PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.2910 / 105th Congress

Mercury Environmental Risk and Comprehensive Utilization Reduction Initiative

Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 7, 1997

Mercury Environmental Risk and Comprehensive Utilization Reduction Initiative - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) to prohibit the sale or offering for sale of an alkaline or lead-acid battery unless the container is clearly labeled with a refund value, to be determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency according to class or category. Requires distributors of batteries to collect amounts of refund values from retailers and retailers to collect such amounts from consumers. Establishes procedures for return of refund values (and handling costs) and disposition of refunds that are unclaimed or in excess of amounts collected. Makes amounts of unclaimed refunds available for pollution prevention and recycling programs in the State. Prohibits disposal of such a battery by a retailer or distributor in any landfill or other solid waste disposal facility. Makes the refund program's requirements inapplicable in States with procedures substantially identical to those imposed by this Act or which demonstrate a battery recycling or reuse rate of at least 70 percent. Establishes civil penalties for violations of refund program requirements. Prohibits, with stated exceptions, the intentional introduction of mercury to packaging or a packaging component during manufacturing or distribution. Sets threshold levels for mercury presence in packaging or components. Requires manufacturers and suppliers to furnish certificates of compliance to purchasers and make such certificates available, upon request, to the public. Establishes civil penalties for violation of these prohibitions. Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to prohibit the Administrator from registering or reregistering any fungicide containing phenylmercuric acetate and cancels existing registrations of such fungicides. Requires the Administrator to study and report to the Congress on the use and disposal of mercury by the Department of Defense. Requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a program to the Congress for reducing mercury use in military products. Amends SWDA to prohibit Federal agencies, State and local governments, and other waste management jurisdictions, after December 31, 1998, from issuing a permit or other prior approval for the construction or expansion of a municipal solid waste incinerator unless the applicant completes an environmental impact statement. Requires State solid waste plans to provide for separation, for recycling purposes, of mercury-containing items to be listed by the Administrator, including batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, electrical switches, and thermostats. Amends the Clean Air Act to remove an exemption of electric utility steam generating units from the applicability of standards promulgated by the Administrator regarding certain hazardous air pollutants. Requires as part of a permit program administered by an air pollution control agency, in the case of such generating units and municipal and medical waste incinerators, the imposition of an additional fee of $500 per pound of mercury emissions from the unit or a greater amount determined to be necessary to cover the costs of a program to research technologies to reduce mercury emissions and remediate mercury contamination. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Food and Drug Administration, to: (1) compile a list of drugs and foods containing intentionally introduced mercury compounds, together with a quantitative and qualitative analysis of such compounds; and (2) study the effect on humans of the use of such compounds in nasal sprays.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] · D–NJ

Committees

  • Agriculture Committee
  • Energy and Commerce Committee
3 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.

  2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.

  3. Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

  4. Referred to House Agriculture

  5. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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.

  6. Referred to House Commerce

  7. Introduced in House

  8. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jun 3, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.2910 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.2910 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.2910 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.2910 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.

View full prompt & sources