PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 28, 1994
Flow Control Act of 1994 - Authorizes each State and qualified political subdivision to direct, regulate, or prohibit: (1) the transportation of municipal solid waste generated from household sources within the boundaries of the State or subdivision and designate waste management facilities to which such waste shall be transported; (2) the transportation or disposal of municipal solid waste, including incinerator ash or construction or demolition debris, and designate facilities to which such waste shall be transported or disposed if, before May 15, 1994, the State or political subdivision adopted a law that regulated or prohibited the transportation or disposal of such waste; and (3) transportation of recyclable materials generated within such boundaries and designate facilities to which such materials shall be transported. Permits States and subdivisions described in (2) above to direct, regulate, or prohibit the transportation and disposal of municipal solid waste from any existing or future waste management facility to any other waste management facility without regard to the following conditions on authority. 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. Permits the authority with respect to municipal solid waste from household sources or recyclable materials only if the State or subdivision: (1) establishes a program to separate or divert specified materials for purposes of recycling, reclamation, or reuse before exercising such authority; (2) develops and implements a competitive designation process for facilities; and (3) finds on the basis of public hearings that it is necessary to exercise such authority to meet current or anticipated solid waste management needs. Retains the applicability of certain existing laws and contracts and provides that such laws and contracts shall be considered 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 on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1362-1363)
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 26, 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.4662 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.4662 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.4662 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.4662 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.