PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 4, 1995
Superfund Recycling Act of 1995 - Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to absolve persons (other than owners or operators) who arranged for the recycling of certain recyclable materials (spent electric lamps and fly ash, bottom ash, slag, and flue gas emission control waste generated primarily from combustion of coal or other fossil fuels when these materials are recycled, beneficially used, or used as raw materials for manufacturing another product) from liability for costs of environmental response actions. Considers transactions involving such materials to be arranging for recycling if the person arranging the transaction can demonstrate that: (1) a market existed for the material; (2) a substantial portion of the material was made available for use as a feedstock for the manufacture of a new saleable product; (3) the material, or product to be made from the material, could have been a replacement or substitute for a virgin raw material, or a product made from a virgin raw material, respectively; and (4) in the case of transactions occurring at least 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the person exercised reasonable care to determine that the facility where the recyclable material would be handled, processed, reclaimed, or otherwise managed by another person (the consuming facility) was in compliance with substantive provisions of Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations or compliance orders or decrees. Makes the exemptions from liability under this Act inapplicable if the person had an objectively reasonable basis to believe at the time of the recycling transaction that: (1) the material would not be recycled; (2) the material would be incinerated; or (3) for transactions occurring during the 90-day period beginning on enactment of this Act, the consuming facility was not in compliance with substantive environmental laws and regulations or compliance orders or decrees.
People & committees
Rep. Emerson, Bill [R-MO-8] · R–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 Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 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.2210 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.2210 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.2210 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.2210 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.