PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 23, 1993
States Solid Waste Regulatory Authority Act - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize each State to enact and enforce laws: (1) imposing fees on the treatment, disposal, and other disposition of solid waste; and (2) banning the importation of solid waste beginning five years after enactment of this Act if the State has an approved solid waste management plan. Requires State solid waste management plans to require that the State: (1) identify the amount of solid wastes by waste type that are reasonably expected to be generated within the State or accepted from another State during the ten-year period following enactment of this Act; (2) identify the amount of solid waste to be reduced during such ten-year period through source reduction, recycling, and resource recovery; and (3) assure the availability of solid waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Requires that a State solid waste management plan: (1) require laws, regulations, and ordinances for the development of new and expanded solid waste management facilities; (2) describe solid waste management practices that promote source reduction and recycling; (3) identify existing State and regional markets for recyclable materials and actions that the State will take to develop recycling markets; (4) provide that all solid waste management facilities shall register with the State and that only registered facilities may manage solid waste identified in the plan; (5) provide for technical and financial assistance to local communities to meet plan requirements; and (6) specify the conditions under which the State will authorize a person to accept solid waste from other States. Sets forth additional plan requirements, unless the State demonstrates that their inclusion is impracticable, including: (1) a policy requiring the procurement of recycled products; (2) a program to encourage composting; (3) a system for curbside pickup or separation of recyclable materials; and (4) a policy requiring the separation of recyclable materials prior to treatment or disposal and requiring a surcharge on tipping fees for solid waste from commercial establishments or office buildings that is not source-separated before delivery to waste facilities. Requires States to submit plans for approval.
People & committees
Rep. Danner, Pat [D-MO-6] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E423)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. 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.1052 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.1052 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.1052 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.1052 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.