```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6419-S6423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I call up S. 534.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending business.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Senator Smith, in presenting S. 534 to the Senate. This is 
legislation dealing with interstate waste and flow control authority.
  I want to acknowledge Senator Smith's efforts as chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Superfund, 
Waste Control, and Risk Assessment. Senator Smith has taken the lead in 
drafting this legislation, targeting issues that went unresolved last 
year.
  I also want to acknowledge the work of the distinguished ranking 
member of our committee, Senator Baucus, for his help in the framing of 
this legislation which we will now be discussing over the next day or 
so.
  Mr. President, this legislation is straightforward and attempts to 
deal with the issues of interstate waste and flow control, balancing 
the interests of the States that import waste, trash that comes into 
States for disposal, and the exporters, States that do not have 
landfills or incinerators and thus ship it out. We try to deal with 
communities with outstanding revenue bonds as they deal with the issues 
of construction of waste facilities the local individual who dispose of 
his or her garbage.
  This bill includes three titles. Title I deals with interstate waste 
and is similar to the bill approved by the Senate last year. I would 
like to stress that. The interstate waste portion is one that was 
approved unanimously by this Senate last year.
  Title II focuses on flow control, which we will discuss in a few 
minutes. And title III reinstates the ground water monitoring exemption 
for small landfills in the municipal solid waste landfill criteria.
  Let me turn to title I. This is a very contentious area. Indeed, I 
guess we have dealt with this, on and off, over the past 5 years. And 
no one has been more ardent in trying to get this problem solved than 
the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats.
  Now, on interstate shipments, the bill before us, as I say, is 
similar to S. 2345, which was approved unanimously last year by the 
Senate.
  I want to make it clear that the bill before us deals exclusively 
with the transport, across State borders, of municipal solid waste. 
That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about 
restrictions on hazardous waste or industrial waste or even 
construction and demolition debris. Those items involve an entirely 
different set of problems and would require different approaches than 
we are dealing with here.
  We are dealing here with municipal solid waste, sometimes referred to 
as MSW; what the rest of us, in layman's terms, would call garbage or 
trash.
  Specifically the bill provides the following. There is an import ban. 
A Governor may, if requested by the affected local community, as 
designated by the Governor, ban out-of-State municipal solid waste at 
landfills or incinerators that did not receive out-of-State waste in 
1993.
  Now, this gets a little bit complicated, but these are provisions 
that we have worked out with Governors and municipalities, particularly 
the ones that cross borders.
  So the first point is there can be an import ban that the Governor 
can impose, if he is requested by a local community and if that 
community did not receive out-of-State waste in 1993. Or he can impose 
this same ban at those facilities that received municipal solid waste 
in 1993 but are not in compliance with applicable Federal or State 
standards. So there is a power in the Governor. Now that is an import 
ban.
  Further, a Governor may unilaterally freeze out-of-State waste at 
1993 levels at landfills and incinerators that received waste during 
1993 and are in compliance. In other words, the Governor can put a 
clamp on limiting it to the amount that came in in 1993, at those 
levels.
  Now, there is an export ratchet, likewise. A Governor may 
unilaterally ban out-of-State waste from any State exporting more than 
3.5 million tons in 1996. This declines to 3 million tons in 1997 and 
1998, drops to 2.5 million tons in 1999 and the year 2000, 1.5 million 
tons in the year 2001 and 2002, and 1 million tons in 2003 and every 
year thereafter. So the Governor has this power to ban out-of-State 
waste coming from a State that is exporting very substantial amounts. 
That is the power in the importing State Governor.
  There is also another ratchet. A Governor may unilaterally restrict 
out-of-State waste imported from any one State in excess of certain 
levels.
  There is a cost recovery surcharge provision. States that imposed a 
differential fee on the disposal of out-of-State waste on or before 
April 3, 1994, are allowed to impose a fee of no more than $1 per ton.
  So there is that $1-per-ton limitation, a differential that a State 
can impose, as long as the differential fee is used to fund solid waste 
management programs.
  What we are dealing with all through here are the limitations that 
are imposed by the commerce clause of our Constitution. The bill we are 
dealing 
 [[Page S6420]] with today explicitly prohibits a Governor from 
limiting or prohibiting solid waste imports to landfills or 
incinerators that have a host community agreement to receive out-of-
State waste.
  In addressing the problem of interstate waste, I, as chairman, and 
Senator Smith, likewise as chairman of the subcommittee, have tried to 
find a solution that will reduce unwanted imports yet give exporting 
States some time to reduce the amount of waste generated, to increase 
recycling, and to site new in-State capacity.
  What we are trying to do is to take into account the large exporting 
States' problems, but we are not going to let them export forever.
  What can they do? As I say, they can reduce the amount of waste 
generated, they can increase recycling, and they can set up their own 
sites in their States to deal with the problem--incinerators, 
landfills, or whatever they might be.
  Title II deals with what is known as flow control. Flow control 
refers to the legal authority of States or local governments to 
designate where waste must be taken for processing or treatment or 
disposal. Over the past 20 years, State and local governments have used 
flow control as a financing mechanism for the development of municipal 
solid waste disposal facilities.
  What am I talking about? I am talking about incinerators and 
landfills, for example. A municipality says, ``We have to have an 
incinerator to take care of the waste within our municipality.'' So 
they say, ``Well, we'll build one. And where do we get the money? We 
issue bonds. All right, but how are we going to make certain that we 
are going to have the waste flowing in and the so-called tipping 
fees?'' So the municipality passes an ordinance which says: Everybody 
in this municipality must take trash to this central facility, and 
there they pay a tipping fee and you are not allowed to ship it 
elsewhere. BFI or other commercial firms cannot come in and say, ``I'll 
take your waste for a lower price.'' No.
  The way it works is the locals say you can only take it here, because 
that is the way we can pay off our bonds.
  Flow control guarantees that a projected amount of waste will be 
received at a designated waste facility. Thus, a predictable revenue 
stream is generated for the retirement of the cost of the facility, the 
capital cost, and the operating expenses.
  Flow control, as you can see, distorts the waste market by creating 
State or municipally controlled waste monopolies. Obviously, it becomes 
a monopoly. If the city of St. Louis says that no trash can be taken 
elsewhere but to the city incinerator, that is a monopoly. But the city 
of St. Louis might say, well, we spent a lot of money to build this 
incinerator and the only way we can pay off our bonds is with a 
guarantee flow from our municipality so when the big trucks, private 
trucks pick up, they can only take it to the city of St. Louis 
incinerator.
  Communities across the country have made investments predicated on 
flow control, but I, and likewise Senator Smith and Senator Baucus, do 
not believe in perpetuating that kind of system into the future. 
Designating where waste must go will only drive up the cost of waste 
disposal for our citizens.
  Not unlike the interstate transport of municipal solid waste and its 
implications on interstate commerce, flow control has emerged as a 
controversial legislative issue because of several recent Federal court 
decisions. Over the past 5 years, Federal courts have ruled that flow 
control laws in no fewer than four States violate the commerce clause 
of the U.S. Constitution. Similar to restrictions on interstate waste, 
flow control undermines the commerce clause by barring States and 
political subdivisions by placing undue burdens on interstate commerce.
  This case all came up May 16, 1994, just a year ago. It was called 
the Carbone case, Carbone versus Town of Clarkstown, NY, which the 
Supreme Court decided just a year ago. The Supreme Court's ruling in 
the Carbone case has made it clear that absent congressional action, 
the exercise of flow control by States and political subdivisions is 
unconstitutional; it interferes with interstate commerce. The city of 
St. Louis no longer can say to all its citizens, ``You must bring your 
trash to this central facility.'' That is interfering with interstate 
commerce and is unconstitutional, unless Congress decides otherwise.
  So we are here today to override the constitutional provisions on 
State laws that interfere with interstate commerce and so as to provide 
new authority to the States. We are beset with communities, such as the 
illustrative one I gave of St. Louis, that has invested substantial 
sums of money in their incinerators and are counting on paying off 
those bonds through the fees that come in and suddenly the whole ground 
rules are changed by the Supreme Court decision. So they come to us and 
say, ``Grandfather us. We issued those bonds dependent upon this flow 
of trash.''
  The Supreme Court has said Congress can do this. We can provide new 
authority to the States by declaring that the impact of such laws on 
interstate commerce is reasonable.
  Should we move in this direction? I say yes, but a qualified yes. We 
should tread carefully, and this bill does that.
  This Senator believes that Congress was granted the power to regulate 
commerce in order to ensure the free flow of goods and to protect 
against economic warfare among the States. We must not create a system 
that builds walls around our States and our communities. The economy of 
our country has been successful over the past 200 years because of the 
free flow of goods and services among our States. Let us not go 
overboard today loading up this bill with discriminatory amendments. 
Unnecessarily restricting the interstate transport of waste and 
providing unlimited flow control will limit competition in the waste 
market. It will discourage the selection of less costly waste disposal 
options, and it will force duplicative infrastructure investments in 
our communities.
  The intention of the bill before us today is to provide States and 
political subdivisions with flow control authority in order to meet 
financial obligations with respect to solid waste management facilities 
and to maintain their creditworthiness.
  Title II provides limited flow control authority under certain 
conditions to States and subdivisions that have embarked on these 
commitments, these financial investments that, rightly or wrongly, were 
predicated on the expectation or implementation of flow control. They 
built these facilities and issued the bonds believing that what they 
were doing was right, was legal and was dependent upon restricting 
where the trash within their communities could go. It could only come 
to the municipal landfill or incinerator.
  We are not, in grandfathering these provisions, reflecting any 
position on the appropriateness of flow control as a policy option. In 
each instance in which flow control authority is granted under this 
legislation, that grant is predicated on meeting debt obligations.
  The final part is title III, which is called groundwater monitoring. 
In it, we reinstate a groundwater monitoring exemption for small 
landfills in the municipal solid waste landfill criteria. All of this 
reflects back on the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, section 
4010(c). One of the most significant issues raised during the revision 
of the criteria was the impact on small community landfills.
  As a result, the October 9, 1991, final rule for the criteria 
included a groundwater exemption of owners and operators of certain 
small landfills.
  In January 1992, petitions were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for review of the new landfill criteria. The court, in its review, 
vacated the small landfill exemption as it pertained to groundwater 
monitoring.
  The purpose of title III of the reported bill is to reinstate the 
exemption.
  As many of us remember from the debate on interstate waste in 1992, 
the flow of garbage raises intense local and regional concerns. In some 
areas of the country, this seemingly mundane issue is politically 
potent. Who would have thought that so much heat could be generated by 
garbage disposal?
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation represents a good-faith 
effort to bring the various parties together on the issues of 
interstate waste and flow 
 [[Page S6421]] control. It provides additional authority to waste 
importers without overriding the needs of waste-exporting States.
  It protects past community financial investments with respect to flow 
control; yet, it provides opportunities for the private sector. I 
commend the Senator from New Hampshire and look forward to working with 
him and other Members of the Senate to approve this legislation in an 
expeditious fashion.
  Now, Mr. President, I would like to yield the floor, without losing 
the same, to Senator Baucus for his opening statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am pleased to be here considering legislation to give 
our States and communities the right to say ``no'' to out-of-State 
trash. That is basically what the major portion of this bill is all 
about--that is, enabling States to say, ``We do not want this stuff and 
we have the right to say, no, we do not want the garbage.'' We need 
this legislation to allow States to do that, and that is basically 
because of the U.S. Constitution, commerce clause, article I, which 
basically states that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce, 
States cannot. So we are now acting in Congress.
  Mr. President, we have been working on this issue for a long time--6 
years. We have explored a lot of options, we have held many hearings, 
and we have debated this issue frequently. We passed interstate waste 
bills in each of the last three Congresses here in the U.S. Senate. I 
believe it is finally time to finish the job.
  I will have more to say on that subject later. Let me say a little 
bit about this legislation.
  Garbage is big business. Each year, the United States throws out more 
than 200 million tons of municipal waste. That is enough to build a 30-
foot wall of trash from Los Angeles to New York. About 1 ton in 14 goes 
to a landfill or incinerator in another State. Nearly every State is a 
seller or a buyer in the municipal waste market; 47 States export some 
garbage, and 44 States import some garbage.
  Some interstate movement of garbage makes sense. In Montana, for 
example, two towns have made arrangements to share landfills with 
western North Dakota towns. Some trash from Wyoming areas of 
Yellowstone Park is disposed of in Montana. These arrangements save 
money for the communities involved. And the establishment of shared 
regional landfills can be a policy that does make sense.
  But it only makes sense when the communities involved agree to it. No 
place should become an unwilling dumping ground. Nobody should have to 
take garbage they do not want from another community.
  The legislation before us takes us a step closer to preventing 
Montana and other rural States from becoming a national dump. It lets 
Governors freeze imports at 1993 levels, and stop new imports if 
affected communities want them stopped. It is not perfect, but it is a 
good start.
  Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senators who have worked so 
hard over the years on this issue trying to develop a balanced bill. 
Senator Coats has been particularly helpful and particularly committed 
to enacting interstate legislation. Senators Lautenberg, Moynihan, and 
our new chairman, Senator Chafee, and many others have worked 
tirelessly.
  This issue has been around Congress long enough. I think it is time 
to stand up for the small towns and finish the job.
  Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, 
is now in the Budget Committee and is not able to be here. He worked 
hard, along with Senator Smith, and at a later time he will want to 
make a statement.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Chafee.
  Mr. President, this bill is a compromise bill. It is not going to 
please everyone, and maybe that is the reason why it is a good piece of 
legislation, I do not know. But a little more than 2 months ago, the 
Superfund Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which I 
chair, held a hearing to consider proposals to regulate the interstate 
transportation of solid waste and whether to provide local control 
authority to State and local governments.
  The controversy here surrounding the interstate transportation of 
municipal solid waste is one that the Senate has been considering since 
1990. Today, 47 States export approximately 14 to 15 million tons of 
municipal solid waste per year for disposal in other States--14 to 15 
million tons.
  While short-distance waste exports have been occurring for some time, 
the development of a long-haul waste transport market has been a more 
recent development. With tipping fees as high as $140 per ton in some 
large cities, compared with the national average of between $30 and $50 
a ton, there is an incentive, obviously, from municipalities to 
transport these wastes by truck and rail to distant States for some 
permanent disposal.
  That is a pretty big incentive. Anywhere from $30 to $50 to $140 a 
ton is a huge disparity.
  Those States that have recently been the recipients of large amounts 
of long-haul waste have raised a concern that their limited capacity 
for solid waste is being filled and that they have become a dumping 
ground for somebody else's waste problems. So over the last few years, 
37 States have passed laws to prohibit, limit, or severely tax waste 
that enters their jurisdiction. However, almost all of these laws have 
been struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the commerce clause 
of the Constitution.
  So while there has been a recent easing of disposal and the capacity 
to dispose nationwide, there is still significant concerns about the 
future consequences of this long-haul system. Congress needs to define 
what the future is, whether we are going to honor the interstate 
commerce clause or not, or whether we are going to adjust it or 
micromanage it, or do something with it. But there are people out there 
who are impacted, as we speak, by the fact that this decision is still 
in limbo.
  So to address these concerns, Congress--specifically the Environment 
and Public Works Committee--has been attempting to strike a balance 
between importing and exporting States. Last year, the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, of which I am a member, unanimously 
reported S. 2345 to address this problem. A number of Members, both on 
and off of the committee, including very prominent Members who will be 
involved in this debate over the next couple of days, like Senators 
Coats, Specter, Lautenberg, Moynihan, and others, took a very active 
role in attempting to develop a compromise that importing and exporting 
States could live with. While the Senate easily passed this compromise 
by a voice vote on September 30, 1994, it was the end of the session 
and time ran out before this issue could be finally resolved.
  So this legislation has been a balancing effort, a real balancing 
effort. In regard to the interstate transportation of municipal solid 
waste, we have tried to carefully balance the issues of both the 
importers and the exporters, and nobody is happy with the interstate 
language. Perhaps that indicates to me, as I said earlier, that we 
might be on to something.
  The bill that Senator Chafee and I introduced incorporates the 
interstate waste bill that unanimously passed the Senate last year.
  Let me repeat that, because I think in the debate, as the chairman, 
Senator Chafee, knows, it is getting lost. What Senator Chafee and I 
are offering in the area of interstate waste transfer unanimously 
passed the Senate last year. That is what we put in our bill. That is 
simply all we are offering this year.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, could I ask a question to make a point?
  When it passed unanimously last year, that was when the other party 
was in charge, had the majority. So not only did all of the Democrats 
vote for it in a bill that was drafted by a majority of the Democrats 
in the committee and approved on the floor, but every Republican 
likewise voted for it.
  So two different parties have worked on this legislation over 2 
separate years and come to exactly the same result. Having passed 
unanimously last year, I certainly hope we can get on with the same 
language, get the same 
 [[Page S6422]] approval this year of the same language.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank Senator Chafee for making that point. He is 
correct. This is not a partisan issue. It is a carefully crafted 
compromise to try to accommodate some genuine concerns out there among 
many individuals.
  Again, in the Senate, controlled by the Democratic Party last 
session, it was passed unanimously. The Republicans are now under 
control, and we are offering the same language again on interstate 
transfer. There is not any reason why we should have a huge fight here, 
unless people, for whatever reason, are trying to capitalize on 
something or take unfair advantage.
  We felt it was fair and we continue to feel that now. Senator Chafee 
and I are in agreement on that, and I know there will be Senators from 
both the importing and exporting States that will try to weaken or 
strengthen, depending on their position, the interstate portions of 
this bill. The bill is in two sections--both interstate as well as flow 
control. There are two sections to the bill.
  My response is, we struck this compromise last year, all parties 
agreed, and there have been no significant changes. What would be the 
fight?
  Let me move to the issue of flow control, because we have heard 
statements from a variety of individuals before our committee, very 
prominent individuals. Senator Bill Cohen, Governor Christine Whitman 
of New Jersey and others, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who 
asked Members to move quickly to address the issue of flow control. And 
we did. We moved very quickly at the behest of those individuals.
  Frankly, ever since we moved quickly at their behest, we have been 
getting beat about the head and shoulders by some who asked Members to 
move at their behest. A number of witnesses expressed a strong concern 
that without prompt congressional action to provide for continued 
authority in this area, many communities would be in danger of having 
their bond ratings lowered. That is true.
  For those of my colleagues who may not have heard me speak to this 
issue on the subject of flow control, let me be clear. This bill is in 
my subcommittee, the Superfund Committee, which I chair. It is in my 
jurisdiction.
  I tried to craft a compromise, which I think we did successfully, to 
get the bill to the floor and help those people who did have a problem. 
I oppose flow control. I think it is wrong. I do not support walking 
away from the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. I believe 
that we ought to stand firm on that.
  There is a situation that has developed, as Senator Chafee has 
already outlined, where individuals--municipalities--have let bonds, 
and there are people who stand to lose on this. So we tried to craft a 
compromise. In that compromise, we basically grandfathered, with 
reasonable grandfathering provisions, those communities.
  I do not believe that flow control is necessary to deal with the 
problem of solid waste. We do not--I think the private sector can do it 
just fine. I do not believe the free market is broken. There is no 
evidence that the free market is broken in this area.
  There are many people who are involved in the transport of this 
material, and I refuse to believe that recycling cannot be accomplished 
without flow control. I simply do not believe it. I do not think there 
is any evidence to say that. But some States and some communities got 
themselves in a bind, and we are trying to help them out of that bind.
  Instead, we are being attacked for trying to help them, in many ways 
by those who wanted it and now have dramatically changed or moved their 
position. That is the reason why nothing has happened, because 
everybody wants their position.
  This is a compromise. That is the point. I am sympathetic to the 
communities that feel they need congressional assistance on this 
matter. There are some. If we are starting from ground zero and there 
were no bonds let, no contracts signed, Mr. President, I would be here 
on the floor saying no flow control, period.
  However, it was because of this plea, that Senator Chafee and I moved 
forward to introduce this legislation, S. 534, that would provide the 
flow control authorities to those municipalities that imposed flow 
control and either constructed or began construction of facilities 
prior to May 15, 1994, the Carbone decision.
  While our bill provides limited grandfather protection for flow 
control, it also--and this is the key issue--it gives finality. This is 
final. At the end of 30 years it is over. There is no flow control 
anymore. We now have the free market kick in. We have help during this 
30-year period which I think is more than ample. There are not any 
bonds I am aware of beyond the 30-year period. So precisely 30 years 
after the legislation is adopted, no further flow control measures will 
be allowed--none, zero, zilch.
  Both my subcommittee as well as the full committee moved very quickly 
to mark up this legislation. We did so primarily to help those 
communities whose bond ratings are endangered as a result of the 
Supreme Court's recent action. They are. We agree they are. They should 
not have gotten themselves in that position, but they did. Rather than 
get into whether or not they should not have gotten into that decision, 
we did not use that as a criteria. We simply said for whatever reason, 
they made some decisions that maybe they should not have made, but they 
are in that position so we will help them out.
  Speaking for myself, I am very uncomfortable with providing flow 
control authority. I do not want flow control authority. I felt that 
the bill of Senator Chafee and myself struck a fair balance in 
accommodating those who are strong proponents of States rights and 
those who are strong proponents of the free market. It is a compromise 
for both of those positions.
  During the course of the last 2 months, I have continued to work to 
accommodate Senators who had concerns about various proceedings in the 
bill. Everyone wants a fix. We are now hearing from the sublime to the 
ridiculous. ``Well, we might have a contract in 5 years, we are 
thinking about it. Could we be exempted?'' No, absolutely not. We are 
not going to exempt them, if I have anything to say about it. That is 
wrong. It defeats the spirit and intent of what we are trying to do.
  We cannot satisfy everyone. We have tried. We tried hard to address 
the legitimate concerns, and we will address those concerns. Some of 
the amendments we will accept. Some we will not.
  As a result of our efforts, the EPW Committee ordered this reported 
as amended on March 23 by a rollcall vote of 16-0. Again, the whole 
sequence of events here: Last year it was unanimous, no objection by 
Republicans or Democrats in the Senate in a Democrat Congress. We have 
a Republican Congress, it passes the committee 16-0.
  That says something about this bill. It says that those people out 
there who are trying to dramatically alter the bill are simply on a 
course that is not going to be in the best interest of those people who 
are sitting out there right now waiting for help, which is why we mark 
this bill up.
  I have to say if we ask Senator Smith, ``What are your priorities in 
the subcommittee of the Superfund?'' It is Superfund reform. That is 
what we are working on. We have had six hearings on it. We have another 
hearing tomorrow. We had one yesterday. We will try to draft a bill in 
the next 6 weeks to 2 months, and that is a high priority.
  Because people came to me, including the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, and outlined these problems, we 
agreed--Senator Chafee and I and others--- that we would bring this 
bill to the floor as quickly as possible.
 We have done that and, frankly, with great difficulty, simply because 
we have been focused on the Superfund issues. I did not anticipate the 
amount of amendments and the amount of opposition that would be 
generated on this bill.

  But let me just make this very clear to my colleagues. I believe this 
is an emergency bill for those communities or individuals or entities 
that have let those bonds. There are communities in a number of States 
that need quick passage of this legislation to provide them with the 
financial relief for their previously flow-controlled facilities. If 
this bill gets bogged down because of amendments, everyone trying to 
get 
 [[Page S6423]] their way--they want total flow control or no flow 
control or no grandfathering or we move into the interstate waste 
transfer and they want no exporting or total exporting or the Governor 
having the total right to make decisions and communities having no 
rights or whatever--whatever the position may be, if they insist on 
that, this bill will get bogged down. It will not get passed by the end 
of this week, this legislative week, on Friday. And the budget will be 
up next week.
  After that, I cannot imagine where there will be a window of time to 
deal with this again. So I appeal to my colleagues who desperately want 
this bill to help them and their communities in their States with this 
flow control to not hold this bill up by adding amendments or trying to 
add amendments that may in fact derail it. Because once it is derailed, 
in my opinion, it is going to be a long time until it gets back here.
  It is the leader's decision, of course, when it comes up. But the 
point is there is so much on the table after Monday when the budget 
comes up, any discussion of flow control, with all due respect, is 
going to be way down here when the budget and the numbers in that get 
out and the American people begin to interact with their Senators and 
Congressmen on that.
  So I think there is going to be a lot of discussion. If Members 
choose to oppose this or dilute it or whatever they choose to do, or 
even--maybe they would like to strengthen it--they will do it at their 
own peril. This issue, which has been simmering for the last 6 or 7 
years, will continue to remain on the back burner during the 104th 
Congress.
  I hope that does not happen, but the choice is clear. Either vote to 
pass this bill which has the overwhelming majority support, maybe 
unanimous support, in the Senate and protect those facilities that come 
within the scope of this bill, or risk it all to protect a small 
handful of communities that do not fit within this legislation, who are 
trying desperately to create a situation where, if they want to have 
flow control at some point in the future, they can have it, or if they 
have let a little bit of money out there somewhere, a relatively 
insignificant amount, and they are not sure what they are going to do--
that violates the spirit and intent of this bill and I hope it does not 
happen.
  We will be down here as long as it takes to deal with the amendments. 
I appeal to colleagues, if they have amendments, let us try to work 
them out. We will try to work out the ones we agree with, and if we can 
agree with them, we will accept them. If they violate the spirit and 
intent of what we tried to do in drafting this bill, we will oppose 
them forcefully on the floor of the Senate.
  Let me conclude with a brief summary as follows. Communities out 
there, as far as flow control is concerned, are in a tough situation. 
According to the public securities situation, $20 billion in bonds have 
been issued to pay for flow-controlled facilities. That is not the 
fault of the U.S. Senate. The interstate commerce clause, I believe, 
was in effect when that happened. But somehow it got ignored and they 
got into this bind and they have $20 billion in let bonds.
  We are going to try to help them and we do help them with this 
legislation. We grandfather them, we protect them. We protect the 
investors, the bondholders, the taxpayers, the individuals out there 
who have in whatever way participated in these bonds.
  As a result of the Carbone decision, the Supreme Court invalidated 
flow control, so it is in limbo. Here we are in limbo. Nobody knows 
what to do. They do not know whether to proceed or not to proceed, 
because they do not know what Congress is going to do in regard to the 
interpretation of that decision.
  Six incinerators in New Jersey have had their bond ratings lowered, 
and I am sure that is the case in other States, because flow control 
was invalidated. Again, we are trying to help those communities. That 
is the goal. Dozens of incinerators and landfills are in immediate 
danger if flow control is not reauthorized immediately, and every bond 
based on flow control authority is threatened, every one. Every single 
bond out there is threatened unless we do something soon. The longer it 
goes on the worse the threat gets.
  So the bill provides a narrow flow control authority to protect those 
bonds. Again, it is a compromise. It is a fair compromise. It is not my 
position totally. I would be for no flow control. That is not my 
position. But it is a compromise position to help those individuals.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and indicate I hope we 
could get some time agreements and some reasonable information 
regarding these amendments. If Members who have amendments could come 
to the floor and offer them in a timely manner so we do not get bogged 
down and not pass this bill by the end of the week.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________
```