Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1994
Message on House action received in Senate and at the desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 7, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Interstate Waste Title II: Flow Control Title I: Interstate Waste - State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1994 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit a landfill or incinerator, effective January 1, 1995, 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 1995; (2) 3 million tons in 1996 and 1997; (3) 2.5 million tons in 1998 and 1999; (4) 1.5 million tons in 2000 and 2001; and (5) 1 million tons in 2002 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. Title II: Flow Control - Flow Control Act of 1994 - 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 committed to the designation of a facility for such methods; and (2) voluntarily relinquished recyclable materials generated within their 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 such authority is necessary to meet current or anticipated waste management needs, revenues derived from the exercise of such authority are devoted primarily to solid waste management services, and 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.
Message on House action received in Senate and at the desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H11398-11407)
Mr. Swift asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S13802-13808)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S13802-13808)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 537.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Baucus. With written report No. 103-322. Additional views filed.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Baucus. With written report No. 103-322. Additional views filed.
Introduced in Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works ordered to be reported an original measure.
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.2345 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 S.2345 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 S.2345 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 S.2345 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.