PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 28, 1995
Local Governments Flow Control Act of 1995 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize States and political subdivisions to exercise flow control authority if, before May 15, 1994, such States or political subdivisions adopted a flow control measure that: (1) required the delivery of flow controllable solid waste to a proposed or existing waste management facility; or (2) identified waste management methods necessary for the transportation, management, or disposal of such waste and committed to designate a facility for such methods. Authorizes States and political subdivisions to exercise such authority over voluntarily relinquished recyclable materials generated within their boundaries. Considers flow control measures that implement such authority and contracts that authorize the collection, transportation, or disposal of flow controllable solid waste (but do not involve such authority) to be a reasonable regulation of commerce. Permits such authority with respect to recyclable materials only if: (1) the generator or owner of the materials voluntarily made the materials available to the State or subdivision and relinquished any rights to, or ownership of, such materials; (2) the State or subdivision assumes such rights or ownership; and (3) the State or subdivision complies with requirements to separate or divert recyclable materials for recycling, reclamation, or reuse. Establishes additional conditions on the exercise of flow control authority, including requirements that such authority is necessary to meet current or anticipated waste management needs, such authority is limited to specified waste categories, and revenues derived from the exercise of such authority are devoted primarily to solid waste management services. Permits States and subdivisions to designate a waste management facility only if they implement a competitive designation process. Retains the applicability of certain existing laws and contracts and considers such laws and contracts to be a reasonable regulation of commerce.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E495-496)
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.1085 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.1085 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.1085 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.1085 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.