PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 23, 1996
Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Act - Amends Federal highway provisions to direct the Secretary of Transportation to consider the method and location of disposal of construction and demolition debris resulting from a project, including its transportation, in promulgating guidelines concerning any proposed project on a Federal-aid system. Expresses congressional intent that any project for resurfacing, restoring, or rehabilitating a highway (other than a highway access to which is fully controlled) involving Federal funds shall include: (1) the reuse or recycling of debris to the extent possible; and (2) where not possible, a requirement that such debris be disposed of in existing municipal landfills or used for fill as permitted under State and local law. Requires any State highway department which submits plans for: (1) a Federal-aid highway project involving bypassing or going through any city, town, or village to certify to the Secretary that it has considered the economic, social, environmental, and other effects of the method and location of disposal of debris; (2) an Interstate System project to certify to the Secretary that it has had or afforded opportunities for public hearings for persons whose schools are in or contiguous to areas through which the highway will pass or into whose neighborhoods debris will be disposed (and requires such certification to be accompanied by a report which indicates the consideration given to the method and location of the disposal of debris). Directs that the hearings held regarding the effects of debris disposal include consideration of: (1) debris resulting from any previous construction that must be removed in order to carry out the project; (2) debris resulting from any renovation, rebuilding, or construction attributable to the project; and (3) other debris indirectly attributable to the project. Requires that: (1) contiguous property owners be personally notified of the public hearing if the location proposed for the disposal of debris is not in an existing municipal solid waste landfill; and (2) the statewide planning process consider the effects of debris disposal.
People & committees
Rep. Collins, Cardiss [D-IL-7] · D–IL
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 Surface Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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.3522 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.3522 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.3522 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.3522 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.