On July 16, 2025, the House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee's Environment Subcommittee convened a hearing to explore the state of recycling in the United States. Titled "Beyond the Blue Bin: Forging a Federal Landscape for Recycling Innovation and Economic Growth," the session brought together lawmakers and a panel of industry experts to discuss challenges and opportunities in the sector. The witnesses included Ross Eisenberg, president of America's Plastic Makers at the American Chemistry Council; Matt Bedingfield, president of Mint Innovation; Dan Felton, president and CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association; and Keefe Harrison, founder and CEO of The Recycling Partnership.
The hearing revealed a significant policy consensus on the need to modernize the nation's recycling system, framing it not just as an environmental issue but as a critical component of economic and national security. From securing domestic supply chains for critical minerals to ensuring American competitiveness on the global stage, here are five key takeaways from the discussion.
1. Lawmakers expressed bipartisan consensus that recycling is an economic and national security imperative.
A primary theme throughout the hearing was the reframing of recycling as a matter of national and economic security. Environment Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL-06) opened the hearing by stating: "In his first days in office, President Trump emphasized the need to secure our critical mineral and rare earth supply chains. We must use an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to ensuring our ability to access these critical minerals and elements. With the growth of data centers and use of technology, e-waste is accumulating at higher rates every year, with billions of dollars in losses as this technology reaches its end life. E-waste is a commodity that can be repurposed in our fight to not only be energy independent, but energy dominant."
E&C Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY-02) added: "We are seeing incredible growth in data centers needed to support artificial intelligence infrastructure, but will our waste and recycling laws allow us to manage an expected uptick in electronic waste and how we can recover valuable materials, such as critical minerals, from items that are discarded every day... Improving our recycling infrastructure could enhance our global economic competitiveness and national security. For example, according to the Recycled Materials Association, the recycled materials industry has a nearly $169 billion economic impact on the United States."
This sentiment was echoed by Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY-20), who stated that "The status quo is untenable, often creating environmental issues while letting billions of dollars of valuable materials go unrecovered." Witnesses expanded on this, linking recycling directly to the resilience of domestic manufacturing.
Matt Bedingfield, president of Mint Innovation,whose company recovers metals from e-waste, warned that valuable materials needed for the "current domestic manufacturing resurgence" are being disposed of in landfills. He testified: "We generated approximately 7 million to 8 million metric tons of e-waste each year in this country. Of that volume, more than 6 million is disposed of in landfills. While this only... comprises 2% to 3% of landfill volume, it accounts for over 70% of the hazardous materials and heavy metals in our landfills... This is all collected domestically and then exported to Asia or Europe to be refined, and in many cases, then imported back into this country." He noted that what little e-waste is collected domestically is often exported for processing and then imported back, creating a vulnerability: "If we don't have these materials here to supply them, we've really done nothing."
Keefe Harrison, founder and CEO of The Recycling Partnership,testified about foreign market competition: "Cheap imports, often from Asia, are threatening to upend market dynamics for recycling content, putting American jobs at risk... We see a high number of companies that are committed to using recycled content, but we have not invested in the U.S. system to really level up the recycling rate... So where are companies supposed to get the material if we're not investing in the supply chain? Well, the answer is, we've recently seen up to 300% increase of import of cheap Asian, recycled content, and it's flooding the market, putting pressure on our own companies." Harrison also testified: "Fully investing in recycling would deliver huge benefits. 200,000 new jobs, more than $8 billion of materials returned to the economy, $11 billion of savings and taxpayers and local governments who currently foot the bill for this."
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA-01) described competitive challenges: "We're watching China and other competitors purchase our scrap at above-market prices, while our own factories struggle to source domestic materials." She stated that "recycling infrastructure is manufacturing infrastructure, and that domestic material supply is economic security."
2. Hearing witnesses advocated for a clear regulatory and permitting framework for recycling.
Witnesses and members alike stressed the need for regulatory certainty to drive investment and innovation, particularly for new technologies. A key request from industry was for the federal government to classify advanced recycling facilities as manufacturing operations, not as solid waste management facilities. Ross Eisenberg, president of America's Plastic Makers, noted that 25 states already do this, and investment is flowing to those jurisdictions.
Eisenberg testified: "Despite this potential, a number of regulatory barriers stand in the way of new, advanced recycling. Conflicting regulations across states and at the federal level create uncertainty for investors. Every time EPA, over the past few years, proposed a rule, withdrew a rule, even talked about a rule, we saw the market chill for new investment in this technology because they didn't really know if they were going to be able to get their permits." Eisenberg said his organization believes: "Advanced recycling should be regulated, and we believe it should be regulated strongly, but it should be regulated as manufacturing because that is specifically what it is."
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-02) stated: "First, we have to provide regulatory clarity and certainty. This is essential for innovation, for investment and for scaling domestic recycling infrastructure. You can't build the future on a regulatory framework that is often shaped by climate alarmism and instead of common sense. Second, I do want to address our global role in this. United States must lead at the negotiating table for the global plastics treaty. This is coming up soon. That means rejecting production caps and overzealous environmental mandates that have clearly hampered a European industry."
However, the concept was met with caution from some members. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA-25) raised "serious concerns about chemical recycling," pointing to facilities in his district that he said led to harmful health outcomes and failed to deliver on recycling promises. He drew a clear line, asking Harrison: "If a facility burns plastic using chemical or heated methods and turns that plastic into fuel, do you consider that process to be recycling?" Harrison's answer was unambiguous: "No. Fuel alone is not recycling."
3. A major point of disagreement in the hearing surrounded the U.S. role in global plastics treaty negotiations.
The upcoming final negotiations for the U.N. Global Plastics Treaty in Geneva loomed large throughout the hearing. Though there was consensus that the U.S. must play a leading role, Republicans and Democrats fundamentally disagreed on how aggressive that role should be.
Regarding international negotiations, Eisenberg testified: "In a few weeks, a number of us are going to be in Geneva with 170 countries to try to arrive a final text of an agreement to address plastic pollution." Harrison stated that a "global treaty is necessary because this problem is too big for any one company, one country or one group to solve alone."
Several Republicans, including Crenshaw, warned against provisions that could harm the U.S. economy. He urged the administration to reject "production caps and overzealous environmental mandates that have clearly hampered a European industry." Republicans expressed concern that the treaty's scope had expanded beyond addressing pollution to include limits on production and chemicals that could threaten U.S. competitiveness.
Meanwhile, Democrats pushed for stronger U.S. engagement to ensure meaningful global standards. E&C Ranking Member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ-06) expressed hope that the U.S. delegation would be a "strong voice" rather than "take a backseat or accept weaker standards." Harrison, who has attended the negotiations, emphasized that without American leadership in shaping "what good looks like in this global treaty," the final agreement "will not serve our domestic manufacturing, industry, or supply chain."
The disagreement reflected broader tensions between environmental ambitions and economic competitiveness, with both parties agreeing on U.S. leadership but differing on whether that leadership should focus on stronger environmental standards or protecting American industry from potentially burdensome regulations.
4. Both lawmakers and witnesses threw their support behind bipartisan, bicameral legislation to support recycling.
The hearing featured discussion of multiple bipartisan bills aimed at improving recycling infrastructure, data collection, and investment incentives. These bills include legislation to expand recycling access in underserved communities, standardize national recycling data, provide tax credits for recycling infrastructure investment, and create consistent labeling standards for recyclable materials.
The two bills that were most frequently mentioned were The Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act (RIAA) (H.R. 2145) and the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act (RCAA) (H.R. 4109). The hearing highlighted broad, bipartisan agreement on several pieces of legislation aimed at improving recycling data, access, and infrastructure. Witnesses from across the ideological spectrum voiced strong support for bills like the RIAA and the RCAA.
- The Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act (RIAA) (H.R. 2145): A Republican bill sponsored by Miller-Meeks that would create a pilot grant program to improve recycling access for rural and underserved communities through a "hub-and-spoke model" to reduce transportation costs and expand curbside programs. The bill has 12 co-sponsors, of which seven are Democrats and five are Republicans. Miller-Meeks advocated for her legislation stating: "It's also why I introduced the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act. RIAA would establish a pilot grant program specifically targeting communities, like many in my district, without a recycling facility within 75 miles."
- Recycling and Composting Accountability Act (RCAA) (H.R. 4109): A Democratic bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO-02) that would standardize data collection and reporting for recycling and composting programs nationwide. The bill has two co-sponsors, of which one is a Democrat and one is a Republican.
- The STEWARD Act (S.351): A bipartisan bill that combines the RIAA and RCAA into a comprehensive package to establish pilot grant programs and require EPA data collection. The bill has two co-sponsors, of which one is a Democrat and one is a Republican. Harrison urged the committee to "mark up and pass the STEWARD Act that puts together two bills that nearly passed last year and supports our rural communities in this country."
- Rep. Miller-Meeks' NDAA Amendment: Miller-Meeks highlighted her successful amendment to the previous year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The amendment directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to report on recovering rare earth elements and other critical minerals from defense-related electronic waste. She used it as a launching point to question witnesses on the need for a broader federal framework to keep these strategic resources within the American supply chain.
- The CIRCLE Act: A bipartisan bill that would establish a 30% investment tax credit for recycling infrastructure to incentivize private investment in machinery, equipment, and software. The bill is sponsored by Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01) and Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-NY-03). Harrison announced: "I urge you all to support the CIRCLE Act, which will launch and which will be introduced today, and establish a recycling infrastructure investment tax credit."
- The PACT Act: A Republican bill sponsored by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14) that would create a consistent national standard for recyclability labeling to avoid a patchwork of state regulations. Weber stated: "One of my top priorities in this space is working with the industry to introduce the packaging and claims knowledge PACT Act of 2025. This legislation would create the framework to establish a consistent national standard recyclability and labeling, avoiding a patchwork of state regulations."
5. Domestic recyclers could leverage federal funding opportunities created by the OBBB Act.
While not discussed during the hearing, the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) provides federal funding mechanisms that could support domestic recycling operations. The legislation includes $100 billion in DOD loan guarantee authority, $5 billion through the Industrial Base Fund for critical minerals supply chain investments, and $1 billion in "Energy Dominance Financing" through the Department of Energy (DoE) for domestic energy production and critical materials projects. The DOD loan program specifically covers "critical minerals mining and processing facilities" and "supply chain infrastructure for strategic materials," which could directly benefit companies like those represented at the hearing that are working to process e-waste and recover critical minerals domestically.
The OBBB also restructures federal tax incentives in ways that could benefit domestic recycling, including permanent 100% bonus depreciation for qualified business property and 100% first-year depreciation for manufacturing buildings constructed between 2025 and 2029. These provisions could make it more economically attractive for companies to invest in domestic recycling infrastructure, potentially addressing some of the economic and regulatory barriers that witnesses described during the hearing. The bill's emphasis on domestic supply chain development and manufacturing aligns with testimony from multiple witnesses about the need to keep valuable materials within the U.S. rather than exporting them for processing abroad.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
