. Pallone. OK. Ms. Hoffman, you referred several times in 
your testimony to materials that are authentically recyclable. 
And I think that term captures the disconnect between what we 
thought we were recycling in the past and what was just being 
dumped. Are there any strategies being used or discussed in the 
recycling arena today that you see as inauthentic?
    Ms. Hoffman. Certainly. Yes, I think that there is a 
disconnect that I think we an address between the production of 
materials and the end of life. I think there is a 
misunderstanding that, if you make a product out of a 
technically recyclable material, that that means it will, then, 
in fact, be recycled. But there are so many other factors that 
need to be considered in terms of its ability to be collected, 
to be sorted, how it impacts existing infrastructure, how it 
behaves in the equipment.
    So, for example, we often will get expanded PET insulation 
that goes into kind of meal crates made of PET, No. 1. It says 
on there, ``Please recycle.'' But our PET markets don't want 
it. It is flat. It ends up in the paper in our process. It is 
very hard to remove. So, I think there is a difference between 
technically being recyclable and actually getting recycled, and 
that is where we need manufacturers and producers to be more 
involved and engaged in the design.
    Ms. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
    My next question is, what is the most important thing the 
Federal Government can to do to modernize our outdated 
recycling system? I don't think I am going to get a response 
from more than one. So, let me go on the other end here. Mr. 
Johnson, what do you think we should do to modernize our 
recycling system?
    Mr. Johnson. Well, there is a lot of new technologies that 
are coming onto the market. And so, there can be things like 
business incentives, tax incentives for businesses to, for the 
recyclers to incorporate those new technologies, would be the 
first one.
    Also, encouraging, through other types of incentives, for 
manufacturers to design their products to be recycled; to use 
more recycled content in their products. And those should be 
some quick ones to help.
    Ms. Pallone. All right. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The chairman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative McKinley for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I ran across an article the last few days from the 
Institute of Animal Health, and it was an interesting quote 
that he said. According to their group, ``Plastic is leading 
our present civilization towards extinction.'' And that 
concerns me, that kind of statement, because I think that 
epitomizes the hysteria that seems to be emerging over the use 
of plastics.
    In my district in northern West Virginia, we are 
experiencing a shale gas boom with Marcellus and Utica. And we 
developed this. This resin comes from gas. And from that, from 
this product, we get a listing of furniture parts, fibers, 
carpeting, Plexiglas, lenses, light fixtures, phones, food 
packaging, diapers, siding, pantyhose, insulation, coating. All 
that has transformed our economy, made us a stronger nation as 
to what we are.
    I don't want to go back a hundred years before we were 
using plastics. I don't want to go back to that. And so, what 
we are talking about here is that what Congress is being 
encouraged to do is either to ban plastics or to discourage 
their dependency. I am hearing that from this panel and some of 
the articles that we read leading into it.
    But what I don't understand is why we are not unleashing 
the potential of innovation in America to find other ways of 
dealing with it, whether it is bioplastics, biodegradables, 
something other than this simplistic way of just, well, if we 
don't like it, we will just ban it.
    And we have seen this time and time again here in Congress 
in my ten years here. We have considered, during that time, we 
tried to ban fly ash, vaping, fossil fuels, formaldehyde, 
microbeads, herbicides, pesticides. Some are considering even 
banning air traffic as a way to deal with some issues.
    My point, just because we can doesn't mean we should. I 
think we have to be careful about what we are approaching on 
this because other nations are doing the same thing. Not 
everyone comes to the same conclusion as to the results of 
plastic. What Europe is doing in some things, we don't do. Our 
scientists, people will say, ``I am a licensed engineer.'' That 
is like yourself on this. So, we talk about how do we deal with 
it. But you can give the same scientists the same information, 
just like attorneys, if you give three attorneys the same 
information, you get three different opinions. I think the same 
thing applies here.
    Because in Europe they are still using foam insulation. It 
is one of the most efficient ways of saving energy consumption, 
but, yet, in America we have banned that. We have got food dyes 
that we use in America that are prohibited to be used in 
Europe. I just know that there is not a clean answer with this.
    So, what I want to do is focus on innovation. And so, I 
don't want us to go back in time on this. As for the recycling 
issue, it concerns me because I come from a rural area. And in 
a rural area, we don't have--this is not New York, 
Pennsylvania, or Chicago. These are little towns. I just listed 
five communities--Farmington, Blacksville, Paw Paw, 
Barrackville, and Fairview. The total population in those 
communities don't have recycling and they have less people in 
those five communities than are in this office building, the 
Rayburn Office Building. But, yet, we are saying, ``Recycle.'' 
How do they do that? They are not going to be able to do that.
    So, I want to see us focusing, and my question--
unfortunately, I have used too much time in leading up to it--
is, how do we get to where we go to biodegradable materials, 
using that so that these materials can be disposed of and we 
can continue creating jobs? We can still create the natural gas 
and using that. I know Colorado State is working on it. 
Colorado State University is working on that.
    Mr. Christman, if I could, what research, what is being 
done to be able to allow these materials to degrade?
    Mr. Christman. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Congressman.
    Our companies are working on biodegradable and bio-based 
materials. They are doing a lot of innovation and research 
around the potential to use biodegradable materials.
    The challenge, though, is that there is no one environment 
when it comes to biodegrading materials. Folks have talked 
about biodegrading in the environment or biodegrading in the 
ocean. There is no one ocean. Ocean temperatures vary 
dramatically and materials generally don't degrade in the ocean 
or in the environment.
    People will talk about compostable materials. And 
compostable materials are different. They need industrial 
composting facilities generally with high temperatures that 
aren't widely available in the United States at this point.
    Mr. McKinley. I see my time has expired. So, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Peters from California for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
having this hearing.
    And thank you to Ranking Member Shimkus for your commitment 
to improving our recycling system and for noticing my San-
Diego-branded water bottle, because I always have one.
    As many people know, California has been a leader in 
reducing waste and plastic pollution. Several of the largest 
cities in the State, including San Diego, which I represent, 
have taken bold action to increase recycling rates and reduce 
waste in our communities. And I am pleased to see Los Angeles 
represented at today's hearing and appreciate Mr. Zaldivar's 
testimony on the efforts underway under your leadership. Thanks 
for being here.
    And a lot of members have already touched on how to improve 
the recycling system here, the conditions of the market.
    Ms. Hoffman, your testimony emphasized, quote, that ``we 
need to be smart about creating the right criteria to 
prioritize where we are spending these much-needed dollars.'' 
End quote. What do you think are the right criteria?
    Ms. Hoffman. Again, I think we need to look outside of the 
economics of these materials, and we certainly need to look at 
the practicality, the sortability, the collection. But, then, I 
think we also need to draw the circle around human health 
impacts, on the extraction, the creation, even the recycling of 
those materials. Recycling is not impact-free.
    Mr. Peters. So, upstream kind of impacts?
    Ms. Hoffman. Upstream, yes.
    Mr. Peters. OK.
    Ms. Hoffman. Absolutely.
    Mr. Peters. And I want to say how much I enjoyed, Dr. 
Jambeck, your testimony. I practiced law before I came here, 
and I practiced solid waste law. And I knew what you meant when 
you said ``MRF''. It wasn't my average drinking buddy. So, it 
is fun to hear about that, and, also, the archeology of waste 
is interesting, too. So, I appreciate your work.
    I wanted to ask Mr. Christman a question about something 
that you said. You were talking about the alternatives to 
plastic, and you said that you thought the alternatives might 
have worse environmental effects than the plastics themselves. 
Can you flesh that out for me, explain what you mean?
    Mr. Christman. Sure. When you look at the alternatives, 
when organizations have looked at, done the research on the 
full cradle-to-grave of products, they have considered all the 
various environmental impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, for 
example. In fact, the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality has done this for shipping bags and envelopes for 
shipping soft goods. And they have looked across the different 
things that could be used--paper, plastic--and actually 
concluded that plastic had by far the lowest greenhouse gas 
emissions and energy use associated with shipping products.
    Similarly, if you look at coffee, coffee can be put in a--
it was previously put in steel cans. Today, we often find it in 
multilayer plastic-wrapped products. You use a lot less 
material in that multilayer plastic wrap, and the greenhouse 
gas emissions associated with that plastic wrap are one-quarter 
that of the steel can, even though that steel can has an 80 
percent recycling rate and that plastic multilayer material 
today is zero percent recycling rate. So, that is the kind of 
thing we need to look at when we consider recyclability and 
other things.
    Now we are working to take that coffee packaging and make 
it recyclable also. That is our goal, and by 2030, all plastic 
packaging will be recyclable in the United States.
    Mr. Peters. What research are you familiar with into this--
this probably isn't in your interest--but into substitutes for 
plastic, other than the old ones like steel?
    Mr. Christman. Well, the substitutes for plastic, we often 
hear about compostables, particular for food service. But the 
challenge is you also have to match that up with 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Christman. And to have a composting infrastructure 
widely available, that might be something that is useful for 
food service. But, today, composting infrastructure isn't 
widely available. It is only practiced widely for collection 
with food materials in Seattle and San Francisco, and a few 
other isolated communities, but most places don't have that 
kind of infrastructure. So, you can't get that benefit from 
that product.
    You need to think of this as an entire system of products. 
We are focused on making ours more recyclable, building out the 
modern, advanced recycling facilities for plastics and turning 
them back into plastic raw materials that can be reused again 
in a circular economy.
    Mr. Peters. OK. I appreciate that very much.
    And I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Long for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for being here today.
    Mr. Christman, some of the witnesses we have heard from 
today have suggested a need to support proposals of Congress 
that would ban the manufacture or use of plastic. The main 
reason that they cite is environmental protection. What is the 
alternative to plastics, and would those alternatives be a net 
positive or negative for the environment?
    Mr. Christman. There are a range of materials we use across 
society, usually metals, paper, and those are the primary 
materials we use as a society. When you look across the 
alternatives for 16 consumer goods sectors, an organization 
called Trucost has done that and concluded that the 
alternatives tend to have four times higher of the 
environmental impact across greenhouse gas emissions, energy 
use, and even marine litter.
    And the reality is that that comes from the fact, when you 
are looking at alternative materials, generally, they use four 
times more material in the first place. They weigh four times 
more. It is basic physics. And that is why the alternatives 
often have higher environmental impacts.
    Mr. Long. OK. Are you familiar with these new straws that 
they have come out with, these biodegradable, plant-based 
straws, and that type of manufacturing?
    Mr. Christman. I am familiar with those, and I actually 
weighed some of them. And they weigh about three times as much 
as the plastic straw. So, you are using three times more 
material. I have also heard people refer to using their paper 
straw and having it fall apart in their drink, and then, having 
to get another straw. That, clearly, is not the goal we want to 
achieve because you are using more material in the first place.
    What we want to see happen with straws, for example, is a 
straw-on-request approach, where people who don't need a straw 
don't take one. But if you would like a straw or if you have 
special needs and need a straw, you are able to get one.
    Mr. Long. I think that is what we have got already. Every 
restaurant I go into, you have got to beg. You have got to beg 
for a straw.
    [Laughter.]
    One waitress handed me a paper straw, and it was wrapped in 
paper wrapping as a plastic straw comes. And she said, ``Now be 
careful when you open that because it is paper.'' And I am 
like, yes, be careful, and then, don't put it in anything 
liquid.
    [Laughter.]
    What we know is that the best way to a healthy environment 
is through technological innovation. What sort of innovations 
are happening in the plastic spaces that can make them reusable 
and more environmentally-friendly?
    Mr. Christman. The advanced chemical recycling of plastics 
is the innovation that we see happening dramatically across the 
United States. There has been about $4.2 billion in investment 
in these new kinds of facilities. The hope, or the developments 
in these facilities, is that they are going to be able to take 
plastic back to its raw materials and convert it back into 
brand-new quality plastic.
    One of the challenges in reusing many types of plastic 
previously, it has been tough to convert it back into food 
grade material that could be virgin quality. This new 
technology offers the ability to get back into those kinds of 
applications. In addition, we do see new opportunities around 
design.
    Mr. Long. Technology to convert it into feedstocks?
    Mr. Christman. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    Mr. Long. OK. Mr. Johnson, why we do we export so much of 
our recyclable materials overseas?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Long.
    Because in the United States we consume as much, our 
manufacturers here consume as much as they possibly can of the 
recycling, and the export markets are there to pick up the 
other about 30 percent of what we don't consume here in the 
United States. Otherwise, there would be no other market for 
that material.
    Mr. Long. OK. Is there a big opportunity here in America to 
recycle these materials and contribute to saving the 
environment and boosting our economy?
    Mr. Johnson. Oh, sure. Sure. What I mean by why it is 
exported in that case is that they are globally-traded 
commodities, whether they come from the United States or some 
other country. We export to about 150-plus countries around the 
world every year. And they buy from the United States because 
of the high quality of the material that they are getting from 
us.
    Mr. Long. OK. And once again, thank you all for being here 
today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman from Delaware, Representative Blunt 
Rochester, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Excuse 
me. I am in between two hearings at the exact same time, but I 
am glad to have you before us.
    Reducing plastic waste is something that is extremely 
important to Delawareans. I am proud to say that Delaware 
recently became the fourth state in our country to pass a ban 
on single-use plastic bags, which will go into effect January 
2021. This new law fits into our governor's Keep Delaware 
Litter Free Initiative.
    Just last week, I spoke on the phone with Haley from 
Wilmington, a fourth-grader who wrote into my office about 
plastic and our oceans and how it affects the planet. We have a 
shared commitment in our State to protect our beaches, parks, 
and outdoor space that makes our State so special.
    That is why I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 5845, the Break Free 
from Plastic Pollution Act, led by Mr. Lowenthal of California. 
And that is why this hearing is so important to me today.
    My first question is to Dr. Jambeck. Relying more on 
compostable materials is one way we can design products with 
less waste, but we also hear the term ``circular economy'' 
quite a bit. Can you please explain briefly what the term 
``circular economy'' means?
    Ms. Jambeck. Sure. So, I would say the circular economy is 
not just about recycling. I tend to call that circular 
materials management. And every output can become an input. But 
I think a circular economy is more than that. It is a bigger 
picture. Can we figure about how to get products and materials 
to people without producing waste in the first place? Can we 
facilitate new value opportunities, new business norms? 
Thinking about innovation, I think sometimes if we actually 
constrain ourselves, innovation pops up even more. And I find 
this as an engineer, right? We have to have constraints, and 
then, people get really creative.
    So, mobile dishwashing units, so people don't have to use 
disposable goods; cup-sharing programs with RFID technology, 
things like that.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mobile dish units, talk about that for 
a minute.
    Ms. Jambeck. So, if you don't have enough space to have a 
kitchen where you can wash dishes, then there are people who 
are coming up with ideas about how to have a mobile dishwashing 
unit, so you can basically rent out dishes or provide a service 
of washing those dishes. So, you can do reusable, but you don't 
the space for that.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Got you. Got you. And you were giving 
a couple more examples.
    Ms. Jambeck. Yes. Well, I think that was basically it, just 
thinking about how we can sort of keep our same lifestyle and 
use technology creatively to basically not produce waste.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent, excellent.
    And, Ms. Hoffman, my sense is that Eureka Recycling is 
focused, in part, on creating the type of circular economy that 
Dr. Jambeck was just describing. Can you please explain how 
your organization works with the communities you serve to make 
that vision a reality?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Ms. Blunt 
Rochester.
    We think that circularity is one description of the economy 
that we need to build, but we also need to look at toxicity; we 
need to look at equity; we need to look at stable climate. So, 
circularity for the sake of circularity, it is not the right 
question, and it can lead us down the wrong path if that 
becomes our Holy Grail.
    So, we are working with our community to look holistically 
at waste reduction. And so, our strategies are not just about 
emptying the trash can, but looking at the impacts of all of 
our consumption and solutions that we are innovating.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent, excellent.
    This question is both for Dr. Jambeck and Ms. Hoffman. How 
can the Federal Government incentivize the kind of conversation 
that we are having right now in terms of a circular economy and 
waste reduction, and really looking at this more 
comprehensively?
     Ms. Jambeck. So, I had a few ideas in my testimony. And I 
think, looking at sort of laws and regulations that sort of 
impede some of this business innovation, I think incentivizing 
this kind of business innovation maybe with some tax 
incentives. I mean, we even talked about that for recycling 
infrastructure, but, also, I think for the creativity around, 
again, not trying to produce waste while we delivery products 
and services to folks.
    And then, if you want to, then, get closer to the circular 
materials management, which is a component of the circular 
economy, we could look at the deposit/return schemes, various 
product redesign, material substitutions, really trying to look 
at getting rid of materials that don't fit into that circular 
assessment as well.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent.
    Yes, Ms. Hoffman?
    Ms. Hoffman. I would agree with everything Dr. Jambeck 
said, and maybe just add that we often talk about needing to go 
upstream and look at standardizing materials. If all the 
producers of toothpaste had to play by the same rules, it would 
make it much easier to manage toothpaste tubes on the back end, 
for example. So, those kind of policies and regulations.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, both of you.
    I did want to share that an effort was led in our State 
legislature by Representative Frank Cooke to limit the height 
of landfills and we just passed legislation recently. So, we 
are very proud of that as well.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time, which I 
have none.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back no seconds. We now 
recognize Representative Matsui of California for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
    Dr. Jambeck, you are an expert in solid waste management 
and have extensive background in researching how plastics, in 
particular, make their way into our oceans. In an annual report 
in 2017 by the Ocean Conservancy, data demonstrated that the 
top ten most commonly-found items on beaches were all made of 
plastic. This finding was repeated in 2018. What are some of 
the examples of these items and how does this inform policy 
decisions?
    Ms. Jambeck. That is a great question. Some example of 
those items are plastic water bottles, straws, plastic bags, 
bottle caps, cigarette butts.
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Ms. Jambeck. So, I think those are great. And so, I even 
talk about in my testimony looking at what leaks out and ends 
up on the ground, and this is a part of the research that we 
do. Then, you ask, what is this item, why is it here, and what 
can we do about it? And that can, then, inform upstream 
solutions. So, really collecting data just like the Ocean 
Conservancy does on that is critical, I think, to upstream 
solutions.
    Ms. Matsui. Upstream and the impact of these plastics on 
the marine ecosystems, right?
    Ms. Jambeck. Of course, yes.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Now plastics break down into tiny pieces, 
referred to as microplastics. In Monterey, scientists have 
demonstrated how microplastics are found not only on the 
surface of the ocean, but at much lower depths. They actually 
found that most plastic is below the surface, making it hard to 
measure the extent of the problem. How do microplastics that 
make their way into the ocean ultimately come back to pose 
public health risks?
    Ms. Jambeck. Yes, we are really finding plastic everywhere 
we look, and there is only a tiny portion floating on top of 
the ocean compared to what we estimate going in every year. We 
do find it in our air. We have found it in food products, in 
drinking water, in seafood. We don't really know what those 
impacts are on us yet in terms of consuming that material. And 
so, really, that is the cutting edge of research in terms of 
what are the human health impacts from being exposed to this 
ubiquitous----
    Ms. Matsui. OK, but only do plastics impact the health of 
our environment, marine wildlife, and our communities, they are 
detrimental to our efforts to prevent further warming of our 
planet. Dr. Jambeck, do plastics exacerbate climate change, yes 
or no?
    Ms. Jambeck. Ooh, that is too complex for me to give a yes 
or no.
    Ms. Matsui. Really?
    Ms. Jambeck. Yes, because there are so many tradeoffs that 
can affect it.
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Ms. Jambeck. As a scientist there, I haven't crunched that 
number to give you a complete----
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, according to the Center for 
International Environmental Law, annual emissions from the 
plastic life cycle result in the equivalent of what you could 
see from 189 coal-fired plants in 2019, and by 2050, the 
greenhouse gas emissions from plastics will reach over 56 
gigatons, or 10 to 13 percent of the entire remaining carbon 
budget.
    Now I would like to say that communities are stepping in, 
devising their own strategies to reduce waste production in 
California. In fact, the San Francisco International Airport 
instituted a ban on plastic water bottles, and I think we see 
that coming throughout the country.
    Also, you mention in your testimony that one solution is 
better tracking of plastics from the time they are created 
until when they are ultimately disposed of. How do you propose 
going about doing that?
    Ms. Jambeck. So, I think there are various ways. I think 
partnering with industry to know about how much plastic is 
manufactured, we have some good data around that. And then, 
when we look at estimates in terms of use and where it ends up 
in the waste stream, we have some gaps there, in particular, 
what items are created, how many are used. But I have seen 
other ways of tracking material with RFID, not necessarily 
embedded in every plastic component, barcode scanning. I mean, 
we do collect data on a lot of these materials in a lot of 
ways, and I know it exists, but it is not always easy to 
access.
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Ms. Jambeck. So, a bit more open data there.
    Ms. Matsui. So, Mr. Zaldivar, last month, members of the 
California Association of Sanitation Agencies met with my staff 
to discuss issues related to the problems caused by the 
flushing of single-use disposable wipes down the toilet, not 
the best thing to think about now. While not common knowledge, 
most of these wipes are made with plastic material and cause 
major issues for wastewater treatment infrastructure. Confusion 
on how these products are advertised, including labels calling 
them flushable, only adds to the problem. Indeed, my 
constituent water treatment agency has had to foot the bill for 
managing the problem which costs California agencies millions 
in maintenance and infrastructure upgrades every year.
    What are some of the impacts of flushing disposable wipes 
into the sewer system? And I only have like 12 seconds here.
    Mr. Zaldivar. Labeling consistency is very important. As 
you brought up, the flushable wipes do cause serious problems 
in our wastewater system, with causing havocs with spills, 
which contaminate the beach; cause incredible impact to the 
communities. So, I think having the labeling be more truthful 
is important and finding alternatives, so that we, in fact, 
have soluble products that will dissolve in the water.
    Ms. Matsui. Right.
    Mr. Zaldivar. Because, clearly, the need is there.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much.
    And I ran out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Carter, 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank all of you for being here, ladies and gentlemen.
    I have the honor and privilege of representing the 1st 
Congressional District of Georgia. That includes the entire 
coast of Georgia, over 100 miles of pristine coastline that we 
are very proud of and want to keep clean. One of the problems 
we have, of course, is plastics and what is happening.
    I know, Dr. Jambeck, that the University of Georgia is 
doing extensive research on this. And ``Go Dogs.'' Thank you 
for what you are doing. We appreciate that.
    But this is very important. It is important to our economy. 
We depend on seafood. We depend on tourism. We depend on our 
ports. All of that is extremely important.
    And I also serve on the Select Committee for Climate 
Change, and I take that very seriously because I think the 
climate is changing. I think that we need to do all the things 
that we can to make sure that we are mitigating and adapting to 
the changes that are taking place. We are having rising sea 
levels in the coastal area. We recognize that. Now how much of 
it is manmade, that is a topic for another discussion, but it 
exists and it is happening. I recognize that.
    I wanted to ask you, Mr. Christman, I understand that many 
of your companies--and, in fact, some in Georgia--are looking 
at some innovative projects. For instance, Delta Airlines and 
Nexus Fuels are doing some very innovative things to reduce 
waste. Can you share with us some of that?
    Mr. Christman. They are. They are taking used plastics and 
converting them into jet fuel, so to provide a new opportunity 
to use that material. Plastics in many cases start as energy, 
start as natural gas. About 70 percent of the plastics in the 
United States come from natural gas. And that process can take 
it back to being a fuel in the case of that.
    But I also talked about other technology, and I think this 
is also a stepping stool to additional technologies that will 
take plastic back into the plastic raw materials that we can 
make new plastic out of. A company called Agilyx in Oregon is 
doing that right now with polystyrene, a material that is often 
thought of as not recyclable, but taking that polystyrene back 
to styrene. And then, they can make brand-new food grade 
polystyrene out of it again.
    Mr. Carter. It is amazing to me some of the things that are 
being done, the innovation that is being done. Cox Enterprises 
in Georgia has a facility. Are you familiar with it? It is in 
Brantley County in Nahunta, where they are taking used tires 
and, actually, they bought some equipment from over in Europe. 
They are actually taking it and breaking it back down into oil, 
into things that they can use like that. It is simply amazing, 
the innovation.
    I have always said the greatest innovators, the greatest 
scientists are right here in the United States of America. That 
is why I am excited. I get excited about when we talk about 
what we are going to be doing in innovation in the future of 
this country. I think it is going to create a great economy. I 
think it is going to create a lot of jobs for us.
    Now, Mr. Christman, one of the things when you mention this 
about Delta and what they are doing, it is important that we 
keep the economy strong because we are going to need the 
private sector helping us with this. This is not going to be a 
totally public initiative. We need the private sector with this 
kind of innovation like I mentioned with Cox Enterprises, like 
you mentioned with Delta Airlines. Is it important to us, would 
you agree, that we keep the economy strong, so that we have the 
private sector investing in these type of things?
    Mr. Christman. Absolutely. I think since China imposed 
their ban on recyclables, we have seen already $4.2 billion 
invested in new technologies to recycle and recover plastics, 
and many of them, these advanced recycling technologies like 
Nexus.
    Mr. Carter. One other thing that I want to mention about 
Georgia--obviously, I am very proud of our State, with good 
reason--we are the No. 1 forestry state in the nation as well. 
And we see a lot of recycling in our paper mills and in our 
paper products. We do a lot of that. We have recovered fiber to 
make new paper and paperboard products, and that is certainly 
something important.
    There is a lot of confusion about what can and can't be 
done with recyclables. How important is consumer education, 
that we continue to make sure consumers understand what we can 
do and what we can't do? Mr. Johnson, I see you nodding.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, absolutely. Public education and 
awareness is probably the most important thing we can do right 
upfront because it tells people what they can and should not 
put into the bin. If you put contaminants into the system at 
the beginning, you damage the material right then and there. It 
is very, very difficult, and often impossible, to clean that 
material, to get it back into a commodity grade material that 
can be used again. So, the public education is very important.
    The RECYCLE Act, which is now in the House as well, Mr. 
Joyce has introduced it. That is a very, very good bill for 
doing that.
    Getting EPA to develop education programs, public service 
announcements, and things like that; labeling, and just 
explaining to people what they should and shouldn't put in 
there, and trying to get rid of some of the confusion that 
people have.
    Mr. Carter. Great.
    Well, my time is up. But, again, I thank all of you for 
what you are doing. This is extremely important and we 
appreciate you being here today. And ``Go Dogs.''
    Thanks.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Representative Soto, for 
5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for being here. This is obviously a 
really important issue.
    Being in a state that is surrounded on three sides by 
water, we are facing the sea and ocean aspects of what we can 
recycle and what ends up in Florida's oceans.
    I am aware of, and I have been reading for quite some time, 
China is no longer accepting a lot of our recyclable supplies, 
which is concerning. So, I did want to talk about both the 
secondary markets and talk about what we could do for plastic 
alternatives.
    When I read that there is an island of plastic the size of 
Texas in the Pacific, that was kind of a wake-up call for me, 
that we have to balance out between recycling and non-plastic 
alternatives.
    I wanted to start with the secondary market, though. If I 
could first hear from Lynn Hoffman? It would be great to hear, 
what is the current status of not only domestic recycling of 
plastic, but the foreign market? Where is it going? Where are 
we not able to recycle? What does sort of the domestic and 
global market look like right now?
    Ms. Hoffman. I can only speak from our experience and tell 
you that, in part because of our mission and in part because of 
our location in the Midwest, 100 percent of our materials stay 
in North America. Ninety-five percent stay in the Midwest. We 
have certainly exported material in the past, but, for the most 
part, our materials stay domestic.
    So, the plastics that we collect and have markets for are 
the No. 1, PET bottles; No. 2, natural, and No. 2, color, and 
No. 5, polypropylene.
    Mr. Soto. If we are looking at it nationally and 
internationally, though, where are the emergent markets and 
where are the markets that are waning right now?
    Ms. Hoffman. I think that, again, being in the Midwest, we 
are lucky to have access to paper recycling, but there is a lot 
of tension on plastic, and rightly so, because plastic was a 
major contaminant in paper. But the paper markets are what 
really suffered in the wake of the National Sword and where we 
really need investment in terms of domestic end markets.
    Mr. Soto. Mr. Zaldivar, I see you moving your hand. If you 
want to answer that question, too, please.
    Thank you, Congressman.
    So, like you, we share a coastline. But I suppose not all 
plastics are created equal. There are some markets for three 
types of plastics right now: PET, HDPE, and PP. All the other 
plastics are going into the landfill. So, to the extent that 
innovation and technology can be brought to bear, that is where 
the help is needed, because, otherwise, they are either ending 
up in the waterways, as you pointed out, or in the landfill.
    Mr. Soto. And we are going to get to that in one second, 
but can you, based on your experience in Los Angeles, say where 
the emerging markets in the world are for secondary recycling 
and where are the ones that are closing right now?
    Mr. Zaldivar. Yes. So, I am making a pitch here for us to 
develop markets within North America and definitely domestic in 
the U.S. I think Mexico is a great destination market that we 
need to explore more and, to a large extent, Canada.
    Mr. Soto. My next question is about alternatives. I am 
seeing corn products be used, even agave recently, which I had 
an agave straw the other day and I thought that was 
interesting. It would be great to hear from Dr. Jambeck, Ms. 
Patel, and Mr. Christman about alternatives that could be 
utilized like corn and agave that are biodegradable. And we 
will start with you, Dr. Jambeck.
    Ms. Jambeck. Sure. I will be quick since you want to hear 
from everybody. But one thing we have at the University of 
Georgia is a New Materials Institute. And so, polymer chemists 
and chemical engineers have partnered with me in environmental 
engineering to look at materials.
    Mr. Soto. Like what? What materials?
    Ms. Jambeck. So, right now, we are looking at PHA. PHA is 
made in this case from canola oil, and it can be made from 
various organic materials, and even a potential waste organic 
material.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you.
    Ms. Jambeck. Yes.
    Mr. Soto. My time is limited. So, I am going to turn to Ms. 
Patel. What are some of the alternatives that you see strong in 
the market coming forward?
    Ms. Patel. We think the No. 1 solution is to reduce waste 
as much as possible, but I recognize your question about 
biodegradable products. Mr. Christman actually mentioned that 
in a lot of cases, when we send things that are biodegradable 
either to composting facilities or to landfills even, we have 
to make sure that they actually are biodegradable in those 
environments.
    Mr. Soto. Sure. That is a great pivot to Mr. Christman.
    Ms. Patel. Sure.
    Mr. Soto. Navigate us through this a little bit.
    Mr. Christman. So, one of the great things about plastics 
is they can be made from a variety of sources of carbon, 
whether it is new carbon or natural gas. Corn is an example. 
They make polylactic acid, or PLA, that has been used in some 
other applications.
    The question to go with that is, is it better for the 
environment ultimately? You really need to do life-cycle 
assessment to determine whether or not those alternatives 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions or other environmental impacts; 
make sure you are not causing new environmental impacts to go 
with it.
    Mr. Soto. Thanks for that.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. McNerney. [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes himself, the gentleman from California, 
for 5 minutes for questions.
    Ms. Hoffman, can you elaborate on the new methods that 
Eureka Recycling is working on to apply artificial intelligence 
to build transparency and traceability to the supply chain?
    Ms. Hoffman. Certainly. We are working on a project using a 
visioning system that reports--currently, it gives us real-time 
information about what is coming across the line. It is 
technology that has traditionally connected to robots for 
collecting. We are just using the eyes and the brains, 
basically.
    Recycling has kind of traditionally been a very blunt 
instrument, measured in tons, but a ton of plastic means 
something really different than a ton of cardboard. And so, we 
are really trying to use this information to help us learn how 
we might use different metrics in measuring success of 
recycling, looking at individual action, looking at what are 
the types of materials that we are seeing that are hard to 
capture, and most often in our residual or end of the line.
    Mr. McNerney. So, it might be pretty useful in the sorting 
process?
    Ms. Hoffman. Possibly. I think right now we are looking at 
it more as data that informs not only our operations, but also 
the upstream solutions. What are the products that need 
redesign?
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Zaldivar, you have noted that, in order for your 
industry to increase in value, new technologies and updates to 
effective strategies are needed. How do you envision these 
updates playing out, especially with regards to how they might 
assist in waste sorting and processing?
    Mr. Zaldivar. Thank you, Congressman. You touched on, your 
earlier question, technology. There is incredible optical 
technology that can distinguish even between types of plastics 
just by reading into the density and in some cases into the 
molecular composition of a material. And those can be 
expensive. In fact, they are expensive. But that is a great 
example where an investment in technology can help in the 
sorting and the quality control of what gets into the return 
cycle.
    Mr. McNerney. So, can you elaborate, Dr. Jambeck, on your 
five ``C'' approach to reduce the challenges faced by waste 
operators and municipalities in managing the waste system?
    Ms. Jambeck. Sure. So the five ``C's''. I have collect, 
capture, contain, and I think what is also very important, I 
said, was context, and culture.
    Mr. McNerney. OK.
    Ms. Jambeck. And I left those very general. Those I use 
even globally. So, for people, really, our waste is very 
localized and that is how we have been addressing it here in 
the U.S. And so, taking into account what you have locally, 
your local context is important, but, in general, we need to 
get the waste and materials collected. We need to process them 
and have them in facilities, and then, either dispose of them 
properly or recycle, hopefully moving towards complete circular 
materials management.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Ms. Hoffman, again, you have noticed that, when we were 
discussing new recycling technologies, we must draw a wide 
circle around the potential impact. Can you speak to the 
importance of considering all the externalities of the cost of 
waste and comparing it with new technologies and strategies?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. There are absolutely limitations to 
mechanical recycling, which is how we describe recycling that 
happens today, where a plastic bottle is ground up, melted 
down. But I think we are seeing a lot of emerging technology 
that is promising the moon and the stars in terms of 
circularity. And I think it is really critical to take a step 
back and look at what is going into this, what are the inputs 
into this technology and what are the outputs, not only just 
whether or not it is successful in making that polymer 
circular.
    Mr. McNerney. One of the things that intrigues me is 
upstream work, encouraging producers to plan for recycling in 
the ultimate product, so that it can be recycled easily. So, 
how effective would that be in terms of helping this problem? 
Whoever cares to answer that. Mr. Zaldivar?
    Mr. Zaldivar. It would be extremely important. I think 
circularity and recyclability begin when the product is being 
made. And so, to the extent that the recyclability is ingrained 
in the product upstream, and the ability to take some of it 
back, that is where it should begin.
    Mr. McNerney. You think it would be best achieved with 
regulatory or with incentives, a regulatory approach or 
incentives?
    Mr. Zaldivar. I think both.
    Mr. McNerney. Both?
    Ms. Hoffman, you are shaking your head.
    Ms. Hoffman. I would just like to add, yes, but I think 
something that is often overlooked is that MRFs, or recovery 
facilities, can't sort by brand. So, if we look to the 
marketplace to create innovation, we can't educate our 
customers to put in only a certain kind of toothpaste tube and 
not the others. And we can't sort that way when we are going 
through 400 tons a day. So, there does need to be regulation 
and standardization upstream.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    The chairman's time has expired. The chairman now 
recognizes Mr. Cardenas, the gentleman from California, for 5 
minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the opportunity to hear from very smart people who 
are out there in the real world dealing with this, and 
hopefully, us, as policymakers, still the real world, a 
different world, that we can actually ascertain what needs to 
be done. And hopefully, make some positive decisions, whether 
it is through laws, whether it is through incentives, whether 
it is through whatever it is that we can help at the federal 
level.
    First, I would like to thank the committee for having this 
important hearing. I would also like to thank all of the 
witnesses and, also, the guests here who are paying attention 
to this very important issue, for coming together to figure out 
what we are going to do and how we are going to make this world 
a better place, and a much more lasting place for habitability.
    One of the things that I would like to ask, has it been 
explored or talked about, or are we there yet, where in the 
sorting facilities, for example, where items can actually have 
a code? Because scanning can be done now incredibly rapidly, 
and it can be done in a way where you don't even have to pull 
the item forward, like we do at the supermarket. It can 
actually be scanned much simpler in tremendous mass. Is that 
happening out there yet for that purpose?
    Ms. Hoffman. Not that I am aware of in terms of being 
implemented in MRFs. I have certainly heard talk about that 
technology. Maybe Mr. Johnson knows that.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I am not sure about that, and I can look 
into it for you. More on the industrial side, yes, optical 
sorting is very, very good. It has been really improved over 
the last ten years, a lot of it coming from research and 
development grants that came from the Federal Government.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. Thank you. Hopefully, that is going on 
out there, because I think that could be an incredible 
solution.
    When I was on the city council, I happened to represent the 
community--and I still do at this level--the community in Los 
Angeles that had and has previously closed landfills and active 
landfills, the most in the entire county. And that was where I 
grew up. I used to go to those landfills with my father because 
he was a gardener and we did our share of having to take things 
to the old-fashioned dump, which, to me, it is incredible that 
we still do that because I can see cavemen and women doing that 
thousands of years ago. We need to move to better technologies.
    I was the first person to actually actively turn down a 
permit to extend a landfill in my community. And everybody got 
upset and the unions got upset. Everybody said, no, we are 
going to lose jobs, or what have you. I said, no, we are not 
because we are still going to have trash. Los Angeles dumps 
gazillions of tons of trash every year because consumers do 
that. We are Americans; that is what we do, unfortunately.
    And what we were able to do is stop the landfill from 
taking in trash, but we actually supported and permitted for 
them to have a sorting facility, and the first of its kind, 
modern, et cetera. We required it to have the best technology, 
et cetera.
    So, solutions can be made. My main point to everybody is we 
have to all calm down and realize that, when we are calm and 
respectful, then we can get things done.
    Everybody was mad at me. First, it was the people who had 
the jobs at the landfill; they were upset at me. And then, the 
environmentalists were happy with me. And then, when I told 
them, well, we are not going to send the company out of the 
district, we are just going to change the way we deal with the 
waste, then the environmentalists got mad at me because it 
wasn't a pure solution. And then, when we finally got 
everything done, and we took those tons and tons of trash per 
day, actually, everybody went back to being happy.
    But, in the meantime, I literally got told by one side, 
``We are going to unelect you in your next election.'' And 
then, the other ones said, ``No, that is not going to happen. 
We are not going to let that happen.'' And then, they said, 
``We are going to unelect you,'' right? And then, finally, 
everybody said, ``Well, the election doesn't matter. You 
finally found a solution.''
    And my point wasn't about elections. My point was about I 
was that kid that grew up in a neighborhood that shouldn't have 
had so many darn landfills. And today, hopefully, my 
grandchildren won't have to say what I used to say growing up, 
``What is that big mountain of trash doing in my 
neighborhood?'' And I am very blessed as a grandfather; my 
grandkids live in my neighborhood.
    So, Mr. Zaldivar, with the very little bit of time that I 
have left, in your opinion, is there more that we can do to 
support recycling and waste infrastructure in Los Angeles and 
beyond in this country?
    Mr. Zaldivar. Absolutely. There is a lot to be done. You 
reminded me of the technology advances that some of them you 
have supported yourself, your bill here currently being 
considered. Robotics have started to come into the sorting 
industry. We have a MRF in LA that makes full use of robotics, 
in addition to all the optical sorting as well.
    The upstream solution, I think we cannot overly burden our 
residents and the average person with wanting and needing to 
know everything about whether an item is recyclable. We ought 
to simplify that, so that they don't have to turn on and turn 
off what they can put in a blue bin. If we continue to do that, 
they will just turn off our recycling altogether. Technology 
has got to be important here.
    Mr. Cardenas. Yes.
    I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
    Mr. McNerney. The gentleman yields back.
    I request unanimous consent to enter the following 
documents into the record:
    A letter from Representative Dean Phillips; A letter from 
Energy Recovery Council; A letter from Flexible Packaging 
Association; A letter from BIO, the Biotechnology Innovation 
Organization; A letter from the Plant Based Products Council; A 
letter from Eastman Chemical; A letter from Glass Packaging 
Institute; A letter from CHZ Technologies; A docket from ISRI 
entitled, ``Four Pressure Points in Recycling: ISRI's 2019 
Recycling Industry Yearbook''; A letter from the Portland 
Cement Association, And an article entitled, ``Wind Turbine 
Blades Can't Be Recycled, so They're Piling Up in Landfills.''
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. McNerney. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Shimkus. I ask unanimous consent that a member of the 
full committee, Dr. Bucshon's statement and questions can be 
submitted also for the record.
    Mr. McNerney. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. McNerney. I would like to thank the witnesses for 
joining us today in the hearing. I think your testimony was 
very informative and useful.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the 
record to be answered by our witnesses. And I ask our witnesses 
that you respond promptly to any such questions that you may 
receive.
    At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]