```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6576-S6580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                  VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the pending committee substitute amendment to S. 534, 
the solid waste disposal bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas 
and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] 
and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Pell
     Specter
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, many people have asked what is going to 
happen for the remainder of the day. What we would very much like to do 
is get these amendments disposed of as quickly as possible. I know that 
many people have plans. We would like to see how many amendments there 
are around here. I think most of the players are here. If people could 
tell us who has an amendment, then we could figure where we go from 
here.
  Now, who has an amendment? All right. Senator Coats. We are conscious 
of his. Senator Gorton. We are conscious of his. That is the same one 
as Senator Murray's, right?
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Who else? Senator Dorgan has an amendment. I hope people 
will speak up because we would like to close out the amendments, if 
possible, if we can get an agreement. Senator Boxer, I am sure, has 
one. We are not seeking a big list. I know Senator Boxer has an 
amendment. Senator D'Amato.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I may have some very comprehensive, exhaustive 
amendments. I hope I do not have to offer them.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We hope you do not, too. If you can check with your 
Cloakroom and see, we will do the same. We want to press this along and 
hopefully finish today. We know a lot of people have engagements.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have a very brief statement with regard to the 
legislation. If you are looking for a few moments of free time, I could 
do that.
  Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator could withhold for a minute.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Sure.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Is Senator Dorgan ready to go?
  This would involve a rollcall vote on Senator Dorgan's amendment, if 
he proceeds with it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My statement is very short and is on the bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask if we could give 30 seconds or 1 
minute to the Senator from Alaska to make a statement, and then if I 
could have the floor again, we will return to Senator Dorgan's 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] is 
recognized.
                           amendment no. 861

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Chafee, and 
Senator Baucus, the floor managers; Senator Smith, the subcommittee 
chairman; and Senator Kempthorne for accepting my amendment last night 
which extends the efforts of Senator Kempthorne, who amended the 
interstate waste disposal act to provide for practicable solid waste 
regulations that take into account the remote nature of Alaska Native 
villages--that is, relief from covering landfills, controlling access 
to landfills by an operator, et cetera--to cover all Alaska villages.
  This provision is not a blanket exemption from all landfill standards 
for these facilities; rather, the governor of Alaska will have 
flexibility to set appropriate standards based on local conditions.
  My amendment provides for workable solid waste regulations for all 
Alaska villages. The problems faced by Native village landfills are the 
same as those faced by other small, remote villages; both need 
regulatory relief.
  I have a list of Alaskan villages not classified as Native villages'' 
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                           Non-ANSCA Villages

       Paxson.
       Seward.
       Chicken.
       Seward.
       Skwentna.
       Healy.
       Kupreanof.
       Tok.
       Elfin Cove.
       Siana.
       Central.
       Medfra.
       Wiseman.
       Houston.
       Willow.
       Tonsina.
       Northway Junction.
       Tenakee Springs.
       Circle Hot Springs.
       Gustavus.
       Coffman Cove.
       Ft. Glenn.
       Talkeetna.
       McCarth.
       [[Page S6577]] Kenny Lake.
       Livengood.
       Pelican.

                                problem

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Landfills in remote areas of Alaska do not have the 
resources to comply with Federal solid waste management regulations. 
Many communities have no local government at all, or operate all 
community services on an annual budget of $25,000 to $80,000. If 
landfills close, the result will be illegal dumping on the lands, or 
into the rivers, because no other alternatives exist.
  Unlike areas in the lower 48 States, if Alaska's village landfills 
are forced to close for economic reasons, the waste often cannot be 
disposed of in regional facilities because the necessary transportation 
infrastructure simply does not exist. Many villages are accessible only 
by aircraft, or in some cases, seasonal water transportation. Alaska is 
different from the lower 48 where distances may be great, but 
communities are connected by road to regional landfills.
  Mr. CHAFEE. If Senator Dorgan is ready to go, can we get a time 
agreement?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to a time agreement. 
If I might offer the amendment, I will make some remarks, and then we 
will talk about a time agreement.
  Mr. CHAFEE. What about 20 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me offer the amendment first and make a few remarks. 
It is not my intent to prolong it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield for 
that purpose?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.

                           Amendment No. 914

   (Purpose: To amend the definition of ``municipal solid waste'' to 
include industrial waste regardless of whether the industrial waste is 
  physically and chemically identical to other municipal solid waste)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 914.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 49, line 16, insert the following after 
     ``thereof)'' and before the period: ``and any solid waste 
     generated by an industrial facility''
       On page 50, strike line 22 and all that follows through 
     page 51, line 2.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. My 
amendment is not particularly complicated, although it might be 
controversial. My amendment would change this legislation so that the 
bill includes all solid waste generated by an industrial facility with 
respect to the definition of waste addressed in this legislation.
  Currently, this legislation addresses municipal waste. That is, waste 
that is generated by the general public or from a residential, 
commercial, institutional, or industrial source consisting of certain 
kinds of materials. That is what constitutes the definition of 
municipal waste in the bill.
  In my judgment, this legislation moves in the right direction in the 
sense that it gives the States the opportunity to control, to some 
extent, their own destiny. At the present time, the interstate commerce 
clause prevents States from having any say at all when somebody decides 
to load train loads of waste in one jurisdiction and move it to another 
jurisdiction. The folks who live in the second jurisdiction have no 
right to say no. They have no right to say, ``You can't do that to our 
neighborhood. You can't bring this waste to our area, because we don't 
want it.'' There is no right for them to do that under current law.
  This legislation, under certain circumstances, gives the States the 
opportunity to say no, to decide when they do not want to have 
additional kinds of municipal waste deposited in their landfills or 
their waste disposal areas.
  The definition of municipal waste in the bill, unfortunately, limits 
the opportunity for the States to make their views known on the subject 
of most waste that is moving around the country. Currently, there are 
15 million tons of municipal solid waste exported nationwide across 
borders; 47 States and the District of Columbia, the Canadian Provinces 
of Ontario and British Columbia, and Mexico exported some portion of 
their municipal solid waste for disposal in the contiguous United 
States in 1992; 44 States import some municipal solid waste for 
disposal; 4 States export more than 1 million tons of municipal solid 
waste.
  But S. 534 applies only to municipal solid waste and does not 
restrict interstate transportation of industrial waste to the extent 
that it can be restricted under this bill if the States decided they 
wanted to try to restrict it. I simply ask the question: Why not 
include industrial waste? Why would we limit this only to municipal 
waste? It does not make any sense to me.
  The bulk of the waste that is being transported between States is 
industrial waste. For example, we have a landfill in North Dakota which 
receives industrial waste. That landfill, Echo Mountain in Sawyer, ND, 
imports metal grindings, paint waste, water treatment sludge, building 
demolition material, contaminated soil, liquid and solid waste 
associated with car manufacturing. None of which would be covered under 
this legislation in its present form.
  The question is, if you are going to give the Governor or you are 
going to give the State the opportunity to say to those who would bring 
a stream of waste into their area the right to say no, why would you 
give them that right with only a small part of the waste? Why not all 
of the waste? Why not all of the waste including industrial waste?
  That is the proposition I offer in this amendment. The amendment is 
very simple. With only one line change, my amendment changes the 
definition of waste so that the bill's provisions would include 
industrial waste. It is not difficult for anyone to understand. The 
impact of it is very clear. The impact of it gives the States more 
rights, and, I think, moves in the direction that is intended in this 
legislation.
  So I start on this issue believing that a problem we have in this 
country with respect to waste disposal is the stream of waste moving 
back and forth across borders and the corporations in this country 
whose business it is to try to find places to put waste. I happen to 
think that smaller, less populous States who may not want to have an 
enormous amount of waste transported in for profit, ought to have the 
right to say, ``No, thank you, that is not what we want for our future. 
We have the right to determine our own future, and this is not what we 
want.''
  The committee brings a bill to the floor that says that is the right 
of the States with respect to one category of waste--municipal. But 
then they say by omission it is not the right of the States with 
respect to the broad category of other waste, especially industrial. I 
say why the inconsistency? If States' rights include the opportunity to 
say no with respect to the import of municipal waste, why not the same 
right with respect to industrial waste?
  Mr. President, I know that this is a controversial amendment. I know 
that we will hear that this legislation is a carefully crafted balance 
and if anything should upset the balance, the whole thing falls. We 
hear that on every bill that comes to the floor. It is like a loose 
thread on a $20 suit, you pull the thread and the arm falls off. We 
hear that every time there is a bill on the floor of the Senate.
  All I am interested in doing is to say that if the philosophy by 
which this bill is being brought to the floor makes any sense at all, 
namely that is the States should have the right to say no to the waste 
flow coming into their States of municipal waste, then that philosophy 
holds true with respect to industrial waste as well.
  I hope that both managers of this bill will stand up and immediately 
accept this amendment and thank me for offering it and say that it 
improves this bill immensely, and I will leave the floor a very happy 
person.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, can we get a time agreement? Will the 
distinguished Senator agree to 20 minutes equally divided, and if we do 
not use it, fine?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is fine with me, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I so ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   [[Page S6578]] Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator was quite 
right when he said this was a carefully crafted bill. What it is, it is 
a balance between the exporters and the importers, and the exporters 
and the importers have agreed--are very close to agreement now--on 
dealing with municipal solid waste. If you throw a new equation into 
it, a new element into the equation, such as how many different kinds 
of wastes are there--oh, there is hazardous waste and there is 
industrial waste and there is construction and demolition debris--all 
of these things. We have become experts on waste around here. But we do 
not know what the volumes are, for example, of this industrial waste 
that the Senator is talking about. Suppose that added into the numbers 
that were exported or imported and affected how much the quotas could 
be that come into each State. This whole bill, clearly, would just drop 
down. If we want a killer amendment, this is it, Mr. President.
  I respect the earnestness of the Senator who offered it, and if he 
wants to come around sometime later in future years and say now we have 
worked it out with municipal solid waste, with the import and export 
restrictions and the volumes and how much there can be in future years 
and so-called ratchets, that is fine, but not today. We have enough 
problems with this legislation without adding this element into it.
  So I very much hope that my colleagues will reject the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota somewhat 
sarcastically says--it is not his intention, obviously--that his 
amendment will not sink the bill as he suggests the managers of the 
bill will say. The fact is this amendment will sink this bill. The 
reason is because there is so much construction, demolition material, 
there is so much sludge, there is so much wastewater treatment, there 
is so much of this in interstate commerce today.
  Many States want to ship this material to another State to help, 
frankly, with Superfund cleanup or to deal with their waste in a way 
that makes good sense to their own State, and vice versa. It works both 
ways. Every State in the Nation ships this material out of State. Every 
State does and every State receives some.
  So if this amendment were to be adopted, the general commerce today 
of the interstate shipment of construction and demolition material 
generally, and the other material that is covered by the Senator's 
amendment, would be severely disrupted and stopped. What then happens?
  It is not going to happen because Senators are going to stand up and 
filibuster this bill because they know that they represent interests in 
their States who want to be able to ship material through interstate 
commerce.
  It is true that we have to have a balance here. On the one hand, 
people want to ship waste whenever they want to ship it. The free 
market system.
  On the other hand, governments, particularly State governments and 
local municipalities, want to protect themselves. They want to enact 
laws to protect themselves against the free market.
  It is the tension that always exists. It is what we try to do around 
here; namely, we try to find a balance between those two tensions. 
There is also another tension here, another balance we have to try to 
pursue. That is between States and the Federal Government.
  Our national motto is ``e pluribus unum,'' one out of many. We are 
many States. We are 50 States. We are not 50 nations. We are 50 States. 
We are one nation, the Federal system. We are trying to figure out how 
to craft that balance.
  Mr. President, it reminds me very much of something a very wise 
person said not too many years ago. That is, all of American political 
thought can be summed up in two sentences. No. 1, get the government 
off my back; No. 2, there ought to be a law about that.
  That is what we are facing here. That is what this question comes 
down to. Get the government off my back, the opponents of the amendment 
said, because they want to be able to ship this material, different 
States, and have interstate commerce. There ought to be a law about 
that, is what Senators say.
  Mr. President, we carefully considered this question in the 
committee, and we decided that with respect to municipal waste, which 
is more easily accounted for and which really bothers communities more 
than industrial waste, that we should set up a system with certain 
restrictions and certain guidelines. States, under certain 
circumstances, can restrict the amount of municipal waste that comes 
into their States. That is what we are doing.
  Industrial waste is a whole different category. As I said, and the 
Senator from Rhode Island said, we really cannot account for it and do 
not know how much it is. Frankly, I do not see why the Senator from 
North Dakota is getting so worked up about this, because industrial 
waste is not really the problem that most States have. It is municipal 
waste, and also, it is hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is accounted 
for in an entirely different category and not the subject of this bill.
  Mr. President, to sum up, I understand the concerns of the Senator 
from North Dakota, but it is true that if this amendment passes, there 
can be a lot of Senators going to come to the floor and say, wait a 
minute, we are not for this bill. We will vote against this whole bill.
  Then what will happen? Then the citizens of North Dakota are not 
going to be able to limit the imports of out-of-State municipal garbage 
otherwise coming into North Dakota. That is because the Supreme Court 
said North Dakota cannot do that unless this bill passes.
  I think the Senator from North Dakota and all Senators want this bill 
to pass so that States are able to limit municipal trash coming into 
their own States.
  For those reasons and the fundamental reason, just to make it crystal 
clear, if this amendment is adopted, Senators will come to the floor, 
and they will be against this bill because it restricts commerce way 
too much. No bill. And then nobody wins, everybody loses.
  I therefore urge the Senate not to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was right. It is not that I have a 
crystal ball over here, but I guess the argument is that whether or not 
this is a good idea if the Senate would adopt this, it will sink the 
bill. I do not know first hand of the flotation properties of this bill 
or who constructed it or how long it might float.
  I do know that this is a pretty good idea to say if it is a good idea 
that the Governors ought to have the right to say no on the importation 
of municipal waste, there is no reason to prevent them from doing the 
same on industrial waste. If it is a good idea to give the States the 
opportunity to make their own judgment about some of these things, why 
is it a good idea to limit it to the smallest part of the waste that is 
moving around?
  Let me tell the Senators as an example, North Dakota imported 73,000 
tons of municipal solid waste and 150,000 tons of industrial waste.
  Now, if we are saying the Governor or the State ought to have the 
right to say, ``No,'' under certain circumstances, to a small part of 
the waste that is moving in, but does not have a similar right with 
respect to the larger part, I do not understand that. I do not think 
that holds up philosophically.
  The other part of the argument apparently is the claim that 
industrial waste cannot be included in this bill because there is too 
much of it. The claim is that if the bill includes industrial waste, we 
will get a lot of people upset. They will come over here and 
filibuster, and we do not get a bill.
  If industrial waste cannot be included because there is too much of 
it, I guess that makes my case. If there is too much industrial waste 
moving between States, that is especially what we ought to be dealing 
with here on the floor of the Senate.
  My own sense is that the opposition to this is not consistent. I feel 
strongly that if we are going to do this with respect to municipal 
waste, we also ought to do it with respect to industrial waste, and be 
consistent. We should decide that States ought to have the right.
   [[Page S6579]] It was said a few minutes ago that the mood is ``get 
government off our backs.'' I understand that mood. But there is 
another mood out there by some people who say, ``I don't want garbage 
in my backyard. I don't want people to bring garbage into the areas 
where I have grown up.''
  This bill gives them the right to reject that in limited 
circumstances, but does not give them the similar right in the broader 
circumstances with respect to industrial waste.
  I appreciate being called earnest, at least, and I do hope that 
whether it is on this piece of legislation or at some point in the 
future, the discussion about waste and its movement in our country that 
there will be an opportunity for people in the States to make their own 
judgment about industrial waste as well. If not now, then at some point 
in the future.
  Mr. President I shall not take further time. This is very clear.
  I yield back my time, and I ask that we have the yeas and nays on my 
legislation, or if the Senator from Rhode Island has different 
objectives.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what I really hope is that the Senator 
will withdraw his amendment. As the Senator knows, we have had no 
hearings on this. We have arrived at the tonnage limitations that 
affect importing States and exporting limits.
  We have had them agree to this very carefully, through a lot of 
laborious negotiations. If we add all the tonnage that comes with so-
called industrial waste, and nobody knows how to define ``industrial 
waste,'' then we truly have upset the apple cart.
  What can we promise the Senator? I think he has a legitimate request 
that in the committee we would consider how to handle--I suppose we 
could get into municipal waste, into construction, demolition debris, 
also, and maybe that is something we ought to look at in the future.
  I do not want to say we will do it immediately if we agree to it. We 
have a pretty full agenda in that committee.
  I say to the Senator that I would agree to having some hearings in 
the future. I am not saying this calendar year, because this calendar 
year is really just taken up with all kinds of challenges in the 
committee including endangered species, Superfund, clean water, plus 
the other things we have on the agenda.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is not a surprise. We have 
been sending information over to the committee for a couple of years. I 
filed a bill on this during the last session of Congress, and I have 
talked to the committee about it.
  I certainly respect the views of the two managers of the bill, the 
Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Montana, but I would 
very much like a vote on my amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is another point here which I think 
is quite relevant. Very little is known about industrial waste. Much 
more is known about municipal waste. That is why we in the committee 
decided the limits we came up with.
  I think it is very, very dangerous to legislate in ignorance. Very 
dangerous. This body is, I might say, pretty much ignorant when it 
comes to industrial waste. We do not know the numbers. We did not know 
the volumes. We do not know enough about the practice, very little 
about the practice. I think it would be very, very dangerous for this 
body to legislate in ignorance. We may do that sometimes around here, 
and we may do it with some frequency around here, but it does not 
justify it.
  For that reason, too, I think it is important that this amendment not 
be adopted here. There is time to deal with this. There is no huge 
outcry. My office is not inundated. I daresay the offices of other 
Senators are not inundated with letters from people at home saying do 
something about industrial waste.
  That is not the cry. What we hear is, ``Do something about municipal 
waste. Do something about garbage.'' This is not garbage in the 
traditional sense of the term. This is industrial waste.
  In addition, I might underline an earlier point I made. That is, a 
lot of generators, waste generators around the country, want to avoid 
Superfund sites, causing industrial waste to go to a site which will 
then become a Superfund site, so they send the material to sites that 
have the best environmental technology. Those sites are not always in 
that same State. Often, they are in adjacent States. So generators want 
to send material to the site that has the best environmental technology 
to avoid that site being a Superfund site.
  If we were, today, to put more restrictions in, that would make it 
more difficult for generators of industrial waste to send that material 
to an environmentally safe site.
  For example, I have a letter from the Associated General Contractors 
of America and a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, 
which I would like to put in the Record. They basically make the same 
point opposing this.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were order to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            The Associated General

                                       Contractors of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On Wednesday, September 28, the House 
     passed H.R. 4779, the State and Local Government Interstate 
     Waste Control Act of 1994 and it is now pending in the 
     Senate. We understand the Senate will soon consider this 
     legislation and may attempt to broaden the coverage beyond 
     municipal solid waste to include industrial wastes. The 
     Associated General Contractors of America opposes this 
     expansion.
       Industrial wastes, particularly from construction projects, 
     are fundamentally different from municipal solid wastes. 
     There are specific regulatory programs requiring proper 
     treatment, storage and disposal of wastes generated by 
     industry using specialized methods at specialized facilities. 
     (The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 is one 
     such program.) Not all States have adequate capability to 
     manage industrial wastes. Given the potential of liability 
     under Superfund, generators of industrial waste have great 
     incentive to fully and properly dispose of these wastes. To 
     limit the transfer of industrial wastes may limit the 
     contractor from disposing of the waste at the most 
     environmentally protective facility available, regardless of 
     location. Restrictions on the interstate movement of 
     industrial wastes under this amendment would force 
     contractors to seek management of wastes at facilities that 
     may not meet the most stringent environmental standards.
       For these reasons, AGC urges you to oppose any effort to 
     place restrictions on the interstate movement of industrial 
     waste. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                             Heidi H. Stirrup,

                                                         Director,
     Congressional Relations, Environment.
                                                                    ____

                                              National Association

                                             of Manufacturers,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM) has learned that the Senate will soon 
     consider legislation addressing the interstate movement of 
     municipal solid waste (MSW). The NAM strongly opposes 
     broadening the bill to include industrial and other wastes.
       The NAM believes manufacturers need the maximum flexibility 
     in determining the destination of wastes to disposal 
     facilities and that barriers--such as bans on interstate 
     shipment of waste--would prove detrimental to that 
     flexibility.
       Many industrial and hazardous wastes require specialized 
     treatment for their proper management. Due to the high cost 
     of building these specialized treatment and disposal 
     facilities, adequate capability does not exist in all states. 
     Generators of industrial wastes must be allowed to safeguard 
     against Superfund liability by sending waste to the highest 
     technology, most environmentally protective facilities 
     available, regardless of their location. Industrial waste 
     generators often incur great cost to ship their waste to a 
     specialized facility so that they can isolate their waste, 
     and therefore their liability, at one location, rather than 
     multiple locations throughout the country. Restrictions on 
     the interstate movement of industrial waste under this bill 
     could cause artificially inflated waste management costs and 
     undue financial burden to manufacturing companies that are 
     implementing waste minimization and recycling programs. Such 
     restrictions also would have an adverse impact on the 
     environment if responsible waste generators are forced to 
     utilize facilities that are ill-equipped to handle their 
     particular types of waste. If companies generating waste are 
     to remain financially liable for the disposal of their waste, 
     then it is critical that the scope of the pending legislation 
     be limited to MSW.
       For the above reasons, the NAM urges you and your 
     colleagues to oppose any effort to place restrictions on the 
     interstate movement of industrial waste. Thank you for your 
     consideration of our position. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact Theresa Knieriemen 
      [[Page S6580]] Larson of our staff at (202) 637-3175 if you 
     have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard Seibert, Jr.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for that reason, and the basic one that if 
this is adopted, I do not know what the prospects of the bill will be, 
I urge that this amendment be defeated.
  If there is no Senator seeking time, I move to table the amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have one additional comment to make, but 
I prefer to close this debate, if I might. Are there other people on 
the floor wishing to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair observes the time has expired for 
the Senator from Rhode Island. Would the Senator like to yield some of 
his time to the Senator from New Hampshire? The Senator has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if we could agree to give the 
Senator from New Hampshire 2 minutes?
  Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, would that add time to the 
debate? There are some who cannot see a delay in time. I am sorry.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire 2 minutes of my 
time. I have no interest in prolonging this.
  Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that action of the Senator from North Dakota. 
I am speaking against his amendment, so I would say that is a very 
generous action.
  I say with the greatest respect to the Senator from North Dakota, 
this is really a killer amendment. We do not know how much industrial 
waste is shipped nationwide. We have no idea. We have no idea how this 
amendment is going to affect our national system of disposing of this 
material. Every State, nationwide, ships industrial waste. There is the 
potential to adversely affect every single State in the Union. We had a 
very careful agreement on export and import ratchets in this bill, very 
carefully crafted. This is going to adversely affect the whole 
amendment. We just have no idea what the impact would be.
  So my concern is that it opens the door to other restrictions on 
exports, such as incinerator ash, sludges, hazardous waste, asbestos--
who knows? That is my main concern. We have not had any hearings. It is 
just a new issue that is suddenly injected into the debate here, so I 
strongly urge the amendment be defeated.
  I thank my colleague and yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me reiterate something, and then I 
will be glad to go to a vote.
  The real reason here is that there is too much industrial waste. That 
is, if you strip away all the arguments, the issue comes down to the 
claim that there is too much of it so we should not include it. The 
managers claim that we can only get an agreement on the limited amount, 
namely municipal waste. The big corporate interests do not want 
industrial waste included. I understand that. But if you are in a 
neighborhood or region and folks are bringing industrial waste in by 
the train car loads, unit train after unit train, it seems to me if 
Congress says on this little area called municipal waste, you have a 
right to say something about that, but upon the bigger area of 
industrial waste, sorry, you do not have any rights, that does not make 
any sense to me. I think it is philosophically inconsistent.
  I understand. I think highly of both managers of this bill. They have 
done a lot of hard work on this. But this is not a surprise to anybody. 
We had a hearing in Bismarck, ND, on this very issue under the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee a couple of years ago. I 
submitted legislation in the last session of Congress dealing with 
industrial waste. I have been in touch with the committee on it over 
time. So this is not a surprise. It is not that we are ignorant about 
industrial waste. I know how much industrial waste goes into North 
Dakota versus municipal waste; twice as much industrial as municipal. 
And if you say the State has a right to say no to municipal but you do 
not have a right to say no to something twice as big, you have taken 
away the opportunity for the State to say no on the quantity. That is 
important to us.
  That is the reason I offer my amendment. And I would like a record 
vote on it.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment No. 914. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] 
and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the 
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 166 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--17

     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Leahy
     Levin
     Reid
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Nunn
     Pell
     Specter
     Warner
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 914) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wanted to indicate to my colleagues that 
we are going to continue voting throughout the day. We are going to try 
to finish this bill. We will have votes on Monday, and we will have 
votes next Friday. And we will file cloture again this afternoon on 
this bill. I hope it can be finished today, but we have to complete our 
work around here, and we are not moving very quickly. So there will be 
votes throughout the day.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We are anxious for people with amendments to bring them 
up. I think Senator DeWine had an amendment. Let us see what his 
decision is on that. But we are pressing for these folks to bring 
forward their amendments. If they are going to offer them, fine. If 
they are not going to offer them, would they tell us.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  

                          ____________________
```