Recycling Programs in Congress: Legislative Development and Architect of the Capitol Administration

Recycling Programs in Congress:
Legislative Development and
Architect of the Capitol Administration
August 13, 2008
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
Government and Finance Division

Recycling Programs in Congress:
Legislative Development and
Architect of the Capitol Administration
Summary
The House of Representatives and the Senate created separate voluntary
recycling programs in 1989, during the 101^st Congress (1989-1991). Administered
by the Architect of the Capitol, the recycling programs aimed to reduce the amount
of material sent to landfills and establish the House and the Senate as leaders of the
recycling movement.
The initial recycling programs in the House and Senate focused on the recycling
of paper and the use of recycled paper, including white office paper, newspaper, and
cardboard. While the program had modest beginnings, since 1992, when the General
Services Administration (GSA) began managing the House and Senate recycling
contracts, the House (9,939 tons) and the Senate (5,117 tons) have recycled a
combined total of approximately 15,056 tons of paper.
At approximately the same time the House and Senate began recycling paper,
they also began recycling bottles and cans. Since 1992, when GSA began managing
the recycling of non-paper materials, the House (572 tons) and the Senate (198 tons)
have recycled a combined total of approximately 770 tons of bottles and cans. This
number has fluctuated as the increased use of plastic instead of glass bottles has
decreased the total weight of recycled bottles and cans.
In 2001, the House and the Senate began recycling e-waste (e.g., computers,
printers, and toner cartridges), construction, and demolition waste products (e.g.,
carpet, concrete, ceiling tiles, and scrap metal). The additional categories of
recycling have allowed the House (23,000 tons) and the Senate (15,700 tons) to
recycle almost 39,000 tons of materials that were not part of the initial recycling
efforts. Overall, the expansion of the recycling program in both the House and
Senate has resulted in an increase of total tons recycled and a decrease in total tons
of waste transferred to landfills.
Recently, the recycling program has expanded to include the recycling of cell
phones and the composting of food waste in the House of Representatives. In the
FY2009 budget justification, the Architect of the Capitol has proposed legislative
language to amend Title 2, United States Code concerning the collection and sale of
recycled materials and the use of proceeds. The new language, if enacted, would
allow the Architect to offset the initial cost of new House recycling programs by
using current proceeds. The Senate, by law, currently designates recycling proceeds
to the Senate fitness center.
For further analysis of recycling programs beyond those in the House and
Senate, see CRS Report RS22807, Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs): Issues
with Use and Disposal, by Linda Luther; CRS Report RL34147, Managing
Electronic Waste: An Analysis of State E-Waste Legislation, by Linda Luther; and
CRS Report RL31505, Recycling Computers and Electronic Equipment: Legislative
and Regulatory Approaches for ‘E-Waste,’ by James E. McCarthy.

Contents
Development of Recycling Programs..................................1
House of Representatives........................................2
Bills and Resolutions Prior to 1989............................2
Establishing the House Recycling Program......................2
Subsequent House Legislation................................4
Senate .......................................................5
Establishing the Senate Recycling Program.....................5
Subsequent Senate Legislation................................6
Recycling in Practice...............................................7
House of Representatives........................................8
Appropriations ............................................9
Committee on House Administration.........................17
Current Recycling Efforts..................................18
Senate ......................................................23
Appropriations ...........................................24
Current Recycling Efforts..................................27
Options for Program Administration..................................30
Legislative Options...........................................30
Creating a Mandatory Recycling Program......................30
Dedication of Recycling Proceeds............................31
Administrative Options........................................32
Educational Programs.....................................32
Recycling Containers......................................33
Recycling of Other Materials................................33
Conclusion ......................................................34
Appendix A. Bills and Resolutions Introduced for
House of Representatives Recycling..............................35
Appendix B. Bills and Resolutions Introduced for Senate Recycling........39
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proceeds from House Recycling, 1996-2007....................9
Figure 2. Total Tons and Paper Tons Recycled in the House, 1996-2007.....19
Figure 3. Total Tons of Bottles and Cans, 1992-2007....................20
Figure 4. Total Tons of Other Materials Recycled in the House, 2004-2007...21
Figure 5. Proceeds from Senate Recycling, 1996-2007...................24
Figure 6. Total Tons and Paper Tons Recycled in the Senate, 1996-2007.....28
Figure 7. Total Tons of Bottles and Cans Recycled in the Senate, 1992-2007..29
Figure 8. Total Tons of Other Materials Recycled in the Senate, 2001-2007...30

Recycling Programs in Congress:
Legislative Development and
Architect of the Capitol Administration
Recycling can have multiple meanings. “To some, it is the stacking of
newspapers and separating of cans and bottles from the trash. To others, it is the
program that collects those materials. And, to still others, it is just another waste¹
disposal program.” Recycling programs in the House of Representatives and the
Senate have taken two approaches: recycling of material as part of the overall
congressional waste disposal program and purchasing products made from recycled
materials. In each case, the House and the Senate encourage participation through²
educational outreach.
Development of Recycling Programs
Formal recycling programs were created during the 101^st Congress (1989-1991)
through separate resolutions in the House and Senate.³ Both the House and the
Senate authorized the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) to “establish and implement
a voluntary program for recycling paper.”⁴ The recycling program has since
expanded to include cardboard, toner cartridges, bottles, cans, and building materials.
In calendar year 2007, the AOC facilitated the recycling of more than 2,000 tons of
materials by the House and Senate.⁵

¹ Robert Cowles Letcher and Mary T. Sheil, “Source Separation and Citizen Recycling,” in
William D. Robinson, ed., The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1986), p. 216.
² The House and the Senate chose to create voluntary recycling programs as compared to
compulsory programs requiring all offices to recycle. For a comparison of voluntary and
compulsory programs and their impact on recycling participation see, Ann E. Carlson,
“Recycling Norms,” California Law Review, vol. 89, no. 5 (Oct. 2001), pp. 1231-1300.
³ CRS does not address the distinct question of whether separately from these resolutions,
a requirement that the Architect of the Capitol administer a recycling program in
congressional offices could be derived from the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act. That act
states that agencies of the legislative branch, presumably including the Architect of the
Capitol, are subject to D.C. laws “respecting control and abatement of solid waste ... to the
same extent ... as any person is subject to such requirements....” 42 U.S.C. § 6961(a).
⁴ H.Res. 104 (101^st Congress), agreed to by voice vote, Aug. 1, 1989; and S.Res. 99 (101^st
Congress), agreed to by unanimous consent, Oct. 2, 1989.
⁵ U.S. General Services Administration, GSA National Capitol Region, National Capitol
Region Recycling Program, [http://ncr.gsa.gov/Recycle/AL/Default.aspx], accessed July 15,
(continued...)

House of Representatives
While the first legislation to establish a recycling program in the House of
Representatives was introduced in the 93^rd Congress (1973-1975), a formal recycling
program did not begin until the House agreed to H.Res. 104 in the 101^st Congress.
H.Res. 104 created a voluntary paper recycling program under the auspices of the
Architect of the Capitol. The Architect, with guidance from the House
Administration Committee and the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on
Legislative Appropriations, has managed and expanded the recycling program. See
Appendix A for a complete list of legislation introduced on House recycling
programs.
Bills and Resolutions Prior to 1989. Initial attempts to create a recycling^rd^th
program occurred during the 93 and 94 Congresses and focused on requiring the
use of recycled paper to produce congressional documents. Initial legislation took
one of three approaches:

1. amend Title 44 of the United States Code (12 bills and resolutions);

2. a concurrent resolution stating the government should use recycled
paper (two resolutions); or
3. direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to issue regulations
on the use of recycled paper products (two bills).
A total of 16 bills and resolutions were introduced using these three approaches.
Each bill or resolution was referred to committee and did not receive further
consideration.
Establishing the House Recycling Program. On March 7, 1989,
Representative William Green introduced H.Res. 104, providing for a voluntary
paper recycling program in the House of Representatives, administered by the
Architect of the Capitol. Representative Green’s resolution approached recycling
differently than previous measures. Instead of amending Title 44, proposing a
concurrent resolution, or directing the GSA to issue regulations, H.Res. 104 placed
responsibility for recycling in the House with the Architect of the Capitol and made
recycling a voluntary program.
Resolved, That, not later than 6 months after this resolution is agreed to, the
Architect of the Capitol shall establish and implement a voluntary program for
recycling paper that is disposed of in the operation of the House of
Representatives. Such program shall be designed to encourage separation of
paper by type at the sources of the generation (including offices of Members of⁶

the House) and to sell such paper for the purpose of recycling.
⁵ (...continued)

2008.

⁶ H.Res. 104 (101^st Congress), agreed to by voice vote, Aug. 1, 1989.

H.Res. 104 was referred to the Committee on House Administration, where it was
referred to the Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing.
The subcommittee, chaired by Representative Jim Bates, held hearings on July
19 and July 20, 1989.⁷ The hearings included testimony from the Office of
Technology Assessment, the Architect of the Capitol, the General Services
Administration, Waste Management Inc., and local governments with established
recycling programs.⁸
As a result of the hearings, the subcommittee supported the use of “source
separation” techniques.⁹ The Committee on House Administration issued a report
that stated, “[s]ource separation makes sense both environmentally and economically.
For example, the House currently receives $1 per ton for its recycled trash. Source
separation would generate $80 per ton for Grade 1 paper and $40 per ton for Grade

2 paper.”¹⁰

On July 25, the subcommittee recommended the approval of H.Res. 104 to the
full committee.¹¹ On July 26, the full committee agreed to the resolution and
reported the resolution favorably, without amendment. In its report, the committee
raised concern that dividing paper into as many as five source separation categories
could discourage staff and Member participation in the pilot program. As a result,
the committee encouraged “the Architect to consider a phased-in approach, beginning
with the separation of Grade 1 and Grade 2 paper.”¹²

⁷ U.S. Congress, Library of Congress, (LIS) Legislative Information System of the U.S.
Congress, [http://www.congress.gov], accessed Apr. 18, 2008. To find information about
the detailed status of H.Res. 104, search for the resolution under the advanced tab for the^st

101 Congress.

⁸ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Requiring the Architect of the
Capitol to Establish and Implement a Voluntary Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of^st
in the Operation of the House of Representatives, report to accompany H.Res. 104, 101^st
Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 101-204 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 1.
⁹ 40 C.F.R. § 246.101. See also, William D. Robinson, editor, The Solid Waste Handbook:
A Practical Guide (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1986), p. 216. Source separation
is an alternative to central disposal of waste. Instead of combining all waste materials prior
to disposal, source separation divides the material, based on categories designed to
maximize their reuse, prior to disposal.
¹⁰ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Requiring the Architect of the
Capitol to Establish and Implement a Voluntary Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of^st
in the Operation of the House of Representatives, report to accompany H.Res. 104, 101^st
Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 101-204 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 2.
¹¹ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the
Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One^st^nd
Hundred and First Congress, 101 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO,

1991), p. 112.

¹² U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Requiring the Architect of the
Capitol to Establish and Implement a Voluntary Program for Recycling Paper Disposed of^st
in the Operation of the House of Representatives, report to accompany H.Res. 104, 101
(continued...)

H.Res. 104 was debated on the House floor on August 1, 1989. During debate,
Representative Bates stated that the resolution was the beginning of a larger recycling
effort in the House. “Mr. Speaker, I think this is just the beginning of a much-needed
recycling program here in the House of Representatives, and with that I hope this
pilot program can be shortened from at least the 1-year period, but, if not, at least a

1-year period has been allowed.”¹³ H.Res. 104 was agreed to by voice vote.

Subsequent House Legislation. Following the passage of H.Res. 104, an^st
additional 15 bills and resolutions were introduced between the 101 Congress
(1989-1991) and the first session of the 110^th Congress (2007-2009) to expand the
House recycling program. These bills and resolutions can be divided into two
categories: efforts to create a more comprehensive paper recycling program in
Congress and the inclusion of Congress in broader federal government recycling
programs.
Comprehensive Congressional Recycling Program. Bills named “The
Congressional Recycling Act” were introduced in the House during the 101^st and
102^nd Congresses.¹⁴ For example, H.R. 4523 was introduced by Representative
Glenn Anderson during the 101^st Congress, with similar language to other bills.¹⁵
H.R. 4523 contained language mandating the recycled content of paper purchased by
the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Public Printer. In his
remarks accompanying the introduction of H.R. 4523, Representative Anderson
summarized the bill’s goals.
This bill will require the House of Representatives and the Senate to use recycled
paper and paper products to the greatest extent practical in their daily operations
and increase their procurement of paper and paper products with the highest
percentage of recycled content. This sends a clear message to the rest of the
Nation that Congress is actively involved in addressing America’s environmental¹⁶
concerns.
H.R. 4523 was referred to the Committee on House Administration and subsequently
referred to the Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing. Hearings were

¹² (...continued)
Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept. 101-204 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 2.
¹³ Rep. Jim Bates, “Requiring Architect of the Capitol to Establish Voluntary Program for
Recycling Paper Disposed of by the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 13 (Aug.

1, 1989), p. 17172.

¹⁴ Companion bills were also introduced in the Senate. See S. 2513 (101^st Congress),
introduced Apr. 25, 1990; S. 2522 (101^st Congress), introduced Apr. 25, 1990; and S. 255^nd
(102 Congress), introduced Jan. 23, 1991.
¹⁵ H.R. 4523 (101^st Congress), introduced Apr. 18, 1990.
¹⁶ Rep. Glenn Anderson, “The Congressional Recycling Act of 1990,” Congressional
Record, vol. 136, part 5 (Apr. 18, 1990), p. 7278.

conducted for H.R. 4523 in August 1990, but the measure was not subsequently
reported by the committee.¹⁷
Federal Government Recycling Programs. In addition to the^st
Congressional Recycling Act legislation, two bills were introduced in the 101 and

102^nd Congresses to create broader recycling in the federal government. Both bills¹⁸

aimed to clarify federal procurement standards for the purchase of recycled paper.
For example, Representative John Porter introduced H.R. 1201 during the 102^nd
Congress (1991-1993). In his remarks accompanying the introduction of H.R. 1201
Representative John Porter explained why he believed this legislation was necessary:
My bill will amend the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which
currently requires the Federal purchasing agents to implement affirmative
procurement programs for paper products containing recovered material. That
is an interesting concept, but the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the act does
not promote the use of paper with postconsumer-waste content; that is, paper
which has already been used once, thrown away, and collected for recycling
which would be deinked and put back into use. With no standard to include
postconsumer waste paper, the affirmative procurement programs have not
helped create a market in this country for separated paper and do nothing at all¹⁹
to help us solve the solid-waste problems plaguing the country.
Neither H.R. 1201 nor other bills creating a broader federal recycling program were
reported by committee in any Congress.
Senate
The Senate recycling program was first proposed during the 101^st Congress
(1989-1991), and the introduction and passage of S.Res. 99 during that Congress
created the basis for current Senate recycling efforts. See Appendix B for a
complete list of legislation introduced on recycling in the Senate.
Establishing the Senate Recycling Program. In April 1989, Senator
Rudy Boschwitz introduced S.Res. 99 to require the Architect of the Capitol to create
a voluntary paper recycling program in the Senate. The resolution stated:
Resolved, That, not later than 6 months after this resolution is agreed to, the
Architect of the Capitol shall establish and implement a voluntary program for

¹⁷ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the
Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One^st^nd
Hundred and First Congress, 101 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 101-1005 (Washington: GPO,
1991), p. 116. See also, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee
on Procurement and Printing, Congressional Recycling Act of 1990, hearing on H.R. 4523,^st^nd

101 Cong., 2 sess., Aug. 1 and Aug. 2, 1990 (Washington: GPO, 1990).

¹⁸ H.R. 3463 (101^st Congress), introduced Oct. 12, 1989 and H.R. 1201 (102^nd Congress),
introduced Feb. 28, 1991.
¹⁹ “The Federal Government and Congress Should Buy Real Recycled Paper,”
Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 3 (Feb. 26, 1991), p. 4244.

recycling paper that is disposed of in the operation of the Senate. Such program
shall be designed to encourage separation of paper by type at the sources of
generation (including the offices of Members of the Senate) and to sell such²⁰
paper for the purpose of recycling.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
In a floor speech in support of his resolution, Senator Boschwitz expressed his
vision of the Senate as a leader of government recycling efforts. “Recycling is a
cornerstone of the future plans of our municipalities and counties to ensure that
necessary landfill space remains available. The Senate should serve as an example
in the recycling efforts of the Government.”²¹
Senator Boschwitz returned to the Senate floor on September 6, 1989 to
encourage the inclusion of his resolution in the Legislative Branch Appropriations
bill and to explain the potential environmental impact of recycling.
While I am pleased to see the number of bills introduced in Congress to promote
recycling, I feel that we as a Congress must set the example for the rest of the
Nation. Capitol Hill currently produces 20,000 tons of trash every year, of which
only 30 percent is recycled. To no one’s surprise much of the Hill’s trash is
high-grade paper for which there is currently a large demand. Instead of paying
people to dump our paper, along with wrappers, food, and other trash, in
landfills, we could be responding to this market demand with recycled high-grade²²
paper.
On September 27, the committee ordered S.Res. 99 to be reported without
amendment. The next day, Senator Wendell Ford reported the resolution without a
written report. On October 2, the Senate agreed to the resolution by unanimous
consent.
Subsequent Senate Legislation. Following the passage of S.Res. 99,
seven bills were introduced between the second session of the 101^st Congress and the^th
first session of the 110 Congress (2007-2009) to require broader recycling efforts
in Congress. Again, these bills can be divided into two categories: efforts to create
a more comprehensive paper recycling program in Congress and efforts to create a
broader federal government paper recycling program.
Comprehensive Congressional Recycling Program. During the 101^st
and the 102^nd Congresses, three bills, each called the “Congressional Recycling Act,”
were introduced in the Senate.²³ Each bill had identical language and attempted to

²⁰ S.Res. 99 (101^st Congress), agreed to by unanimous consent, Oct. 2, 1989.
²¹ “Senate Resolution 99 — Relating to the Recycling of Paper in the Senate,”
Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 5 (Apr. 11, 1989), p. 6048.
²² “Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1990,” Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 14
(Sept. 6, 1989), p. 19607.
²³ A companion bill was also introduced in the House. See H.R. 4523 (101^st Congress),
(continued...)

place restrictions on the type of paper purchased by the Clerk of the House, the
Secretary of the Senate, and the Public Printer.²⁴ In his remarks to accompany the
introduction of S. 255, Senator Jeff Bingaman explained why he believed the
Congress should purchase recycled paper. “Mr. President, I believe we must set the
example on the use of recycled products. I hope my legislation and the reporting
requirements contained therein will ensure that Congress does its fair share in the
recycling effort.”²⁵
Federal Government Paper Recycling Program. During the 101^st
Congress, legislation was introduced to require all federal government agencies to
use recycled paper. S. 2643 would have directed the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to announce regulations requiring the
recycling of paper by agencies with more than 50 employees; required the Clerk of
the House and the Secretary of the Senate to use source separation for recycling
paper; required all procuring agencies to meet minimum content standards for
recycled paper as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 250.21;²⁶ required the Clerk of the House
and the Secretary of the Senate to follow the same guidelines for recycled paper
purchases as other federal agencies; required a study by the EPA to eliminate
unnecessary packaging, to improve the ratio of product to packaging size, and to
examine the use of non-toxic packaging; and required the Clerk of the House and
Secretary of the Senate to ensure that the operations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, respectively, are minimizing their waste outputs.²⁷
S. 2643 was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and
did not receive further consideration.
Recycling in Practice
Following the passage of H.Res. 104 and S.Res. 99 in the 101^st Congress, the
Architect of the Capitol established pilot, voluntary paper recycling programs in the
House and Senate. In succeeding years, the Architect received direction for the

²³ (...continued)
introduced Apr. 18, 1990.
²⁴ S. 2513 (101^st Congress), introduced Apr. 25, 1990; S. 2522 (101^st Congress), introduced
Apr. 25, 1990; and S. 255 (102^nd Congress), introduced Jan. 23, 1991.
²⁵ “Purchase of Recycled Paper by Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 2 (Jan.

23, 1991), p. 2123.

²⁶ Four executive orders have been issued since 1993 to require executive branch agencies
to purchase recycled paper. See Executive Order 12873, “Federal Acquisition, Recycling,
and Waste Prevention,” 58 Federal Register 54911, Oct. 22, 1993; Executive Order 12995,
“Amendment to Executive Order No. 12873,” 61 Federal Register 13645, Mar. 28, 1996;
Executive Order 13101, “Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling,
and Federal Acquisition,” 63 Federal Register 49641, Sept. 16, 1998; and Executive Order

13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,”

72 Federal Register 3921, Jan. 26, 2007.

²⁷ S. 2643 (101^st Congress), introduced May 16, 1990.

operation of the House and Senate recycling programs through questions asked
during appropriations hearings, in Legislative Branch Appropriations reports, in
appropriations bills, and from the House Administration Committee and the Senate
Rules and Administration Committee. While direction provided in appropriations
bills could apply to both the House and the Senate, hearing questions, report
language, and committee guidance has often been directed to either the House or the
Senate program. As a result, the House and Senate recycling programs have
developed somewhat separately since 1989.
House of Representatives
The House of Representatives recycling program has expanded since it was
established as a voluntary program in 1989. In 2007, the House recycled
approximately 1,400 tons of paper and 21.5 tons of bottles and cans. This represents
an increase of 595% for paper and 113% for bottles and cans since the House
contracted with GSA for the removal of recycling waste in 1992. Since GSA began
managing the contract for collecting House recycled paper, bottles, and cans in 1992,
House recycling efforts have generated approximately $346,000 in proceeds. Figure
1 shows the amount of money generated per year under GSA contracts between
calendar year 1996 and calendar year 2007.
The Office of the House Superintendent of the Architect of the Capitol is
responsible for managing the House’s recycling program. The Architect, in general,
has responsibility for implementing recycling initiatives. The Committee on House
Administration and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative²⁸

Branch provide oversight for the program.
²⁸ The Committee on House Administration has oversight jurisdiction over measures relating
to financial accounts of the House and over measures relating to administration of the House
Office Buildings and the House Wing of the Capitol. Since recycling officially began in

1989, the House Administration Committee has not provided public guidance to the^th^th

Architect on the operation of the recycling program. In the 104 and 105 Congresses, the
committee was known as the Committee on House Oversight.

Figure 1. Proceeds from House Recycling, 1996-2007

^$45,⁰⁰⁰
^$40,⁰⁰⁰
^$35,⁰⁰⁰
^$30,⁰⁰⁰
^$25,⁰⁰⁰
^$20,⁰⁰⁰
^$15,⁰⁰⁰
^$10,⁰⁰⁰
^$5,⁰⁰⁰
^$0
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^U.S^.^Gen^e^ral^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ
^No^tes:^A^ll^m^oⁿ^e^tary^fⁱ^g^u^r^es^areⁱⁿⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^a^{l dollars}^{. P}^r^oceeds^betw^een^{1992 to 1995 w}^e^{re $107 or}
^l^e^s^s^{per y}^{ear an}^{d do n}^o^t^{appear i}ⁿ^Fⁱ^{gure 1}^{. In}¹⁹⁹²^,^r^e^c^y^c^lⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^ceeds^w^e^{re $10.84; in}^1993,
^{$106.20; in}^{1994, $100.98; an}^{d in}^{1995, $58.10. P}^r^oceeds^w^e^{re low}^becau^s^e^of^c^o^nt^a^mⁱⁿ^a^t^ion^of
^poten^tially^recy^{cled m}^a^terials^.^{Figure 1}^doesⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e proceeds}^f^r^om^s^c^rap^m^e^{tal recy}^clin^g^.^Scrap
^m^e^t^a^lⁱ^s^r^e^c^y^c^l^e^d^t^h^r^o^{ugh a}^noⁿ^-^G^S^A^ma^na^ge^d^c^o^nt^r^a^c^t^o^r^aⁿ^d^fi^gur^e^s^a^r^e^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^eⁱⁿ^fi^sc^a^l^y^e^a^r
ⁱⁿ^crem^en^ts^on^ly^.^In^F^Y^2006,^proceeds^f^r^om^s^c^rap^m^e^{tal recy}^clin^g^w^e^{re $1,352.38 an}^{d in}^F^Y^{2007 th}^ey
^w^e^{re $11,992.57.}
The next sections outline examples of the oversight provided by the
Appropriations Committee and the House Administration Committee and discuss the
current status of the House recycling program.
Appropriations. The House recycling program is not specified as a line item
in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. While funding to hire Architect
of the Capitol staff, including those who administer the recycling program, is part of
the Architect’s annual budget request, funds to operate the program were first
requested by the Architect for the recycling program beginning in fiscal years (FY)

1991 and 1992. According to the Architect, the request was made as the result of a²⁹

downturn in the recycling market, which generated lower prices for recycled
material s.³⁰
²⁹ For a further discussion of recycling markets see also John Pichtel, Waste Management
Practices: Municipal, Hazardous, and Industrial (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2005), p.

130.

³⁰ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1992: Part 1 Justification of the^nd^st
Budget Estimates, hearings, 102 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 608-609.

The following section provides an overview of the Appropriations Committee’s
use of the appropriations process to guide the Architect of the Capitol’s operation of
the House recycling program. While not a comprehensive list of every action by the
Appropriations Committee, the fiscal years included provide a general outline of
oversight activities through the appropriations process. Fiscal years not included did
not have specific instructions or appropriations made by the Appropriations
Committee for the House recycling program in requests, reports, or bills.
FY1991. For FY1991, the Architect of the Capitol, George White, requested
$50,000 for waste recycling programs.³¹ During the Architect’s testimony on the
budget request, Representative Lindy Boggs requested more information about the
request and the use of the funds. In response to Representative Boggs, the Architect
cited costs associated with the recycling pilot program, including the expense related
to cardboard collection boxes that could be placed on an individual’s desk. “We
have asked for that because there is some cost associated with this pilot program. It
costs $5 for the little cardboard device that is on people’s desks.”³²
The Architect then continued by explaining the goal of making the recycling
program self-supporting and reminding the committee that he was not able to
ascertain whether an annual appropriations request would be made, but he hoped that
eventually the committee would authorize the use of recycling proceeds to sustain
future recycling efforts.
In any event, the predicted savings in the sense of increased value for the
recycling material is in the order of magnitude of a quarter million dollars. That
is the amount we might get returned to us. This is all to be developed as part of
the pilot program. Presumably, if those kinds of funds do become available, this
committee could authorize us to recycle the money, as well as the other products,
by our collecting that money and using it for the expenses associated with the
recycling so that we could perhaps not expend appropriated funds annually, but³³
end up with self supported recycling, which has another purpose entirely.
FY1992. In the Architect of the Capitol’s budget justification for FY1992, a
request was included for $180,000 for the disposal of waste paper. The funds were
requested to offset costs associated with new contracts that required the House to pay
a contractor to remove recyclable paper, instead of receiving proceeds from the sale
of the paper.
In past years, the Architect of the Capitol has been able to dispose of recyclable
paper through a contractor, who in turn has paid into the U.S. Treasury the
market rate for mixed grade paper. This past year’s Invitation for Bid for
removal and disposal of mixed grade recyclable paper did not attract any bidders

³¹ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1991: Part 1 Justification of the^st^nd
Budget Estimates, hearings, 101 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 585.
³² U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1991: Part 2 Legislative Branch,^st^nd
hearings, 101 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 234.
³³ Ibid.

willing to provide the service at a profit to the Government. Rather, the bidders³⁴
required payment for removing and disposing recyclable waste paper.
During hearings on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, the Architect
was asked questions about recycling and the separation of materials before pickup.
In response, the Architect stated that,
With the appropriate direction from the Committee of Jurisdiction and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives as Chairman of the House Office
Building Commission, we could begin the deployment of a complex-wide source
separation program. Adequate funds are not currently available to implement a
comprehensive complex-wide program of source separation as an expansion of³⁵
the existing recycling program.
In the report to accompany the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 1992,
the committee addressed the reduced market for recycled paper discussed in the
Architect’s testimony. The committee directed the Public Printer to review the
technical requirements resulting from the purchase of paper containing post-
consumer waste content.
The Committee, therefore, directs the Public Printer to review technical printing
requirements for individual print jobs such as business and committee calendars,
wall calendars, committee prints, committee reports, document envelopes,
business envelopes, blank paper and blank forms to study the feasibility of using
paper with a 10 percent post-consumer waste content. The findings shall be
published within 6 months of the enactment of this bill and should include a list³⁶
of appropriate jobs which can employ the use of post-consumer waste paper.
FY1993. During testimony on the FY1993 Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, the Architect updated the committee on the status of the House recycling
program, the use of private contractors to remove recycled materials from the House,
and the status of the expansion of the recycling program to all House offices. In
summary, the Architect stated that “[t]he new and expanded recycling program is
currently being incorporated in all buildings under schedules approved by the
committees of jurisdictions.” In addition, the Architect believed that the expanded
recycling program would provide “recycling materials (recycling stations,

³⁴ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1992: Part 1 Justification of the^nd^st
Budget Estimates, hearings, 102 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 608-609.
³⁵ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations: Part 2 Fiscal Year 1991 Supplemental^nd
Request and Fiscal Year 1992 Legislative Branch Appropriations Request, hearings, 102^st
Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 260
³⁶ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 1992, report to accompany H.R. 2506, 102^nd Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept. 102-82
(Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 23.

informational materials, etc.) in accordance with the approved schedules which
indicate full deployment by September 30, 1992.”³⁷
FY1995. For FY1995, the Architect of the Capitol included a request for
$150,000 for the waste recycling program in his budget justification. The purpose
for the request was not specified in the budget justification or during the Architect’s³⁸
testimony. The request did not generate questions from committee members.
On October 20, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12873,
which among other things, required the use of paper with a minimum of 20% post³⁹
consumer content when practicable. In response, Senator Wendell Ford, chair of
the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), submitted a written statement to the House
Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee on the use of recycled paper in the
legislative branch.
After President Clinton issued his Executive Order on recycling in early October,
the JCP immediately reviewed the requirements of on-going quarterly paper
procurement and incorporated the 20 percent Post Consumer recycled fiber
content provision wherever practical. As a result, most of the paper that will be
shipped to GPO beginning in January 1994, will contain the desired 20 percent
post consumer waste content. This was accomplished without an increase in the⁴⁰
cost of paper.
John Chambers, staff director of the JCP, also testified on the use of recycled
paper for the publication of the Federal Register and the Congressional Record. He
stated, “[s]o the two biggest products that are produced at the Government Printing

³⁷ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1993: Part 2 Fiscal Year 1992^nd^nd
Legislative Branch Appropriations Request, hearings, 102 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington:
GPO, 1992), pp. 708-709.
³⁸ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1995: Part 1 Justification of the^rd^nd
Budget Estimates, hearings, 103 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 713.
³⁹ Executive Order 12873, “Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention,” 58
Federal Register 54911, Oct. 22, 1993. Subsequently, three additional executive orders, two
by President Bill Clinton and one by President George W. Bush, have been issued related
to recycling. See, Executive Order 12995, “Amendment to Executive Order No. 12873,”
61 Federal Register 13645, Mar. 28, 1996; Executive Order 13101, “Greening the
Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition,” 63 Federal
Register 49641, Sept. 16, 1998; and Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” 72 Federal Register 3917, Jan.

26, 2007.

⁴⁰ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1995: Part 1 Justification of the^rd^nd
Budget Estimates, hearings, 103 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1994), pp. 280-281.

Office, the Federal Register and the Congressional Record are now on recycled, 100
percent post-consumer waste product.”⁴¹
FY1999. As introduced, the Legislative Appropriations Bill for FY1999 did
not contain provisions appropriating funds for the House recycling program. In a
speech on the House floor, Representative Lloyd Doggett addressed what he
perceived as the deficiencies in the recycling program and the need for better
management and organization.
Let me recite the facts: For 3 of the last 3 ½ years that this House has been under
Republican control, there has been no recycling coordinator in this Congress.
Indeed there is no recycling coordinator today. As we debate today this bill,
there is no recycling plan in place. As we debate this bill there is no recycling
of mixed paper in this House; indeed that is zero, zip, nada, being done with
reference to recycling of mixed paper.
Why is that particularly important? Because since there is no recycling
coordinator and no real recycling effort, most people even if they have the best
of intent with regard to recycling, do not have correct information about how to
recycle in a way that will be effective, and that is reflected in other facts. When
the House did recycle, it earned 30 cents per ton on the paper it recycled.
Compare that with the Department of Housing and Urban Development which⁴²
earned $60 per ton because it did it properly.
Following Representative Doggett’s speech, Representative Sam Farr,
introduced an amendment to H.R. 4112 to provide $100,000 from the Architect’s
House office building funds to address specifically the financial needs of the
recycling program.
For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and operation of the House
office buildings, $42,139,000, of which $11,449,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided under this heading, not⁴³
less than $100,000 shall be used exclusively for waste recycling programs.
In his remarks, Representative Farr provided his rationale for the amendment.
“The amendment, by earmarking specific funds for this program, sets recycling as a
priority for the House. I offer this amendment because recycling is a program that⁴⁴
has been neglected, and consequently has had very limited success.” The

⁴¹ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1995: Part 2 Fiscal Year 1995^rd^nd
Legislative Branch Appropriation Requests, hearings, 103 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington:
GPO, 1994), p. 341.
⁴² “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, part 10
(June 25, 1998), p. 13955.
⁴³ P.L. 105-275, 112 Stat. 2443, Oct. 21, 1998.
⁴⁴ “Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Farr of California,” Congressional Record, vol. 144,
part 10 (June 25, 1998), p. 13963.

amendment was agreed to by voice vote,⁴⁵ was included in the conference report,⁴⁶
and was signed into law by President Clinton on October 21, 1998.⁴⁷
FY2000. During hearings on the FY2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, Representative Steny Hoyer asked the Architect to provide a status report on the
recycling program. Lynne Theiss, executive officer for the Architect, testified on
efforts to improve the recycling program and make it self-sustaining.
Currently the House complex sends about 2,200 tons of paper for recycling
annually. The program has not been very successful, but during fiscal year 1998
it underwent a renovation in the House group. The Superintendent of the House
introduced color coded bags for material separation that our custodial staff
actually used each evening when they were removing the office recycle program⁴⁸
materials.
Ms. Theiss then continued by discussing specific improvement made between 1997
and 1998.
There was an improvement in the quality of the recycling effort as reflected in
the funds received in 1998 versus 1997. In 1997, with 2,226 tons recycled, the
value of the material was less than $2,000. In 1998, (with almost three months
of “out of service” time) we recycled 1,532 tons but with a value of $25,483.
(Had we been in operation for those other months, we anticipated a total tonnage
of 2,770.) The object of the program is to increase the overall tonnage and, at the
same time, insure that the quality (reduced contamination) is improved to
increase the recyclability of the materials. While the program measures tonnage
and dollars it must also reflect the market value given to the tonnage so it is
incumbent upon the program to have the cleanest recycling stream possible⁴⁹
regardless of the tonnage measured.
Subsequently, the House report to accompany H.R. 1905 included four
provisions on the House recycling program. These included (1) making participation
in the recycling program mandatory for all Members and House officers, (2) directing
the Architect to make collection of recyclables more efficient by providing a
“convenient, clearly marked, user-friendly system for the collection of recyclable
materials in each building,” (3) requiring the Architect to make a semi-annual report
to the Appropriations and House Administration Committees, and (4) in an effort to

⁴⁵ Ibid, p. 13964.
⁴⁶ U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch
for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1999, and for Other Purposes, conference report^th^nd
to accompany H.R. 4112, 105 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 105-734 (Washington: GPO, 1998),
p. 15.
⁴⁷ P.L. 105-275, 112 Stat. 2443, Oct. 21, 1998.
⁴⁸ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2000: Part 2 Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch^th^st
Appropriation Requests, hearings, 106 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 450.
⁴⁹ Ibid, p. 452.

create an incentive for participation, directing that proceeds from the recycling
program would contribute to the House Child Care Center.⁵⁰
FY2001. As part of the conference report on the FY2001 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Bill, the conferees agreed to continue to allow proceeds from agency
recycling programs to finance the cost of recycling and waste prevention programs.
Section 607. The conferees agree to continue the provision allowing agencies
to finance the costs of recycling and waste prevention programs with proceeds⁵¹
from the sale of materials recovered through such programs.
FY2002. In the report accompanying the FY2002 Legislative Branch
appropriations bill, the committee directed the Architect to hire outside consultants
to conduct a review of the House recycling program.
Concerns have been raised about efforts to separate trash for recycling which,
when collected, is ultimately dumped into the same receptacles destined for
disposal. The Committee directs that the review should include
recommendations to improve the program, establish a criteria for measuring
compliance, and establish reasonable milestones for increasing the amount of⁵²
material recycled.
FY2003. In the report accompanying the FY2003 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Bill, the committee stated that the House should establish a more
comprehensive recycling program comparable to the objectives of Executive Order⁵³

13101. The committee also directed the Chief Administrative Officer of the House

⁵⁰ U.S. Congress. House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2000, report to accompany H.R. 1905, 106^th Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept. 106-156
(Washington, GPO, 1999), p. 22. For text of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for
FY2000 as enacted see P.L. 106-57, 113 Stat. 408, Sept. 29, 1999.
⁵¹ U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch
for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes, conference report^th^nd
to accompany H.R. 4516, 106 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 106-796 (Washington: GPO, 2000),
p. 118.
⁵² U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2002, report to accompany H.R. 2647, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept. 107-169
(Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 20. For the text of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill
for FY2002 see P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 560, Nov. 12, 2001.
⁵³ Executive Order 13101, “Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention,
Recycling, and Federal Acquisition,” 63 Federal Register 49641, Sept. 16, 1998. Executive
Order 13101mandates that the “head of each executive agency shall incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in the agency’s daily operations and work to increase and expand
markets for recovered materials through greater Federal Government preference and demand
for such products.” It was revoked by Executive Order 13423 on Jan. 24, 2007. See
Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
Management,” 72 Federal Register 3917, Jan. 26, 2007.

to “develop a proposal that ensures that items composed of recovered materials are
purchased to the maximum extent practicable.”⁵⁴
The committee addressed the progress by the Architect in reviewing the
recycling program by stating that they were “encouraged by the progress being made
on the review of the Architect of the Capitol’s recycling program.” The committee
continued by directing the Architect to “implement and expand the recommendations
of the best practices review as soon as practicable by developing a pilot project in the
Capitol complex, which would address electronic equipment waste recycling. The
Committee expects the Architect of the Capitol to provide quarterly reports on the
recycling program both for traditional and electronic waste.”⁵⁵
FY2009. In the Architect’s budget justification for FY2009, the Architect has
proposed legislative language to amend Title 2, United States Code on the collection
and sale of recycled materials and how the proceeds can be utilized. The proposed
language would allow the Architect to offset the initial cost of new recycling
programs by using the proceeds generated by current House recycling initiatives.
Currently, 2 U.S.C. § 1869 states,
Advance Payments. — During fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding fiscal year,
following notification of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol may make payments
in advance for obligations of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol for
subscription services if the Architect determines it to be more prompt, efficient,⁵⁶
or economical to do so.
The proposed language would amend 2 U.S.C. § 1869 to say the following:
§ 1869. Collection and sale of recyclable materials; use of proceeds.
(a) The Architect of the Capitol shall establish a program for the collection
and sale of recyclable materials collected from or on Capitol Buildings and
Grounds.
(b) Any sale of recyclable materials by the Architect of the Capitol shall be
in accordance with the procedures in the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) for the sale of surplus property.
(c) Proceeds from the sale of recyclable materials shall be credited to funds
available to the Architect of the Capitol for the improvement of the environment,
energy savings, and to pay for the costs of the recycling program.

⁵⁴ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2003, report to accompany H.R. 5121, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept. 107-576
(Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 9.
⁵⁵ Ibid, p. 16. For text of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for FY2003 see P.L.

108-7, 117 Stat. 11, Feb. 20, 2003.

⁵⁶ P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2242, Dec. 26, 2007.

(d) Any recycling program established by the Architect of the Capitol
pursuant to this section shall not be in conflict with any other authorized
recycling program on Capitol Buildings and Grounds including any recycling⁵⁷
program undertaken pursuant to Section 121f of Title 2, United States Code.
If enacted, the proposed language would allow the Architect to use proceeds
generated from the recycling program to offset the costs of the recycling program and
other energy savings programs. The proposed language would specifically affect the
House recycling program, as the Senate has previously designated their recycling
proceeds to the Senate fitness center.⁵⁸
Committee on House Administration. The Committee on House
Administration maintains oversight authority over the Architect of the Capitol and
the House recycling program. In the past, the committee has been active in assisting
the Architect in establishing the pilot program and with implementing general
improvements mandated through the appropriations process. The following is a
sample of the House recycling activities the Committee on House Administration has
undertaken.
101^st Congress. Following the passage of H.Res. 104, which established
voluntary House recycling, the Committee on House Administration became active
in the implementation and oversight of the pilot program. As part of the committee’s
general oversight activities, the committee held a series of meetings with recycling
experts from Prince George’s County Maryland, the General Services
Administration, and San Diego County California to make recommendations to the
Architect’s office on establishing the pilot program. The committee also sent a “Dear
Colleague” letter with a questionnaire for Member officers on the pilot program and
congressional recycling, and held a forum for the Office Waste Recycling Pilot
Program.⁵⁹
103^rd Congress. The Committee on House Administration issued a “Dear
Colleague” letter on July 17, 1993 discussing the impact of the Office of Waste
Recycling Program, introduced in March of 1992, on recycling efforts in the House.⁶⁰

⁵⁷ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 1 Justification of Budget^th^nd
Estimates, hearings, 110 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 430.
⁵⁸ 2 U.S.C. § 121f.
⁵⁹ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the
Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One^st^nd
Hundred and First Congress, 101 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept 101-1005 (Washington: GPO,

1991), pp. 117-118.

⁶⁰ U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Report on the Activities of the
Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One^rd^nd
Hundred Third Congress, 103 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 103-893 (Washington: GPO, 1995),
p. 5.

105^th Congress. In May, June, and August 1998, the Committee on House
Oversight⁶¹ met with the staff of the Architect of the Capitol and the House
Superintendent to discuss the recycling program. According to the committee’s
activity report, in each instance the discussion dealt with unspecified proposed⁶²
improvements.
Since the 105^th Congress, the House Administration Committee activity reports
have not specified action taken by the committee concerning the recycling program.
The committee continues to maintain its oversight responsibility for the House
recycling program, but has not included its activities in reports.
Current Recycling Efforts. The House of Representatives currently recycles
a number of products including paper, cans, bottles, and toner cartridges. In
December 2007, the House also began to compost food waste, sugar cane-based food
and beverage containers, and corn-based plastic forks, spoons, and knives used in the
House restaurants. Additionally, the House created a recycling program for the
personal cell phones of House staff members. These recycling efforts are ongoing
and continue to expand as part of a new “Green the Capitol” Initiative under the
direction of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the House.
Since 1992, the House has contracted with the General Services Administration
(GSA) for recycled material pickup and disposal. GSA-managed contractors pick up
House recycled materials at three locations: the Cannon House Office Building, the
Rayburn House Office Building, and the Ford House Office Building.⁶³ Materials
from the Longworth House Office Building, the House wing of the U.S. Capitol, the
Capitol Power Plant, the Page dormitory, and the United States Botanical Gardens
are transported to one of the three collection points.
Paper. While the House paper recycling program began in August 1989, data
on the amount of paper recycled is only available since 1996. In 1996, GSA began
managing the contracts for the collection of recycled materials in the House. Figure
2 shows the total volume of paper recycled by the House and compares it with the
total volume of recycled materials collected by the House.
Figure 2 shows that recycled paper has become a larger percentage of total
recycling in the House. In 1996, recycled paper was a modest 9.5% of the total
recycled tons. Since 2004, paper has accounted for no less than 84% of total recycled

⁶¹ During the 104^th Congress and the 105^th Congress the Committee on House Administration
was renamed the Committee on House Oversight.
⁶² U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the Activities of the Committee
on House Oversight of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Fifth^th^nd
Congress Together With Minority and Additional Views, 105 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 105-

850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 37-39.

⁶³ Recycled materials from the Ford House Office Building are currently picked up by a non-
GSA managed vendor. Data on House recycling by GSA managed contractors includes
pickups of office waste from the Ford House Office Building between Oct. 1992 and Jan.
1997. Since 1997, GSA managed contractors only pick up scrap metal from the Ford House
Office Building.

tons, with a high of 85.3% in 2007. Between 1996 and 2007, paper has accounted
for a total of 44.9% of total recycled tons in the House of Representatives. The
overall figure represents the increase in construction and building materials recycled
since 2001.
Figure 2. Total Tons and Paper Tons Recycled in the House, 1996-2007

³⁰⁰⁰
Total Tons Collected
²⁴⁰⁰
^s
¹⁸⁰⁰^t^e^rⁱ^al
^a
^f^M
¹²⁰⁰ⁿ^{s o}
^T^o
⁶⁰⁰
Paper Tons Recycled
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^{U.S. Gen}^e^{ral Serv}^ices^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^an^{d Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^e^Hou^s^e^Su^perin^t^en^den^t^,^A^r^ch^itect^of
^th^{e Cap}^ito^l.
Since June 1, 1992, the Congressional Record has been printed on 100%
recycled paper.⁶⁴ The first issue of the Congressional Record printed on paper with⁶⁵
some recycled content on March 24, 1992. The next day, Representative Charlie
Rose, chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, spoke about the importance of
printing the Congressional Record on recycled paper. “I am proud to say that the
Congress is taking the lead in promoting efforts to increase the use of recycled⁶⁶
materials in Federal Government printed products.”
Bottles and Cans. In addition to recycling paper, the House of
Representatives has recycled bottles and cans since at least 1992. Figure 3 shows
the volume of bottles and cans recycled by the House.
⁶⁴ “Notice,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, part 9 (June 1, 1992), p. 12907.
⁶⁵ “Notice,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, part 5 (Mar. 24, 1992), p. 6509.
⁶⁶ “Congressional Record Printed on 100 Percent Recycled Newsprint,” Congressional
Record, vol. 138, part 5 (Mar. 25, 1992), p. 6875.

Figure 3. Total Tons of Bottles and Cans, 1992-2007

¹³⁵
¹²⁰
¹⁰⁵
⁹⁰^rⁱ^a^l
⁷⁵^M^a^t^e

⁶⁰^s^of
⁴⁵^Ton
³⁰
¹⁵
⁰
¹⁹⁹²¹⁹⁹³¹⁹⁹⁴¹⁹⁹⁵¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^U.S^.^Gen^e^ral^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ
Figure 3 shows a drop in the volume of bottles and cans recycled following a
peak in 1993 (128 tons). This drop is due in part to an increase in mixed recycled
materials labeled as “commingled” by GSA. Beginning in 1994, commingled
materials were divided after pickup by GSA. As a result the House was not credited
with the volume for those materials individually.⁶⁷ The decrease in volume of
recycled bottles and cans also coincides with the use of more plastic bottles and
lighter aluminum cans that weigh less than the glass bottles previously in use.⁶⁸
Since 2004, the House has been dividing recyclables before GSA pickup.
Other Materials. In addition to paper, bottles, and cans, the House recycles
scrap metal, toner cartridges, batteries, sawdust, e-waste,⁶⁹ plastic, pallets, ceiling
tiles, carpet, and other building materials. The Architect of the Capitol’s
Superintendent of the House recycling office has tracked the volume of non-paper,
non-bottle, and non-can recycled material since FY2004. Figure 4 shows the total
volume of recycled material in each of these categories since FY2004. Some
categories, such as masonry material, were only recycled in one year (2007) as the
result of a particular project and have not been specifically recycled since.
⁶⁷ Email between the author and Patrick Moran, recycling program manager, Architect of
the Capitol, U.S. House of Representatives Superintendent’s Office, Apr. 15, 2008.
⁶⁸ Phone conservation between the author and Patrick Moran, recycling program manager,
Architect of the Capitol, U.S. House of Representatives Superintendent’s Office, May 29,

2008.

⁶⁹ E-Waste includes all electronic equipment such as computers, computer peripherals,
printers, televisions, and copy machines. For more information on e-waste and e-waste
recycling see, [http://www.epa.gov/ecycling/], accessed July 15, 2008. See also CRS Report
RL31505, Recycling Computer and Electronic Equipment: Legislative and Regulatory
Approaches for ‘E-Waste,’ by James E. McCarthy.

Figure 4. Total Tons of Other Materials Recycled in the House, 2004-2007

⁴⁸⁰^.⁷⁵⁰⁰
⁴⁵⁰
⁴⁰⁰
³⁵⁰^rⁱ^a^l
²⁶^0.⁶³⁰⁰^te
^a
²⁵⁰^M
²⁰⁰^of
¹⁵⁰^Tons
⁶³^.⁵¹⁰⁰
³⁴^.²⁴⁰^.⁸^7.⁵¹³^.⁰²⁶^.⁹¹⁶^.³⁵⁰
^2.⁰^2.⁶⁰
^P^a^l^l^et^s^S^aw^du^s^t^C^eⁱ^lⁱ^ng^B^a^t^t^erⁱ^e^s^C^ar^p^e^t^E^-^W^as^t^e^P^l^a^s^tⁱ^c^s^T^o^ne^r^M^as^on^r^y^S^c^r^a^p^Ot^h^e^r
^T^ile^s^Me^t^a^l
^Source:^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e Su}^perin^t^en^den^t^{, A}^r^ch^{itect of}^th^{e C}^a^pitol
Green the Capitol Initiative. In March 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the then chair of the Committee on House
Administration, the late Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, asked the CAO
to provide an “environmentally responsible and healthy working environment for⁷⁰
employees.” The initiative created three goals for reducing the House of
Representatives’ environmental impact.⁷¹
^!Operate the House in a carbon-neutral manner by the end of the 110^th
Congress.
^!Reduce the House’s carbon footprint by cutting energy consumption
by 50 percent in 10 years.
^!Make House operations a model of sustainability.⁷²
From these goals, the Green the Capitol Initiative has worked to recycle
materials not previously covered by the Architect’s contact with the GSA. These
items have included the composting of food waste, corn-based biodegradable forks,
⁷⁰ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Green the
Capitol Initiative Final Report, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess. [http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/
green-the-capitol-final-report.pdf], accessed July 15, 2008.
⁷¹ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, “Immediate
Office,” CAO Semi-Annual Report, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess. [http://cao.house.gov/report/
cao-io.shtml], accessed July 15, 2008.
⁷² U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Green the
Capitol Initiative Final Report, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess. [http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/
green-the-capitol-final-report.pdf], accessed July 15, 2008.

spoons, and knives, and sugar cane-based biodegradable carry out containers from
the House restaurants, and the recycling of cell phones.⁷³
Composting. The House of Representatives began composting food waste in
partnership with the House restaurant food vendor in December 2007.⁷⁴ Between
December 2007 and April 2008, the House has reduced the volume of materials sent
to the landfill by 120 tons.⁷⁵ Food waste from the House cafeterias is transported to
a composting facility in Crofton, Maryland.⁷⁶
In testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming on February 26, 2008, CAO Daniel Beard described the process for
composting food service waste and its benefits for the reduction of transportation
costs of waste materials.
We send the compostable food service items along with all of the food waste
from the front of the cafeteria and from the kitchens to a pulper. The pulper is
like a giant garbage disposal that breaks down and dewaters the compost
material. This reduces the volume of the compost material by a ratio of 10-1 and
reduces the weight by as much as 4-1. The result is reduced hauling costs and⁷⁷
reduced tipping fees by 60%-75%.
In testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, the CAO discussed the expansion of the composting program to
Member’s offices. “The House has completely revamped its paper recycling program⁷⁸
to ensure compostable food waste is picked up from Member offices.” According

⁷³ Cell phone recycling had occurred before the “Green the Capitol” initiative in the 110^th
Congress, but it was not a formal program. “Green the Capitol” expanded the program.
⁷⁴ For a discussion on composting see, George Tchobanoglous and Frank Kreith, Handbook
of Solid Waste Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), pp. 1.9-1.11.
⁷⁵ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Green the
Capitol Initiative, Green Team “Newsletter,” vol. 1, 110^th Cong., 2^nd sess. Apr. 7, 2008
[http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/green-newsletter/greenteam01.shtml], accessed July

15, 2008.

⁷⁶ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives,
“Composting Heaps Ending Government Waste,” press release, Apr. 15, 2008,
[http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/news-composting20080417.shtml], accessed July 21,

2008.

⁷⁷ Testimony of Chief Administrative Office of the House of Representatives Daniel Beard,
in U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming,^th
Food for Thought: A Primer on the Climate Consequences of Food Choices, 110 Cong.,^nd

2 sess., Feb. 26, 2008 [http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/assets/files/0361.pdf],

accessed July 15, 2008.
⁷⁸ Testimony of Chief Administrative Office of the House of Representatives Daniel Beard,
in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, A Growing Capitol
Complex and Visitor Center: Needs for Transportation, Security, Greening, Energy, and
(continued...)

to a press report, food waste compost bins are available for Member’s offices who
desire to recycle food waste and have it picked up with other recyclables to be
composted.⁷⁹
Cell Phones. In December 2007, the House began a drive to recycle the
personal cell phones of staff members. The drive lasted for a week and half and did
not include government-issued equipment. In a “Dear-Colleague” letter, the CAO
provided details of the recycling program and listed reasons why cell phones are an
environmental concern, including that “[t]hey are made from valuable resources that
can be recovered, such as precious metals, copper, gold, silver, palladium, plastics
and glass — all of which require energy to mine and process[,]” and “[r]ecovering
these materials through recycling conserves our natural resources and avoids air and
water pollution as well as greenhouse gas emissions.”⁸⁰ In addition, the Green the
Capitol Initiative website includes information on how Members can recycle cell
phone in their districts or provide opportunities for constituents to recycle used cell
phones.⁸¹
Senate
The Senate recycling program has expanded since it was created as a voluntary
program in 1989. In 2007, the Senate recycled approximately 700 tons of paper and
290 tons of other materials.⁸² This represents an increase of 145% in the volume of
paper recycled compared to 1992 and an increase of 1,154% in the volume of other
materials recycled compared to 2001.
Since GSA began pickups for Senate recycled materials in 1992, the Senate has
generated $149,452 in proceeds. Figure 5 shows the amount of money generated per
year under GSA contracts between 1996 and 2007. In 2007, the proceeds almost
tripled the previous year’s level. The increase was the result of a new contract with
a GSA vendor that included higher payments for recycled materials.

⁷⁸ (...continued)
Maintenance, 110^th Cong., 2^nd sess., Apr. 1, 2008 [http://cao.house.gov/appearances/

20080401_transportation.shtml], accessed July 15, 2008.

⁷⁹ Elizabeth Brotherton, “Beard Details New Recycling Efforts,” Roll Call, Feb. 27, 2008
[http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_99/news/22279-1.html], accessed July 15, 2008.
⁸⁰ Dear-Colleague Letter from Daniel Beard, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives, Dec. 12, 2007.
⁸¹ U.S. Congress, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, Green the
Capitol Initiative, “Personal Cell Phone Collection Initiative” [http://cao.house.gov/
greenthecapitol/news-bberry-recycle.shtml], accessed July 15, 2008.
⁸² Other materials include bottles, cans, scrap metal, toners, batteries, sawdust, e-waste,
plastic, pallets, concrete, brick, and carpet. GSA only collects bottles, cans, and paper for
the Senate. Other materials is recycled through non-GSA vendors.

Figure 5. Proceeds from Senate Recycling, 1996-2007

^$45,⁰⁰⁰
^$40,⁰⁰⁰
^$35,⁰⁰⁰
^$30,⁰⁰⁰
^$25,⁰⁰⁰
^$20,⁰⁰⁰
^$15,⁰⁰⁰
^$10,⁰⁰⁰
^$5,⁰⁰⁰
^$0
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^U.S^.^Gen^e^ral^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ
^No^tes:^A^{ll m}^oⁿ^e^tary^fⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are in}ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^a^{l dollars}^{. P}^r^oceeds^f^o^{r 1992 to 1995 w}^e^{re $17 or}^les^s^per
^y^{ear an}^{d do n}^o^t^appearⁱⁿ^{Figure 5}^{. In}^{1992 an}^{d 1994, th}^{e S}^eⁿ^a^{te did}ⁿ^o^t^receiv^e^recy^clin^g^proceeds^.
^In^{1993, recy}^clin^g^proceeds^w^e^{re $1.08; an}^{d in}^{1995, $17.20.}
The Office of the Senate Superintendent of the Architect of the Capitol is
responsible for managing the Senate’s recycling program. The Architect, in general,
controls the implementation of recycling initiatives. The Senate Appropriations
Committee and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration provide oversight
on the program. The subsequent sections outline examples of the oversight provided
by the Appropriations Committee and discuss the current status of the Senate
recycling program.
Appropriations. The Senate recycling program, in general, has not been
specifically mentioned in the annual appropriations bills. The appropriations process
utilizes report language and hearings to provide oversight to the recycling program.
This section provides an overview of how the appropriations process has guided the
Architect of the Capitol on the Senate recycling program. While not a
comprehensive list of every appropriations request, hearing, bill, or report, the fiscal
years selected provide examples of the use of the appropriations process and the
occasional directions for programs provided by the committee Members.
FY1991. In testimony on the FY1991 budget request, the Architect discussed
the status of the Office Waste Recycling Program in the Senate and requested
$150,000 to hire a permanent recycling coordinator and provide for adequate
recycling containers. The Architect also reported on the participation rate among
Members and staff in the pilot program. “All of the offices (total of 23 member and
Committee offices) on the fifth and sixth floors of the Hart SOB [Senate Office
Building] are participating in the pilot program. Within these offices we estimate

that approximately 80% of the staff are actively and cooperatively participating in the
voluntary pilot program.”⁸³
FY1992. During Senate Appropriations Committee hearings on the FY1992
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, the Secretary of the Senate testified that the
Senate Library “in cooperation with the Sergeant at Arms and the Architect,
developed a pilot project for the Secretary’s Office to test procedures for recycling
paper and other matters.”⁸⁴ Additionally, the Secretary reported that the stationery
room began making recycled materials available, despite the cost of recycled goods
being “7 to 10 percent higher in most instances” than non-recycled materials.⁸⁵
FY1993. During hearings on the FY1993 Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, the committee asked the Architect to provide an update concerning five problem
areas identified during the FY1992 hearings. The Architect responded that the
problems had been resolved and that “[w]ith the anticipation of improved markets
for recyclable materials, the focus of the expanded recycling program in years to
come will be to improve the productivity and cost effectiveness of our waste material
recycling systems.”⁸⁶
FY1998. In FY1998, Senator Daniel Akaka introduced S. 2368,⁸⁷ the Senate
Day Care Center Recycling Funding Support Act. S. 2368 would have allowed the
Architect of the Capitol to transfer Senate recycling proceeds to the Senate Day Care
Center.
Mr. President, my bill would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to receive
Senate recycling funds and make them available for the payment of SECCC
[Senate Employees Child Care Center] activities and expenses, through the
annual appropriations process. This would achieve two mutually beneficial
goals: first, to provide a small but important supplement to the day care center’s
operating budget; second, to improve the efficiency of the Senate recycling⁸⁸

program by establishing an internal incentive to recycle.
⁸³ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1991, hearings, 101^st Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Hrg. 101-839 (Washington: GPO,

1990), p. 249.

⁸⁴ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1992, hearings, 102^nd Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Hrg. 102-244 (Washington: GPO,

1991), p. 37.

⁸⁵ Ibid, p. 39.
⁸⁶ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1993, hearings, 102^nd Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Hrg. 102-658 (Washington: GPO,

1992), p. 293.

⁸⁷ S. 2368 (105^th Congress), introduced July 29, 1998.
⁸⁸ U.S. Congress, Office of Senator Daniel Akaka, “Senate Day Care Center Recycling
Funding Support Act,” press release, July 29, 1998. See also, “Senate Day Care Recycling
Funding Support Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, part 2 (July 29, 1998), pp. 17663-

17664.

During his remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Akaka also included a letter of
support from the Board of Directors of the SECCC. The letter stated the SECCC’s
strong support of legislation “that would allow the SECCC to receive the proceeds
from the Senate recycling and other waste prevention programs to support the
operation and other expenses of the SECCC.”⁸⁹ S. 2368 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration and did not receive further consideration.
FY2001. In the Senate report to accompany the FY2001 Legislative
Appropriations Act, the Appropriations Committee stated that the Senate recycling
program could be improved. The committee then provided recommendations.
First, the Architect of the Capitol is directed to fill the position of Recycling
Program Manager which has been vacant for approximately a year. Second, the
Architect of the Capitol is directed to develop a program with the approval of the
Senate Rules Committee to educate staff on how to properly recycle. Given the
high turnover in staff on Capitol Hill, it is important that new employees are
given every opportunity to learn and participate in recycling. This program
should involve making recycling containers readily available in an esthetically⁹⁰
pleasing and practical way.
In FY2001, the Senate also designated the proceeds from the Senate recycling
program to supplement the Senate fitness center. The language designating the funds
was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001.⁹¹ The language,
enacted as 2 U.S.C. § 121f, states the following:
§ 121f. Senate Staff Health and Fitness Facility Revolving Fund
(a) Establishment - There is established in the Treasury of the United States a
revolving fund to be known as the Senate Staff Health and Fitness Facility
Revolving Fund (“the revolving fund”).
(b) Deposit of receipts - The Architect of the Capitol shall deposit in the
revolving fund - (1) any amounts received as dues or other assessments for use
of the Senate Staff Health and Fitness Facility, and (2) any amounts received
from the operation of the Senate waste recycling program.
(c) Availability of funds - Subject to the approval of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, amounts in the revolving fund shall be available
to the Architect of the Capitol, without fiscal year limitation, for payment of
costs of the Senate Staff Health and Fitness Facility.
(d) Withdrawal of excess amounts - The Architect of the Capitol shall withdraw
from the revolving fund and deposit in the Treasury of the United States as
miscellaneous receipts all moneys in the revolving fund that the Architect

⁸⁹ “Senate Day Care Recycling Funding Support Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, part

2 (July 29, 1998), p. 17664.

⁹⁰ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,

2001, report to accompany S. 2603, 106^th Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Rept. 106-304 (Washington:

GPO, 2000), p. 29.
⁹¹ P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-96, Dec. 21, 2000.

determines are in excess of the current and reasonably foreseeable needs of the
Senate Staff Health and Fitness Facility.
(e) Regulations - The Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate shall
promulgate regulations pertaining to the operation and use of the Senate Staff⁹²
Health and Fitness Facility.
FY2002. In the report to accompany the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
for FY2002, the Appropriations Committee requested that the Sergeant at Arms and
the Secretary of the Senate jointly develop and implement in conjunction with the
Architect, a recycling education program. The program would have required the
approval of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.⁹³
In the same report, the committee also expressed its concern over the Senate
recycling program.
The Committee is troubled that the Senate Waste Recycling Program has not
improved in the last year and prior-year report language on this program
seemingly has been ignored. The Architect of the Capitol is directed to
participate in a program being jointly developed and implemented by the
Secretary of the Senate and the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper and
approved by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to educate staff⁹⁴
on how to properly recycle.
The Architect was also directed to contract with an outside vendor for a “best-
practices review” of the recycling program and to submit quarterly reports to the
committee.
FY2004. In the report to accompany the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
for FY2004, the Appropriations Committee directed the Architect to work with the
Senate Sergeant at Arms to implement the recommendations of the “best-practices”
review and to “continue implementation of a pilot program to address electronic
equipment waste recycling.” The committee also stated that they were “encouraged⁹⁵
by the progress with the AOC’s recycling program.”
Current Recycling Efforts. The Senate currently recycles a number of
products and materials, including paper, cans, bottles, scrap metal, toner cartridges,
batteries, sawdust, e-waste, plastic, pallets, ceiling tiles, concrete and brick, and
carpet. Senate recycling efforts are managed by the Architect of the Capitol through
the recycling coordinator in the Office of the Superintendent of the Senate. The

⁹² P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, Dec. 21, 2000; and P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 375, Feb. 20, 2003.
⁹³ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,

2002, report to accompany S. 1172, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., S.Hrg. 107-37 (Washington: GPO,

2001), p. 10.

⁹⁴ Ibid, p. 29.
⁹⁵ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,

2004, report to accompany S. 1383, 108^th Cong., 1^st sess., S.Rept. 108-88 (Washington:

GPO, 2003), p. 28.

Senate contracts with the General Services Administration (GSA) for pickups at the
Hart Senate Office Building for paper, bottles and cans. For other materials, the
Senate uses additional vendors based on type of product.
Paper. While the Senate paper recycling program began in October 1989, data
on the volume of paper recycled is not available prior to 1996. Between 1989 and
1995, GSA did not weigh paper separately from cans and bottles. Figure 6 shows
the total volume of recycled materials and the total volume of paper recycled by the
Senate since the GSA began weighing paper volume separately from other recycled
materials in 1996.
Figure 6. Total Tons and Paper Tons Recycled in the Senate, 1996-2007

¹⁶⁰⁰
Total Tons Collected
¹⁴⁰⁰
¹²⁰⁰^l
^a
¹⁰⁰⁰^te^rⁱ
^a
⁸⁰⁰^f^M
⁶⁰⁰^ns^o
⁴⁰⁰^To
²⁰⁰Paper Tons Recycled
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^U.S.^Gen^e^ral^Serv^ices^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^an^{d Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Sen}^a^{te Su}^perin^t^en^den^t^{, A}^r^ch^itect^of
^th^{e Cap}^ito^l
Figure 6 shows that recycled paper has become a larger percentage of total
recycling in the Senate. In 1996, recycled paper represented 29.7% of total recycled
materials. This decreased in 1997 (17.2%), increased in 1998 (24.6%), and decreased
again in 1999 (17.4%). Part of this fluctuation can be explained by election cycles.
During election years, the total volume of recycled materials increases in the Senate
as Senators leave office and clean their office space.⁹⁶ This effect is less pronounced
since 2004, when paper became a greater percentage of total recycled materials in the
Senate. Overall, paper accounted for 32.6% of total recycled materials in the Senate
since 1996.
Bottles and Cans. The Senate has been recycling bottles and cans since at
least 1992. Figure 7 shows the total volume of bottles and cans recycled by the
Senate since GSA began pickups in 1992. Overall, the total volume of bottles and
cans has been as low as two tons in 1997 and as high as 26.3 tons in 1993. On
⁹⁶ Conversation between the author and Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Senate
Office Buildings, Architect of the Capitol, Apr. 22, 2008.

average, the Senate recycles 12 tons of bottles and cans per year. The decline in total
tons of bottles and cans recycled following 1995 is due in large part to the use of
plastic bottles. Prior to 1995, the Senate recycled a higher tonnage of bottles and
cans as the result of the use of glass bottles, which have a greater weight.⁹⁷
Figure 7. Total Tons of Bottles and Cans Recycled in the Senate,

1992-2007

³⁰
²⁵
²⁰^rⁱ^a^l
^a^t^e
¹⁵^M
^s^of
¹⁰^Ton
⁵
⁰
¹⁹⁹²¹⁹⁹³¹⁹⁹⁴¹⁹⁹⁵¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷
^Source:^U.S^.^Gen^e^ral^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ
Other Materials. In addition to paper, bottles, and cans, the Senate recycles
scrap metal, toner cartridges, batteries, sawdust, e-waste, plastic, pallets, ceiling tiles,
concrete, brick, and carpet. The Architect of the Capitol’s Superintendent of the
Senate Recycling Office has tracked the volume of non-paper, non-bottle, and non-
can recycled material since 2001. Figure 8 shows the total volume of other materials
recycled in each non-paper, non-bottle, and non-can category since 2001. Some
categories, such as ceiling tiles, were only recycled in one year (2004) as the result
of a particular project.
⁹⁷ Conversation between the author and Scott Shapleigh, recycling program manager, Senate
Office Buildings, Architect of the Capitol, June 3, 2008.

Figure 8. Total Tons of Other Materials Recycled in the Senate, 2001-2007

¹⁰⁵⁰
⁸⁷⁸^.8⁹⁰⁰
⁷⁵⁰^l
ⁱ^a
⁶⁰⁰^a^t^e^r
⁴⁵⁰^{of M}
³⁰⁰^Tons
^42.⁴⁶⁰^72.7¹⁵⁰
¹²^.1⁹⁴^0.⁸⁸¹²^.⁹
⁰
^Sc^r^a^p^T^oner^s^B^a^tterⁱ^e^s^S^a^w^d^u^s^t^E^-^W^as^te^P^l^a^s^ti^c^P^al^l^e^ts^C^e^ilin^g^M^a^s^onr^y^C^ar^pet
^Me^t^a^l^Til^e^s
^Source:^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Sen}^a^{te Su}^perin^t^en^den^t^{, A}^r^ch^{itect of}^th^{e C}^a^pitol
Options for Program Administration
Since 1989, recycling has been a formal program in the House and the Senate.
Created as a voluntary program, the Architect of the Capitol has developed recycling
from a program that handled a limited volume of material and a small number of
products into a program that recycled almost 2,800 tons of materials and 12 different
categories of materials in 2007. Even with this progress, there are potential
legislative and administrative policy options available to expand congressional
recycling programs.
Legislative Options
There are several legislative options for the recycling program. Since current
participation in the recycling program is voluntary, the House of Representatives and
the Senate could each pass legislation to make recycling a mandatory program. Also,
the House could address the Architect’s proposed amendment to 2 U.S.C. § 1869 to
use the proceeds from the recycling program to offset program costs.
Creating a Mandatory Recycling Program. Participation in the current
recycling program is voluntary. To increase participation, the Architect of the
Capitol could request that the Committee on House Administration and the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration consider passing resolutions to make
participation in the House and Senate recycling programs mandatory for all member
offices, committees, and support organizations.

In a nationwide survey conducted in 1989 and 1996, 158 cities reported
switching from voluntary to mandatory community recycling programs. Overall,
those cities that switched to mandatory recycling reported higher participation rates.
Those cities that continued to offer voluntary programs, however, reported that
offering curbside pickup (i.e., pickup in individual offices) “resulted in a much higher
mean level of participation compared to those programs in which citizens could only
drop off materials at recycling collection centers.”⁹⁸
As the result of greater participation, the benefits of a mandatory recycling
program could include an increase in total volume of material recycled by individual,
committee, and support organization offices. An increase in the volume of paper,
bottles, and cans recycled from these offices, the most commonly recycled products,
could result in greater proceeds. An increase in proceeds would benefit the Senate
fitness center and, if passed, would allow the Architect to develop other recycling
initiatives in the House.⁹⁹
On the other hand, it may prove difficult for the Architect to enforce
participation. Some Member offices may object to mandatory participation. While
incentives, such as an enhanced Senate fitness center, could increase participation,
ultimately individuals decide whether they participate in a recycling program.
Should an individual choose not to participate, enforcement of a mandatory program
could be logistically difficult and costly. The nature of a penalty and its enforcement
would further burden the Architect.¹⁰⁰
Dedication of Recycling Proceeds. The Architect of the Capitol has
included in his budget justification for FY2009 legislative language to amend Title
2, United States Code concerning the collection and utilization of proceeds from the
House recycling program. If enacted, the language would “allow that proceeds from
AOC recycling program be applied to other environmentally friendly efforts such as
energy conservation program and other efforts.”¹⁰¹ Currently, the proceeds from the
House recycling program are deposited in the United States Treasury, and are not
returned to the House.

⁹⁸ David H. Folz, “Municipal Recycling Performance: A Public Sector Environmental
Success Story,” Public Administration Review, vol. 59, no. 4 (July-Aug. 1999), p. 338.
⁹⁹ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 1 Justification of Budget^th^nd
Estimates, hearings, 110 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 430.
¹⁰⁰ Other research studies suggest that solid waste removal fees based on volume of material
removed from a property (i.e. more garbage collected equates with higher service fees) has
motivated people to recycle. The House and Senate, collectively or individually, could
create a system to charge offices for the volume of non-recyclable materials collected. See
James D. Reschovsky and Sarah E. Stone, “Market Incentives to Encourage Household
Waste Recycling: Paying for What You Throw Away,” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, vol. 13, no. 1 (Winter 1994), pp. 120-139.
¹⁰¹ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009: Part 1 Justification of Budget^th^nd
Estimates, hearings, 110 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 430.

Proponents of the Architect’s proposed legislation could argue that providing
the House recycling program with a dedicated stream of funds might allow for a
reduction in appropriations. Dedicating funds generated by the recycling program to
energy conservation and recycling efforts could motivate additional participation in
the recycling program. Dedicating funds would also mirror action previously taken
by the Senate, which directs proceeds from the Senate recycling program to the
Senate fitness center.¹⁰²
Opponents of allowing the Architect to retain proceeds from the House
recycling program could argue that the current system meets the recycling program’s
needs. Other opponents could argue that dedicating the proceeds to the recycling
program would not motivate additional participation, and that dedication of the funds
to the House day care center or the House fitness center would be a better
incentive.¹⁰³
Administrative Options
Since the current recycling program is voluntary and administered by the
Architect of the Capitol, there are three major administrative options available to
expand the recycling program. The Architect, through the recycling coordinators in
the House and Senate, could expand their educational programs to encourage staff
to recycle, expand the number and placement of recycling containers, or continue to
look for additional materials to recycle.
Educational Programs. During a hearing of the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee, Chairwoman Senator Dianne Feinstein addressed the
issue of staff education during her opening statement. She stated, “[a]nother avenue
for change is educating the Senate community on how simple actions can make a big
difference in lowering our energy usage. Creating a culture of ‘energy consumption
awareness’ through educational seminars and emails might hold the key to further
reduce our energy needs.”¹⁰⁴ To continue to raise awareness of the recycling
program, the Architect, through the recycling coordinators in the House and Senate
Superintendent’s offices, could expand educational programs.
Both the House and the Senate maintain recycling webpages on the House and
Senate Architect’s websites and hold educational seminars to educate staff about

¹⁰² 2 U.S.C. § 121f.
¹⁰³ In 1998, Senator Daniel Akaka introduced S. 2368 to dedicate proceeds from the Senate
recycling program to the Senate Child Care Center. While S. 2368 was not enacted, Senate
recycling proceeds were designated to offset the cost of the Senate fitness center by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (2. U.S.C. § 121f).
¹⁰⁴ Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, Improving Energy Efficiency, Increasing the Use of Renewable Sources of^th
Energy, and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the Capitol Complex, hearings, 110 Cong.,^nd

2 sess., June 18, 2008 [http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2008/061808feinsteinopen.pdf],

accessed July 15, 2008.

what can and cannot be recycled.¹⁰⁵ To continue to educate House and Senate staff,
the Architect could expand the educational offerings on recycling. These programs
could range from single seminars on the recycling process and recyclable materials
to in-depth programs on the short-term and long-term benefits of recycling on Capitol
Hill. Research suggests that recycling increases with greater awareness and that
“[s]uch awareness is achieved by educating the public about the urgency of waste
stream reduction.”¹⁰⁶ Additionally, the Architect could offer visits to individual
offices to demonstrate recycling techniques or consultation on the placement and
quantity of recycling bins.
Recycling Containers. To increase participation in the recycling program
the House and the Senate could examine the number of recycling containers and the
placement of the containers throughout the Capitol complex. Increasing the number
of containers and the placement of containers could allow the Architect to collect
greater volumes of recycled materials from individual Member and committee
offices. Should individual Member and committee offices desire multiple containers,
the containers could be placed strategically to facilitate greater staff participation.
While increasing the number and the placement of the containers could increase
staff participation, it could also make it more difficult for the Architect to collect
recycled materials. More containers will increase the number of pickup points. This
could make the collection of materials more time consuming and more difficult to
monitor.
The House or Senate could change how recycled items are collected by moving
from having a few centralized locations for the drop-off of recyclables to creating a
more decentralized with in-office collection of materials. In a decentralized pickup
system, materials would be placed in recycling bins located within individual offices,
picked up by the Architect and categorized at a central location. If individual staffers
did not separate materials in their respective offices, such responsibility would
remain with the Architect to ensure that the House and Senate receive maximum
value for recycled materials.
Recycling of Other Materials. The House and the Senate currently recycle

12 different materials: paper, bottles and cans, wooden pallets, sawdust, ceiling tiles,

batteries, carpet, e-waste, plastics, toner cartridges, masonry waste, and scrap metal.
To ensure that the House and Senate recycling programs continue to recycle new

¹⁰⁵ The House Superintendent maintains a recycling brochure on its website
[http://house.aoc.gov/upload/InHousePrintBrochure7.pdf], accessed July 15, 2008 and the
Senate Superintendent maintains contact information for the recycling coordinator as well
as a list of materials that can be recycled in an office on its website [http://senate.aoc.gov/
Senate-Services/Programs/Programs-Recycling.cfm], accessed July 15, 2008.
¹⁰⁶ James D. Ward and Dennis W. Gleiber, “Citizen Response to Mandatory Recycling,”
Public Productivity and Management Review, vol. 16, no. 3 (Spring 1993), p. 241. See also,
Joanne Vining and Angela Ebreo, “An Evaluation of the Public Response to a Community
Recycling Education Program,” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 2 (1989), pp. 23-36;
and Joanne Vining and Angela Ebreo, “What Makes a Recycler? A Comparison of
Recyclers and Nonrecyclers,” Environment and Behavior, vol. 22, no. 1 (1990), pp. 55-73.

materials, the Architect could continue to explore opportunities for expansion. New
materials could include cell phone and personal data assistants (PDAs), the collection
and composting of food materials from outside the House cafeterias, the creation of
a recycling program for compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) when they need to
be replaced,¹⁰⁷ and the continuation of construction and industrial waste recycling
associated with maintenance and upgrade projects through Capitol Hill.
Conclusion
Recycling in the House of Representatives and the Senate is an ongoing process^th
that has been expanded during the 110 Congress. Under the combined supervision
of the Architect and the CAO, the House continues to increase recycling options to
include non-traditional material such as cell phones. Similarly, the Senate has
created a flexible recycling program that responds to the needs of Members and staff.
Both the House and the Senate continue to look for ways to augment recycling
initiatives in a cost effective and environmentally conscious way.

¹⁰⁷ For more information on Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs see, CRS Report RS22807,
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs): Issues with Use and Disposal, by Linda Luther.

CRS-35
Appendix A. Bills and Resolutions Introduced for House of Representatives Recycling
Since the 93^rd Congress (1973-1975), 32 bills and resolutions have been introduced to create or refine the recycling program in the House of
hile only one of these proposals was agreed to (H.Res. 104 in the 101^st Congress), each attempted to create a modern recycling program
House.
^s^M^eas^u^re^Tⁱ^tle^Spons^or^Iⁿ^troduced
^rd^(1973-¹⁹⁷⁵⁾^H.R^.⁹¹³^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^Pet^e^{r Pey}^s^{er (R}^-^N^Y⁾^Jan^.^{3, 1973}
^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34617}^H.R^.¹⁸¹²^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^W^illiam^L^e^h^m^an^(D-^F^L⁾^J^aⁿ^.^{11, 1973}
^g/w^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^s^.or
^le^ak^H.R^.²¹⁸²^A^{bill to am}^en^{d Section}^{734 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^e^V^e^rn^on^T^h^om^s^oⁿ^(R^-^W^I)^Jan^.^{15, 1973}
^P^u^{blic P}^rⁱⁿ^{ter to f}^u^rn^is^h^recy^{cled m}^a^{terial f}^o^{r th}^{e of}^fⁱ^{cial u}^s^{e of}^th^{e Sen}^a^{te an}^d
^://wiki^th^{e Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es
^h^ttp^H.R^.²¹⁸³^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^V^e^rn^on^T^h^om^s^oⁿ^(R^-^W^I)^Jan^.^{15, 1973}
^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^H^.^Co^n.^Re^s.⁸⁹^Co^nc^ur^r^e^nt^r^e^so^l^u^tⁱ^o^{n e}^x^p^r^e^ssi^{ng t}^h^e^se^nse^o^f^Co^ngr^e^{ss t}^h^a^t^t^h^e^Fe^d^e^r^a^l^Jack^Edw^a^rds^(R^-^A^L⁾^Jan^.^{22, 1973}
^Gov^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^s^h^ou^{ld u}^s^{e recy}^{cled paper produ}^cts^{to th}^{e f}^u^lles^t^ex^ten^t^pos^sⁱ^ble
^H.R^.³⁸⁴⁶^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^Pet^e^{r Pey}^s^{er (R}^-^N^Y⁾^F^e^{b. 6, 1973}
^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^H.R^.³⁸⁴⁷^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^Pet^e^{r Pey}^s^{er (R}^-^N^Y⁾^F^e^{b. 6, 1973}

^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord

CRS-36
^s^M^eas^u^re^Tⁱ^tle^Spons^or^Iⁿ^troduced
^H.R^.³⁹⁵²^A^{bill to au}^th^{orize an}^{d direct th}^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^{rator of}^th^{e Gen}^e^{ral Serv}^ices^Johⁿ^Dⁱⁿ^g^e^l^l^(D^-^M^I)^F^e^{b. 7, 1973}
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^to^p^r^escr^ib^{e r}^e^g^u^l^atioⁿ^s^w^ith^res^p^{ect to th}^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^of^recy^cled
^m^a^t^e^ri^al^con^t^aiⁿ^e^{d i}ⁿ^{paper procu}^r^{ed or u}^s^{ed by}^t^h^{e F}^e^deral^G^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^{or t}^h^e
^Distrⁱ^{ct o}^f^Co^lu^m^b^ia
^H.R^.⁴⁰¹⁵^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^W^illiam^L^e^h^m^an^(D-^F^L⁾^{Feb. 7, 1973}
^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^H.R^.⁵¹⁴²^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^W^illiam^L^e^h^m^an^(D-^F^L⁾^{Mar. 5, 1973}
^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34617}^th^(1975-¹⁹⁷⁷⁾^H.R^.⁴⁸³^A^{bill to am}^en^{d C}^h^{apter 9 of}^T^{itle 44, Un}^{ited States}^C^{ode, to requ}^{ire th}^{e u}^s^{e of}^K^e^vⁱⁿ^H^ech^l^e^{r (D}^-^W^V⁾^Jan^.^{14, 1975}
^g/w^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^s^.or
^le^ak^{H.R. 4}⁰⁴^A^b^{ill to}^am^en^d^Ch^ap^ter⁹^o^f^T^{itle 4}⁴^,^Un^ited^{States Co}^d^e^{, to}^r^e^q^u^ir^{e th}^{e u}^s^{e o}^f^Ham^ilton^Fis^h^{, J}^r^{. (R}^-^NY)^J^aⁿ^.^{14, 1975}
^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^://wiki^{H.R. 5}⁹⁵^A^b^{ill to}^am^en^d^Ch^ap^ter⁹^o^f^T^{itle 4}⁴^,^Un^ited^{States Co}^d^e^{, to}^r^e^q^u^ir^{e th}^{e u}^s^{e o}^f^W^illiam^L^e^h^m^an^(D-^F^L⁾^J^aⁿ^.^{14, 1975}
^h^ttp^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^{H.R. 5}⁹⁴^A^b^{ill to}^au^th^o^r^{ize an}^d^dⁱ^r^{ect th}^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^to^r^o^f^th^{e Gen}^e^r^a^{l Ser}^v^ices^W^illiam^L^e^h^m^an^(D-^F^L⁾^J^aⁿ^.^{14, 1975}
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^to^p^r^escr^ib^{e r}^e^g^u^l^atioⁿ^s^w^ith^res^p^{ect to th}^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^of^recy^cled
^m^a^t^e^ri^al^con^t^aiⁿ^e^{d i}ⁿ^{paper procu}^r^{ed or u}^s^{ed by}^t^h^{e F}^e^deral^G^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^{or t}^h^e
^Distrⁱ^{ct o}^f^Co^lu^m^b^ia
^{H.R. 8}³⁵^A^b^{ill to}^am^en^d^Ch^ap^ter⁹^o^f^T^{itle 4}⁴^,^Un^ited^{States Co}^d^e^{, to}^r^e^q^u^ir^{e th}^{e u}^s^{e o}^f^Pet^e^{r Pey}^s^{er (R}^-^N^Y⁾^Jan^.^{14, 1975}
^recy^{cled paper in}^th^{e prin}^tin^g^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^ecord
^H^.^Co^n.^Re^s.³⁹⁷^Co^nc^ur^r^e^nt^r^e^so^l^u^tⁱ^o^{n e}^x^p^r^e^ssi^{ng t}^h^e^se^nse^o^f^t^h^e^Co^ngr^e^{ss t}^h^a^t^t^h^e^Fe^d^e^r^a^l^Jack^Edw^a^rds^(R^-^A^L⁾^S^e^pt^{. 17, 1975}

^Gov^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^s^h^ou^{ld u}^s^{e recy}^{cled paper produ}^cts^{to th}^{e f}^u^lles^t^ex^ten^t^pos^sⁱ^ble

CRS-37
^s^M^eas^u^re^Tⁱ^tle^Spons^or^Iⁿ^troduced
^st^(1989-¹⁹⁹¹⁾^H^.^R^e^s^.¹³⁰^R^e^quⁱ^rⁱⁿ^g^t^h^at^di^s^pos^abl^e^t^r^ay^s^,^di^s^h^es^{, an}^{d bev}^e^rag^e^con^t^aiⁿ^e^rs^u^s^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e f}^ood^C^l^au^diⁿ^e^S^c^hⁿ^eⁱ^d^{er (R}^-^R^I)^A^p^{r. 17, 1989}
^s^e^rv^{ice operation}^s^of^th^{e Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es^{be biodeg}^r^adable
^H^.^C^oⁿ^.^R^e^s^.³⁰⁴^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^ecy^cl^{ed Paper A}^c^t^B^{arbara Box}^e^{r (D}^-^C^A⁾^A^p^{r. 18, 1990}
^H^.^R^.⁴⁵²³^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^A^c^t^of¹⁹⁹⁰^G^l^enⁿ^Aⁿ^ders^on^(D^-^C^A⁾^A^p^{r. 18, 1990}
^H.R^e^s^.³⁸⁵^P^r^ov^idin^g^f^o^{r a m}^aⁿ^d^atory^recy^clin^g^prog^ram^f^o^{r th}^{e Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es^B^{ill Gran}^{t (R}^-^F^L⁾^A^p^{r. 26, 1990}
^{H.Res. 1}⁰⁴^Req^u^irⁱⁿ^g^th^{e A}^r^ch^{itect o}^f^th^{e Cap}^ito^{l to}^estab^lish^an^d^im^p^l^em^en^{t a v}^o^luⁿ^t^ar^y^W^illiam^Green^(R^-^NY)^{Mar. 7, 1989}
^prog^ram^f^o^{r recy}^clⁱⁿ^g^{paper di}^s^pos^{ed of}ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e operat}ⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e of}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34617}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es
^g/w
^s^.or^H.Coⁿ^.^{Res. 1}⁸⁸^Req^u^irⁱⁿ^g^th^{e A}^r^ch^{itect o}^f^th^{e Cap}^ito^{l to}^coⁿ^d^u^c^{t a v}^o^luⁿ^t^ar^y^p^ilo^{t p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^f^o^r^Jam^e^s^H^a^y^e^s^(D^-^L^A⁾^A^u^g^.^{4, 1989}
^le^ak^r^ecy^clin^g^o^f^ex^p^eⁿ^d^ab^{le m}^a^terⁱ^{als d}ⁱ^sp^o^s^ed^o^f^w^ithⁱⁿ^th^{e Cap}^ito^{l g}^r^o^uⁿ^d^s
^://wiki^H.R^.³⁴⁶³^T^o^requ^{ire th}^{e Federal Gov}^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^{to recy}^{cle bottles}^,^can^s^,^{paper, an}^{d plas}^tics^an^{d to prov}^{ide a price pref}^eren^{ce f}^o^{r th}^{e pu}^rch^a^s^e^by^th^{e Federal Gov}^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^o^u^g^l^as^O^w^en^s^(D^-^U^T⁾^O^c^t^.^{11, 1989}
^h^ttp^g^oods^m^a^{de of}^recy^cl^{ed m}^a^t^e^ri^al
^nd^(1991-¹⁹⁹³⁾^H^.^R^.²⁴²^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^A^c^t^of¹⁹⁹¹^G^l^enⁿ^Aⁿ^ders^on^(D^-^C^A⁾^Jan^.^{3, 1991}
^H^.^R^e^s^.⁹⁶^T^o^provⁱ^d^{e a com}^p^reh^eⁿ^sⁱ^v^{e recy}^clⁱⁿ^g^prog^ram^f^o^{r t}^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^t^a^tⁱ^v^es^G^l^enⁿ^Aⁿ^ders^on^(D^-^C^A⁾^F^e^{b. 28, 1991}
^H^.^R^.¹²⁰¹^R^ecy^cl^{ed Paper Procu}^r^em^en^t^A^c^t^of¹⁹⁹¹^Johⁿ^Port^{er (R}^-^I^L⁾^F^e^{b. 28, 1991}
^H.R^e^s^.¹²⁸^A^pplau^din^g^th^{e A}^r^ch^{itect of}^th^{e C}^a^{pitol an}^{d th}^{e C}^o^m^m^{ittee on}^Hou^s^e^D^eⁿⁿⁱ^s^H^a^s^t^ert^(R^-^I^L⁾^A^p^{r. 17, 1991}

^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n fo}^r^d^e^ve^l^o^pⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^e^ffe^c^tⁱ^v^e^r^e^c^y^c^lⁱ^{ng p}^r^o^g^r^a^mⁱⁿ^t^h^e^H^o^use
^of^fⁱ^{ce bu}ⁱ^l^dⁱⁿ^g^s^{, an}^{d s}^u^pportⁱⁿ^g^on^g^oⁱⁿ^g^ef^f^o^rt^s^t^o^ex^pan^d^an^{d u}^pdat^e^s^o^u^r^ce^nd
^sep^a^r^a^tioⁿ^an^d^r^ecy^clin^gⁱⁿ^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e o}^f^fⁱ^{ce b}^u^ildⁱⁿ^g^s^d^u^rⁱⁿ^g^th^{e 1}⁰²^Co^ngr^e^ss

CRS-38
^s^M^eas^u^re^Tⁱ^tle^Spons^or^Iⁿ^troduced
^H.R^e^s^.²⁴⁵^R^e^qu^irin^g^th^{e C}^l^erk^of^th^{e Hou}^s^{e to tak}^e^s^u^ch^action^as^m^a^y^{be n}^eces^s^a^ry^to^Rⁱ^ck^S^aⁿ^t^oru^m^(R^-^P^A⁾^O^c^t^.^{10, 1991}
^en^s^u^{re th}^{at s}^t^ation^e^ry^u^s^{ed in}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es^is^m^a^{de f}^r^om
^recy^{cled paper}
^H^.^R^.³⁹³⁹^R^e^du^{ce, R}^e^u^s^{e, an}^{d R}^ecy^cl^{e f}^o^{r A}^m^eri^{ca A}^c^t^G^erry^Sⁱ^k^o^rs^kⁱ^(D^-^M^N⁾^N^o^v^.^{26, 1991}
^th^(1995-¹⁹⁹⁷⁾^H^.^R^e^s^.⁵¹³^Provⁱ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e m}^aⁿ^d^at^oryⁱ^m^pl^em^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce Was}^t^{e R}^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^S^a^m^F^a^{rr (D}^-^C^A⁾^A^u^g^.^{2, 1996}
^P^r^og^ramⁱⁿ^th^{e Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es
^th^(1997-¹⁹⁹⁹⁾^H^.^R^e^s^.¹¹⁹^Provⁱ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e m}^aⁿ^d^at^oryⁱ^m^pl^em^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce Was}^t^{e R}^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^S^a^m^F^a^{r (D}^-^C^A⁾^A^p^{r. 16, 1997}
^P^r^og^ramⁱⁿ^th^{e Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34617}^th
^g/w^(2005-²⁰⁰⁷⁾^H^.^C^oⁿ^.^R^e^s^.²⁹⁹^Ex^pres^sⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e s}^eⁿ^s^{e of}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^t^h^at^t^h^{e l}^eaders^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^an^{d ot}^h^e^r^Mi^k^e^T^h^om^ps^on^(D^-^C^A⁾^N^o^v^.^{15, 2005}
^s^.or^legⁱ^slativ^{e b}^r^an^ch^o^f^fⁱ^{ces sh}^o^u^ld^w^o^r^k^to^g^e^th^er^to^estab^lish^an^d^im^p^l^em^en^{t a}
^le^ak^coordiⁿ^a^t^e^{d ef}^f^o^rt^f^o^{r t}^h^{e reu}^s^{e, recy}^clⁱⁿ^g^,^an^{d appropri}^a^t^e^di^s^pos^al^of^obs^ol^et^e
^com^p^u^t^ers^an^{d oth}^e^{r electron}ⁱ^{c equ}ⁱ^pm^en^{t u}^s^{ed by}^of^fⁱ^ces^of^th^{e leg}ⁱ^s^l^ativ^e
^://wiki^bran^ch
^h^ttp
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,⁽^L^IS)^L^e^gi^s^l^atⁱ^{ve Inf}^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Sys}^t^em^of^t^h^{e U}^.^{S. C}^ongr^es^s^,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^c^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^s^.^g^o^v^]^.

CRS-39
Appendix B. Bills and Resolutions Introduced for Senate Recycling
Since the 101^st Congress (1989-1991), seven bills and resolutions have been introduced to create or refine the recycling program in the Senate. While
one of these proposals was agreed to (S.Res. 99 in the 101^st Congress), each attempted to create a modern recycling program in the Senate.
^s^M^eas^u^re^Tⁱ^tle^Spons^or^Iⁿ^troduced
^st^(1989-¹⁹⁹¹⁾^S^.^R^e^s^.⁹⁹^A^res^o^l^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^requⁱ^rⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e A}^r^chⁱ^t^ect^of^t^h^{e C}^a^pi^t^o^l^t^o^es^t^a^blⁱ^s^h^R^u^dy^Bos^c^h^wⁱ^t^z^(R^-^M^N⁾^A^p^{r. 11, 1989}
^an^{d im}^plem^en^{t a v}^o^luⁿ^t^ary^prog^ram^f^o^{r recy}^clin^g^paper
^di^s^pos^{ed of}ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e operat}ⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34617}^S^.²⁵¹³^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^A^c^t^of¹⁹⁹⁰^R^u^dy^Bos^c^h^wⁱ^t^z^(R^-^M^N⁾^A^p^{r. 25, 1990}
^g/w^S^.²⁵²²^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^A^c^t^of¹⁹⁹⁰^Jef^f^Biⁿ^g^a^m^aⁿ^(D^-^N^M)^A^p^{r. 25, 1990}
^s^.or
^le^ak^S^.²⁶⁴³^F^e^deral^{Paper S}^e^paratⁱ^oⁿ^,^R^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^,^an^{d Was}^t^{e S}^o^u^r^ce^Rⁱ^ch^{ard Bry}^aⁿ^(D^-^N^V⁾^May^{16, 1990}
^://wiki^R^e^du^ctⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of¹⁹⁹⁰
^h^ttp^S.R^e^s^.³³⁷^A^res^o^lu^tion^{to ex}^pres^s^th^{e s}^eⁿ^s^{e of}^th^{e Sen}^a^{te to en}^cou^r^ag^{e th}^e^R^u^dy^Bos^c^h^wⁱ^t^z^(R^-^M^N⁾^O^c^t^.^{10, 1990}
^pu^rch^a^s^e^of^recy^cl^{ed paper an}^{d paper produ}^ct^s^t^o^t^h^{e g}^r^eat^es^t
^ex^ten^t^practicable
^nd^(1991-¹⁹⁹³⁾^S^.²⁵⁵^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^A^c^t^of¹⁹⁹¹^Jef^f^Biⁿ^g^a^m^aⁿ^(D^-^N^M)^Jan^.^{23, 1991}
^S^.⁹⁷⁶^R^e^s^o^u^r^{ce C}^oⁿ^s^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d R}^ecov^e^ry^A^c^t^A^m^en^dm^en^t^s^of¹⁹⁹²^Max^Bau^c^u^s^(D^-^M^T⁾^A^p^{r. 25, 1994}
^th^(1997-¹⁹⁹⁹⁾^S^.²³⁶⁸^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^D^a^y^C^a^{re C}^eⁿ^t^{er R}^ecy^clⁱⁿ^g^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^S^u^pport^A^c^t^D^anⁱ^e^l^A^k^ak^{a (D}^-^H^I)^Ju^l^y^{29, 1998}
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,⁽^L^IS)^L^e^gi^s^l^atⁱ^{ve Inf}^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Sys}^t^em^of^t^h^{e U}^.^{S. C}^ongr^es^s^,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^c^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^s^.^g^o^v^]^.