PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 27, 2001
Municipal Solid Waste Flow Control Act of 2001 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize States and political subdivisions, under specified conditions, to exercise flow control authority for municipal solid waste and recyclable materials voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator, directing such waste and materials to particular facilities.Imposes identification and volume restrictions on the exercise of flow control authority to the classes or categories of materials to which such authority was applicable on the suspension date. Sets dates for expiration of such authority. Defines "suspension date" as May 16, 1994; the date of an injunction or court order based on a ruling that a State or subdivision law or official act violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution; or the date of a suspension or partial suspension of such law or act expressly because of the existence of such injunction or order.Imposes limitations on the use of revenues derived by a State or political subdivision from the exercise of flow control authority.Provides for the enforceability under State law of certain legally binding interim contracts.Allows a State to exercise flow control authority over solid waste if, on or before January 1, 1984, the State: (1) adopted regulations under a State law that required or directed the transportation, management, or disposal of such waste from residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial sources to specifically identified waste management facilities and applied those regulations to every political subdivision; and (2) subjected the facilities to the jurisdiction of a State public utilities commission.Lists additional conditions under which solid waste districts or political subdivisions may exercise flow control authority for 20 years after this Act's enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Greenwood, James C. [R-PA-8] · R–PA
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 Hazardous Materials.
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 19, 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.1214 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.1214 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.1214 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.1214 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.