PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 27, 1996
Hazardous Waste Facilities Financial Responsibility Act of 1996 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to revise financial responsibility and post-closure care standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to provide for: (1) a post-closure care period of at least 30 years where wastes or residuals remain on site; (2) financial responsibility from the issuance of an operating or post-closure permit through closure and the post-closure care period; (3) liability assurances through such period; and (4) post-closure care cost estimate revisions. Precludes satisfaction of these standards, for any facility closed after enactment of this Act, by means of certain financial tests or a corporate guarantee for closure issued by a parent corporation.
People & committees
Rep. Spratt, John M., Jr. [D-SC-5] · D–SC
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1811)
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.4272 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.4272 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.4272 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.4272 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.