Subcommittee Markup of Three Pieces of Legislation
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
It is hard to understand why such a cut would be warranted. Everyone agrees this program is effective, and every hearing witness testified that the program should have more funding, not less, especially as state and local governments prepare to tackle more complex sites with higher award amounts. This program has always been bipartisan, and I hope we can work together before the full committee to restore this funding. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I'll now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky's 2nd District, chairman of the full committee, Representative Guthrie, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I think some years ago in Hackelburg, Alabama, you were born this day. Right? So, happy birthday. Were you born in Hackelburg?
Speaker 3
Haleyville. All Robert, Winston County, Robert Ederhoe's sister. Well, happy birthday to you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 3
Most people don't know where Hackelberg is, but you and I may be the only two. So thank you, chairman Palmer, this markup today and members of the subcommittee for all the hard work and all the bipartisan hard work. I know there's still some areas to be negotiated, but we certainly appreciate the hard work together. So H.R.A. 739, the Brownfields Revitalization for Better Tomorrow Act, is a compromise measure. We authorize EPA's Brownfields grants program, which has enjoyed bipartisan support since first enacted more than twenty years ago.
This bill was negotiated between the majority and minority and includes several bipartisan policy reforms to improve the operation, effectiveness, and accountability of the EPA's Brownfields program. While the reauthorization funding levels may not be as high as my friends across the aisle would like, they are based on the current appropriation levels enacted by Congress as this program's authorization expired in 2023. Through the regular appropriations process, Congress has not historically funded the E. Brownfield's grants at full authorized levels. We will continue to work with our friends in the minority and our colleagues in the Senate to resolve the funding issue for the Brownfield grants.
But I'm glad that in substance, we are able to consider a strong bill with important bipartisan program updates today. The second bill we would take up is HR 2145, the Recycling Infrastructure Accountability Act sponsored by representative Miller Meeks. This bipartisan proposal would establish a pilot program at the EPA to help build out waste collection and recycling infrastructure in areas that currently lack household recycling, helping to address plastic and other waste streams and support recovery of critical materials. Finally, we also plan to consider the bipartisan recycling and composting act accountability, act as an amendment to HR 2145. These two measures were previously combined in the 2024 end of the year package, which fell through.
But most importantly, during this congress, the senate combined these two measures into a single bill, S351, known as the Stewart Act, which passed the senate by unanimous consent in 2025. Combining the bills today will again unify them into a single measure, increasing the opportunity for getting this bill signed into law. I appreciate the work on both sides of this aisle to prepare for this markup. I again wish the chairman a happy birthday, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman Yields, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey 6th District, the ranking member of the full committee, representative for four or five minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, the subcommittee is marking up three bills: two recycling bills, and a bill to reauthorize the Brownfields program. Unfortunately, for the first time in the Brownfields program's history, we're marking up a partisan Brownfields bill that cuts crucial funds from the program. Since I partnered with the late Republican representative Paul Gilmore of Ohio over 20 years ago to write the Brownfields Law, the program has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support. The Brownfield program is an economic engine and environmental tool for cleaning up former toxic sites, representing a win-win for economic growth and environmental stewardship.
Since it was first created, I've worked to ensure the program maintains robust funding, and, unfortunately, this bill falls far too short of that goal. In fact, the version we're marking up includes dramatic funding cuts to the Republicans' own draft bill that was included in the legislative hearing. A diverse group of stakeholders and all witnesses at every Brownfields hearing agree that robust funding is necessary to continue the work of the program. Frankly, we should increase funding for Brownfields to ensure it continues its record of success. And communities need this funding to get toxic contamination out of their land and water, and bring areas back to productive use, which is far more important than funding ballrooms or illegal wars.
There are good pieces of this bill that we were able to come to a bipartisan agreement on. We worked across the aisle to raise overall grant levels to keep pace with the increasing complexity of brownfield sites, but the bill removes cost sharing requirements for small and disadvantaged communities and some of the more contentious language on data centers from earlier drafts. So, basically, mister chairman, I'm urging my Republican colleagues to restore critical funding to ensure this program continues the work of revitalization in districts and communities across the country. Now we're also considering two bipartisan recycling bills that are steps in the right direction, on bolstering our domestic recycling and composting. HR 4109, the RecyclingComposting Accountability Act, works to address data gaps and standardize metrics on recycling and composting practices across the nation, which is essential to inform effective policymakers to improve waste management practices nationwide.
And I appreciate the leadership of representative Ngoose for spearheading this effort. And HR 2145, the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act directs CPA to establish a pilot program to increase access to recycling services in underserved communities struggling to keep up with increasing waste management demands. Both of these bills seek to boost important components of our recycling and composting systems, and that's data collection and accessibility. So this is important because our nation's overall recycling and composting rate is only about 32%. So these bills are positive steps in the right direction, but there's more work to be done.
The plastic pollution crisis, for one, is polluting our environment and harming public health by creeping into our waterways, breaking down into harmful microplastics, creating massive challenges for municipal solid waste management recycling programs. And this is something I hear about a lot at home, particularly on the Jersey Shore where I live, as microplastics are polluting the Atlantic and impacting marine life. So we have to explore solutions that match the severity of this crisis, meaning the plastics crisis. So I look forward to sending the recycling bills to the full committee. But my hope, mister chairman, is that my Republican colleagues will address the inadequate levels of funding in the Brownfields bill when we get to full committee so it can be a bipartisan success.
It's always been bipartisan in the past, and I would like, obviously, to see that happen again. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. The chair reminds members that present to the committee, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there further opening statements? General Lady from California is recognized for three minutes.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, what a disappointment. Families across the country are still living near contaminated sites that need to be cleaned up. We should not compromise on deep cuts to the brownfields program. Brownfields is one of the few programs in Washington that has support from both parties because it works. It helps communities clean up contaminated land, protect public health, and turn abandoned properties into places people can use again.
At a time when communities across the country are asking for more help, not less, Republicans want to cut this program in almost half. Apparently, there's always enough money for another billionaire tax break or another Trump vanity project, like a ballroom or a war with Iran. When it comes to cleaning up toxic sites in American communities, suddenly Republicans say we can't afford it. That makes no sense to the families who live near these contaminated properties every day. In my district, the Brownfields program secured a $1,800,000 cleanup effort in Carson, California.
The funding is helping clean up the former Fletcher oil and refining company site. It's a 36-acre property contaminated by oil in the soil and groundwater after decades of industrial activity. Because of this investment, the land can finally be put to productive use again. This side, we'll become part of the Pure Water Southern California project, one of the largest recycled water projects in the world. That means local jobs and a more reliable clean water supply for our communities.
Communities in Republican states depend on this program too. In Maysville, Kentucky, Brownfield's funding is helping turn an abandoned hospital site into housing. In Ranson, West Virginia, Brownfield's funding is helping clean up old manufacturing sites so it can be turned into housing, shops, and jobs. This is what the brownfields program does. It takes polluted land that has been sitting unused for years, and it turns it into something that benefits the community.
Cutting this program in almost half will not help working families. It will slow down cleanups. It's gonna delay projects, and it's gonna leave communities behind. We should have been investing more in the Brownsville program, not less. Let's show the American people where our values are, which is in the community.
I urge my colleagues to reject this proposed cut, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Are there further opening statements? Saying none. Chair calls up HR 8739 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR 8739. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 with respect to the Brownfields revitalization funding and for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia seek recognition?
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, the Brownfields revitalization for a Better Tomorrow Act is a critical piece of legislation that will bolster the program's previous successes while incorporating updates to address the nearly 450,000 brownfield sites still remaining across the country. 450,000. This legislation will ensure that we continue the progress we have made with the Brownfields program, while ensuring proper oversight and accountability. For example, it institutes a biannual requirement for the inspector general to conduct reviews of audits of grants made under section 104(k) and section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act.
Brownfields are sites that often have preexisting infrastructure that allows them to be easily transformed into facilities to produce energy, critical resources, and much more. This bill requires EPA to develop and periodically upgrade guidance to assist other federal agencies in more efficiently issuing authorizations and conducting environmental reviews for projects on brownfield sites. It also updates the ranking criteria EPA uses to evaluate grant applications to facilitate the reuse of brownfield sites for critical infrastructure and the redevelopment of formerly military installations. I wanna thank Chairman Guthrie for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields, the gentleman from California, Mister Ruiz, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 8
Speaking, Chairman, thank you. I move to strike the last word. Brownfield sites, abandoned industrial facilities, old gas stations, dry cleaners, and landfills are not just environmental hazards. They are economic wounds. And as a physician, I can tell you, you do not heal wounds by ignoring them.
You clean them. You treat them. In my district alone, there are 14 known brownfield sites. Together, they have received over $581,000 in EPA brownfield funding, touching communities from Raleigh to Twenty-Nine Palms, from El Centro to tribal lands in Riverside County. And that investment goes further than the dollar figure suggests.
Nationally, every dollar Brownfield's funding has leveraged more than $42,000,000,000 in cleanup and redevelopment, and generated over 220,000 jobs. Communities see roughly 10.6 jobs created per $100,000 spent. Applied to California's 25th District, our $581,000 could represent over $11,000,000 in leveraged economic activity, and more than 60 local jobs. That is federal seed money that multiplies into real opportunity for working families. We've already seen what that looks like.
The Lasica property in Brawley, a long-vacant contaminated site, was remediated and transformed into a thriving local car repair business. Good paying jobs, renewed economic activity, restored community dignity, which brings me to what is happening right now. We know these sites cluster in economically distressed communities, places with higher poverty rates, higher unemployment, and lower median incomes. That is the legacy of decades of industrial sitting decisions that consistently placed the heaviest burdens on the communities least equipped to bear them. When we choose to cut funding from this program, we're making a choice about which communities matter.
On March 4, this very committee considered a Republican draft bill, the one we're considering right now, the Brownsville's revitalization for a better tomorrow act that actually funded this program at $200,000,000. Only ten weeks later, we are voting on a version of this same bill that cuts the Brownfields program by over $75,000,000. Same committee, same program, same people. My Republican colleagues found 1,500,000,000,000 for defense and named a resolution, the Investing in Rural America Act. But today, they can't find $75,000,000 for a program that creates real jobs in real rural communities.
This is not a budget decision. This is a values decision. If you stand for rural America, you fund rural America. You don't put its name on a bill one week and cut its lifeline the next. This has always been a bipartisan program, and this committee has always treated it this way.
In its entire history, the Energy and Commerce Committee has never cut authorization funds for the Brownfields until today. It is extremely disappointing that House Republicans are breaking that tradition, and that the communities who will pay the price are the ones that can least afford it. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Mister Chair. Recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in favor of my bill, the Brownfields Revitalization Act for a Better Tomorrow. The environment subcommittee has undertaken a deliberate process to develop the legislation we're considering today, including multiple hearings, meeting one on one with EPA's states, local communities, other stakeholders, and receiving feedback on a series of discussion drafts released earlier this year. This bill includes many bipartisan reforms, including identifying and prioritizing use of brownfield sites for needed infrastructure projects, increasing the dollar amounts for individual grant awards, updating how these funds can be used to better support cleanup and reuse of sites, and increasing oversight by the EPA inspector general and the government accountability office. While more work does remain ahead on authorization levels, to be clear, this bill does not cut the actual funding for the Brownfields program.
The authorization levels, including in this legislation, reflect the most recent level of appropriations enacted by Congress, about $170,000,000 in total. We will spend the authorization as what we are currently spending. The reforms in the bill are long overdue, and I appreciate the work that has gone into getting us this far. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman Yields, does any recognized? General from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, mister Palom, has five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 4
Thank you. And, let me say, in all due respect to chairman Guthrie, I understand that you're bringing the authorization levels down to the appropriations levels, but that is not what we should be doing. I mean, first of all, I don't believe we should defer to the appropriators. Oftentimes, they appropriate inadequately relative to the authorization levels that we set. But that shouldn't be the basis for our action.
Our action should be based on what we think should be authorized, and then we try, or at least I try, to get the appropriators to move as much as possible towards those authorization levels. So, you know, I don't wanna be dictated by the appropriators, particularly when they're cutting the funding significantly below what I think we should be authorizing. So the Brownfields program, as I said, is an economic lifeline for communities looking to clean up contamination and revitalize their neighborhoods. Since its inception, more than 42,000 Brownfield sites have been revitalized and made ready for development around the nation. And these projects leveraged nearly 230,000 jobs and more than $44,000,000,000 in economic development.
And working together with the majority, we were able to increase grant amounts across the board to tackle harder-to-reach sites, eliminate the cost-share requirements that made it difficult for small and disadvantaged communities to apply for grants, and broaden the scope of how you could use the grants to allow more flexibility for grantees as they tackle these complex sites. And we even found common ground on a new program for small community technical assistance, increasing audits and reporting, expanding the state brownfields inventories, and making them public. But the problem is that those gains now take a back seat because of the funding cuts that were suddenly included in their bill, cuts from what Chairman Guthrie actually proposed in the initial bill. So this amount was not in the legislative draft, not in the bipartisan senate bill, and not part of any negotiation or stakeholder agreements. The over $75,000,000,000 cuts, and I understand their cuts and authorization, but that's what we deal with, they run counter to on the broad understanding of the value of the program and its ability to spur economic development because everything about the brownfield cuts is frankly disappointing.
I just wanna remind my colleagues that every dollar the federal government invests in the brownfields program, we get roughly $20 back in economic return, showcasing the win-win scenario that the program produces. So I just hope we can all agree that this program was more than worth every dollar we put into it, even though the bill today does not demonstrate that. And I would urge the chairman and my colleagues to come back to the table and fully fund this program at the levels necessary to get the work done. So I can't support a bill, this bill, that cuts a critical lifeline for our districts so they can have access to the funds to remediate and redevelop former toxic sites and bring them back to economic use. And until that funding is restored, I'd urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
I yield back.
Speaker 3
So I wanna thank you for your remarks and for your support of the underlying policy of the bill. I understand our differences in the authorization levels, but I do appreciate the hard work that you've done. Our staff has done and just want to point out that we agree. I don't want to put words in your mouth. We agree on the underlying policy.
It's in the bill. The difference is the authorization levels, and it this does reflect current house appropriations and intended to it's that's house protocol. In reasonable minds, can differ on what the appropriation authorization could be in this bill. We've heard repeatedly that the program is oversubscribed with significant interest, with more quality applications than can be satisfied. We understand that.
I would also note that the Senate is working on reauthorizing this program and is, in fact, considering a higher authorization level than we're voting on today. So I know that we'll continue to work. We'll also work with the senate, and I look forward to working with you and our colleagues in the house and the senate. And we'll develop a bipartisan, bicameral compromise that I believe, in the end, we can all support. So thank you, and I will yield back to you, Ranking Member.
Speaker 1
Gentleman Yields, does anyone else wish to speak on the bill? Gentlemen from New Jersey is recognized to speak on the bill for 5 minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, chairman. EPA Brownfield is historically a bipartisan program that helps local leaders in New Jersey do incredible work to revitalize our communities and improve the quality of life for working families. Brownfield funding helps turn landfills into community parks. It helps turn abandoned contaminated industrial sites into affordable housing, new businesses, or even solar farms that provide our communities with cheap, clean energy. So I'm incredibly disappointed that at the eleventh hour, Republicans have decided to cut the funding authorization for this program in half.
They are turning their backs on this program and the communities that need it to thrive, despite the fact that many local leaders and expert witnesses have told this committee that the program desperately needs additional resources, not less. Let me read some testimony from Mayor Bulge of Elizabeth, New Jersey, which I have the privilege of representing. When Mayor Bulge came before this committee in 2025, he called the Brownfield program, quote, a community game changer. But he also told this committee that, quote, the only downside is the majority of grant applications are not funded due to a lack of resources. And yet for the first time in the history of this successful bipartisan and popular program, Republicans are choosing to mark up a partisan bill and cut its funding.
This is on top of other funding cuts that they've made in this Congress, cutting a trillion dollars from health care for Americans. And let's talk about what Republicans are willing to fund at historic levels. Republicans voted to create a $170000000000 slush fund for ICE and immigration enforcement, which is being used to terrorize our communities and tear families apart. And, apparently, that was still not enough for House Republicans because just two weeks ago, they voted to greenlight another $70,000,000,000 in funding for immigration enforcement. Republicans on this committee are also fine with writing a blank check for the Trump administration's war in Iran that was not authorized by Congress, a war that some estimates say has already cost $80,000,000,000.
And more recently, they've had nothing to say about whether taxpayers should foot the bill for the president's ballroom or about a no-bid contract to pay the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool bright blue. That's just how disconnected House Republicans are from the priorities of the American people. So while I am glad to see many welcome reforms in this bill, including increased grant caps that will help our communities take on more ambitious projects and remediate more contaminated sites, I am also glad to see the Republicans threw out many of the worst ideas from their original discussion draft, and I am a strong supporter of this program. As I said in March, I would be thrilled to work with my Republican colleagues on a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, I cannot support unprecedented cuts to this program.
Cuts only mean fewer affordable homes, fewer community parks, and less investment in communities like Elizabeth. You know, house Democrats are gonna continue to push for priorities that uplift communities across the country, that uplift the American people. But we're just waiting for our Republicans to come to the table and do the same. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman Yields, does anyone else wish to speak on the bill? Gentleman from Florida, Massachusetts, recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 10
Thank you, chairman. You know, a lot of people may not realize, in the training up until and through World War two, we had tens of thousands of soldiers come to Central Florida to train on their way to Europe to defend democracy and defeat the Nazis. Places like Pine Castle Bombing Range and Army Airfield hosted thousands of these soldiers over the years. And in the wake of this huge victory for our country and for the world, we saw brownfields throughout Central Florida. These areas have become theme parks, our airport, and local neighborhoods, and have flourished.
But it took a lot of incentives to help move this along. When you're investing private dollars,
Speaker 10
a high risk going into a piece of land that might have been polluted. And when you get the environmental surveys, yet, it's really uncertain what you might be facing. And so it's so important this partnership between the government and with the local businesses, to help incentivize reusing these brownfields. And the grant levels are low in this current bill. I do applaud the use of cost sharing for small towns. We've seen in Central Florida that urban and suburban areas have leveraged brownfield funds far more successfully than the rural areas because of the bar.
Speaker 10
entry. And so this pilot program also for rural communities will be helpful. But we can do better. A $75,000,000 cut when we were in the process of talking about a $250,000,000 increase to the brownfields revitalization program is something that we have to do better on. This is a great potential jobs bill if done right.
And we're the authorizers. We're not subservient to the appropriators. We need to do what we think is right. Unemployment is rising, so is inflation. And so this is an opportunity for us to turn the corner and invest in our communities, especially to help revitalize communities that have been left behind.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Anyone else wish to speak on the bill? I will recognize myself for five minutes. For clarity and accuracy's sake, there are no cuts in spending. What the bill does is match authorization to appropriated spending. We will continue to spend what we've been spending.
I yield back. Are there any amendments? Seeing none, question now occurs on adopting HR 87 39. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no.
Speaker 1
ayes have it. The bill's adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair calls up HR 21:45 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR 2145, a bill to establish a pilot grant program to improve recycling accessibility and for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purposes, gentlelady, do you seek recognition? Move to strike the last word. Gentlelady is recognized.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Chairman Palmer, for bringing up this important bill to mark up. As a representative from Iowa, I know firsthand the challenges rural communities face in accessing recycling services. Over 36% of Iowa households lack access to recycling, and that's over 450,000 families. This is an economic and national security imperative. Iowa's manufacturing sector depends on recycled materials as feedstocks, yet we're watching China and other competitors purchase our scrap at above-market prices while our own factories struggle to source domestic materials.
The data shows we're landfilling millions of tons of valuable manufacturing materials every year, materials that should be creating jobs and strengthening supply chains right here in America. In Iowa alone, we're capturing less than half of our aluminum cans, and only 15% of our steel cans. And for information, 90% of American steel and aluminum is from recycled material. So that's not just waste. It's lost economic opportunity for our manufacturers, and increased dependence on foreign suppliers.
This challenge extends beyond traditional materials. We recycle and keep critical materials and critical minerals in American hands, not shipping them overseas. That's why I've introduced the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act. RIAA would establish a pilot grant program specifically targeting communities like many in my district, those without a recycling facility within 75 miles. This bipartisan legislation has earned endorsements from industry leaders here today, environmental groups, and manufacturers who understand that recycling infrastructure is manufacturing infrastructure, and that domestic material supply is economic security.
I urge my colleagues on this committee to support the RIAA and advance it to the full committee. Our rural communities, our manufacturers, and our economy cannot wait any longer for the infrastructure they need to keep American materials and American supply chains. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady Yields, does anyone else seek recognition? Mister Carter from Louisiana's recognition. Five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to cosponsor HR 2145, the recycling infrastructure and accessibility act of 2025. This bill makes targeted, common-sense investments in the recycling programs that rural and underserved communities in Louisiana and across this country desperately need. We know that recycling works when communities have access to it. But right now, too many of our communities have little to no curbside recycling, no drop-off facilities, and no path forward without federal support.
This bill can change that. A recent study by the recycling partnership found that Louisiana and the Gulf Coast region are among the best in the country for end markets for recycling materials. We have large fiber mills, as well as aluminum, glass, and plastic producers, ready and waiting to buy what other communities collect. The demand and market are right here in our communities. What's missing is the infrastructure to get materials from our neighborhoods to those facilities.
This bill will help close the gap. By investing in recycling infrastructure programs in rural and underserved areas, this bill fuses economic growth while serving our environment. It can put recyclable materials back in Louisiana's manufacturing, supply chain, creating jobs, and economic opportunity. Louisiana is ready. The market is ready, and it's time for congress to make the investment in our communities that we need to fuel this economic growth and build a cleaner, stronger community, cleaner, stronger environment.
And I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense, well-needed bill. I yield.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen Yields, does anyone else seek recognition to speak on the bill? Are there any amendments? Gentleman from Colorado, Mister Evans is recognized.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment to HR 2145, the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act, would add bipartisan provisions to harmonize the bill with legislation that's previously passed in the United States Senate. The amendment directs the EPA to coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments to collect data related to composting and recycling in the United States and to compile a nationwide inventory of materials recovery facilities every four years. Additionally, my amendment allows the EPA to develop a standardized estimated rate of recyclable materials that have been brought to recycling or composting facilities, as well as an estimated annual national recycling rate. The intention is to arm the EPA with the data and authorization it needs to collaborate with states, cities, and tribes across America to help improve composting and recycling rates.
By strengthening recycling systems and improving information collection on recyclable materials and composting, Congress can not only reduce reliance on landfills, but we can also enhance domestic manufacturing supply chains. In 2024, Colorado recycled just 15% of its municipal waste, lagging severely behind other states due to factors like mismanagement at the state level and isolated pockets of communities across our geographically diverse state. Policies like this can help address the lackluster recycling rate, create jobs, and improve the circular economy. As this subcommittee works to advance common-sense legislation to support the expansion of advanced recycling, I'm proud to offer this amendment to build on the great work my colleague from Iowa has done. I urge bipartisan support, and yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. Is there a discussion of the amendment? There's no further discussion. The vote on the amendment occurs. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments? Question now occurs on adopting HR 42145 as amended.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The eyes haven't. The bills are adopted and forwarded to the full committee.
The staff has authority to make all conforming and technical changes. The committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.