PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E291)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Community Solvency Act of 1995 - Authorizes a State or qualified political subdivision to exercise flow control authority for: (1) municipal solid waste, incinerator ash, and construction or demolition debris generated within their boundaries if, before May 15, 1994, such entity adopted a law, regulation, or legally binding provision that contains such authority and directs the waste, ash, or debris to a waste management facility designated before such date or identifies the use of waste management methods and such entity committed to the designation of a facility for such methods; and (2) voluntarily relinquished recyclable materials generated within its boundaries. Establishes similar authority for States and subdivisions that meet such requirements after this Act's enactment. Provides that laws, regulations, or legally binding provisions that implement flow control authority shall be considered 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; and (2) the State or subdivision assumes such rights or ownership. Allows such authority with respect to solid waste or recyclable materials only if the State or subdivision establishes a program to separate or divert recyclable materials for purposes of recycling, reclamation, or reuse. Makes such condition inapplicable in certain cases. Establishes additional conditions on the exercise of flow control authority, including requirements that: (1) such authority is necessary to meet current or anticipated waste management needs; (2) revenues derived from the exercise of such authority are devoted primarily to solid waste management service; and (3) States and subdivisions implement a competitive designation process with respect to waste management facilities or facilities for recyclable materials. Retains the applicability of certain existing laws and contracts and considers such laws and contracts to be a reasonable regulation of commerce. Prohibits political subdivisions from exercising flow control authority to direct the movement of municipal solid waste to any waste management facility for which a Federal permit was denied twice before this Act's enactment.
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E291)
Referred to the Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E31-32)
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.24 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.24 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.24 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.24 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.