PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 7, 1995
Oil Recycling Incentives Act - Requires producers or importers of lubricating oil to recycle for a period of ten years an amount of used oil equal to at least the amount determined by multiplying the amount of lubricating oil produced or imported that year by such persons by the recycling percentage established by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Authorizes such individuals to comply with this Act by: (1) recycling (through re-refining) used oil or purchasing re-refined oil for purposes of producing lubricating oil; or (2) purchasing recycling credits under this Act. Requires producers and importers to report annually to the Administrator on the amount of oil produced or imported by such persons. Requires a producer or importer to be treated as having recycled two units of used oil for each unit of re-refined oil or lubricant base stock purchased. Directs the Administrator to establish a recycling percentage that is two points higher than the existing recycling rate for lubricating oil. Provides for increases in such percentage of two points annually for ten years. Requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations allowing recyclers to create credits for used oil recycling and producers or importers of lubricating oil to purchase such credits. Provides that such regulations shall require: (1) specified records to be kept by recyclers and by importers or producers; and (2) recyclers to sell or distribute in commerce such oil as specification used oil, off-specification used oil, industrial specification used oil, or re-refined oil. Applies recycling requirements to persons who import or produce more than 100,000 gallons of lubricating oil annually. Sets the recycling percentage at 40 percent if the Administrator fails to promulgate such regulations.
People & committees
Rep. Torres, Esteban Edward [D-CA-34] · D–CA
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 Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E777)
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 21, 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.1525 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.1525 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.1525 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.1525 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.