State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1995
Referred to the Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1995 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit a landfill or incinerator, effective January 1, 1996, from receiving out-of-State municipal solid waste for disposal or incineration unless the owner or operator of the landfill or incinerator obtains authorization (as part of a host community agreement) from the affected local government. Requires owners or operators to make specified information regarding the facility available prior to seeking such authorization. Authorizes State Governors, unless inconsistent with a host community agreement, to limit the quantity of out-of-State waste received at landfills and incinerators that received documented shipments of such waste in 1993 to an annual amount equal to the quantity received in 1993. Permits State Governors, unless inconsistent with a host community agreement, to prohibit the disposal of such waste at landfills and incinerators that received such waste in 1993 if the waste is generated in a State determined to have exported more than the following amounts of waste to landfills or incinerators not covered by host community agreements: (1) 3.5 million tons in 1996; (2) 3 million tons in 1997 and 1998; (3) 2.5 million tons in 1999 and 2000; (4) 1.5 million tons in 2001 and 2002; and (5) 1 million tons in 2003 and thereafter. Establishes limitations on waste exports to landfills or incinerators not covered by host community agreements. Makes the prohibition on the disposal of out-of-State municipal solid waste inapplicable to landfills and incinerators that received documented shipments of such waste during 1993, except as otherwise provided. Prohibits landfills or incinerators from receiving out-of-State waste in the absence of a host community agreement if the operating permit or license for the facility was denied or revoked. Permits the receipt of such waste without an authorization from the affected local government if the waste is generated within, and the landfill or incinerator is located within, the same bi-State level A metropolitan statistical area that contains two contiguous major cities located in different States. Authorizes both of the States affected by the Supreme Court decision in Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality to collect cost recovery surcharges, subject to limitations, on the combustion or disposal of out-of-State waste. Permits States to establish limits on the amount of out-of-State construction and demolition waste disposed at landfills.
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.227 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.227 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.227 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.227 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.