PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act of 2012 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit retailers and distributors from selling beverages in containers that do not display a statement of a refund value of five cents. Defines "beverage" as an alcoholic or non-alcoholic, carbonated or uncarbonated liquid that is intended for human consumption. Requires: (1) distributors to collect the refund value for each beverage sold to retailers by a deposit initiator, and (2) retailers to collect the refund value for each beverage sold to consumers. Requires: (1) retailers to pay the refund on returned unbroken containers of brands sold for up to a specified number of containers per day based on the square footage of the retailer's space (excluding any container contaminated by a hazardous waste), and (2) distributors to pay the refund on returned containers of brands sold, plus at least three cents per container for handling costs. Directs each deposit initiator to pay to a state, quarterly, unclaimed refund amounts, which shall be available to the state for programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Prohibits distributors and retailers from intentionally disposing of containers subject to this Act or any metal, glass, or plastic from such containers (other than the top or seal) in landfills or solid waste disposal facilities. Exempts states that have implemented laws requiring beverage container deposits or that have demonstrated achievement of specified recycling, reuse, or recovery rates for beverage containers. Prohibits states or political subdivisions that impose taxes on the sale of beverage containers from imposing any tax on the amount attributable to the refund value of such containers. Provides for the adjustment for inflation of the refund amounts at ten-year intervals. Prescribes civil penalties for violations of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA-7] · D–MA
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 Environment and the Economy.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and 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 14, 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.6531 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.6531 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.6531 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.6531 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.