PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 22, 2009
Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act - (Sec. 3) Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award multiyear grants through a competitive, merit-based process to consortia: (1) to conduct research to create innovative and practical approaches to manage the environmental impacts of electronic devices through recycling, reuse, reduction of the use of hazardous materials, and life-cycle extension; and (2) through such research, to contribute to the professional development of scientists, engineers, and technicians in the fields of electronic device manufacturing, design, refurbishing, and recycling.
Sets forth the ways in which research results shall be disseminated to the public.
Provides for the protection of proprietary information of trade secrets provided by any person or entity pursuant to this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator to report to Congress biennially on the grants awarded and the results of research projects carried out under such grants.
(Sec. 4) Requires the Administrator to enter into an arrangement for the National Academy of Sciences to report to Congress on: (1) opportunities for, and barriers to, increasing the recyclability of electronic devices and making electronic devises safer and more environmentally friendly; (2) the risks posed by the storage, transport, recycling, and disposal of unwanted electronic devices; (3) the current status of research and training programs to promote the environmental design of electronic devices to increase the recyclability of such devices; and (4) regulatory or statutory barriers that may prevent the adoption or implementation of best management practices or technological innovations that may arise from the research and training programs established in this Act. Requires such reports to: (1) identify gaps in the current research and training programs in addressing the opportunities, barriers, and risks relating to electronic device recycling; and (2) recommend areas where additional research and development resources are needed to reduce the impact of unwanted electronic devices on the environment.
(Sec. 5) Requires the Administrator to award grants through a competitive, merit-based process to institutions of higher education to develop curricula that incorporates the principles of environmental design into the development of electronic devices: (1) for the training of engineers and other students; and (2) to support the continuing education of professionals in the electronic device manufacturing, design, refurbishing, or recycling industries. Requires: (1) the Administrator to conduct outreach to minority serving institutions to provide information about the grants; and (2) such grants to be used for activities that enhance the ability of an institution to broaden the engineering or professional continuing education curriculum to include environmental engineering design principles and consideration of product lifecycles related to electronic devices and increasing the recyclability of such devices.
(Sec. 6) Requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to: (1) establish an initiative to develop a comprehensive physical property database for environmentally friendly alternative materials for use in electronic devices; and (2) develop a strategic plan to establish priorities and physical property characterization requirements for the database.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Gordon, Bart [D-TN-6] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4606-4608)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4606-4608)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1580.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4606-4610)
Mr. Gordon (TN) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 32.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-75.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-75.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction and Referral.
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1580 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1580 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1580 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1580 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.