PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 10, 1996
Common Sense Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting and Permitting Act of 1996 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to add to standards applicable to hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under the Act and under State and local law the requirement that States and local permitting authorities develop siting criteria which, at a minimum, impose restrictions on facility location: (1) within specified distances of densely populated areas or schools, churches, day care centers, or other buildings frequented by persons under age 18; (2) on or within specified distances of aquifers or recharge areas used as sources of drinking or irrigation water, bodies of water, or prime farm land (as defined in this Act); and (3) based upon environmental redlining (selection of sites predominantly on the basis of the income of residents in the surrounding area). Requires States and local permitting authorities to develop siting procedures which meet specified minimum standards concerning the application process, host community advisory committee recommendations, official consent of the host community, and a restricted appeals process.
People & committees
Rep. Souder, Mark E. [R-IN-4] · R–IN
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
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.3780 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.3780 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.3780 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.3780 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.