S6714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

cover 70 percent of the surface of the

globe. Maintenance of such stability is

vital to U.S. national security and economic strength.’’

I strongly agree and look forward to

the Senate giving its advice and consent to this historic convention during

the 104th Congress.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ASHCROFT). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in a

minute or so, I am going to send an

amendment to the desk. But so as to

not waste time, let me take a few minutes to talk before it is submitted.

First of all, I understand the managers of this bill want to get it finished

today, and I gather the leader wants to

do it quickly. I want to be cooperative.

Essentially, I am not going to say a

great deal, other than, first, I compliment Senator KEMPTHORNE on language in this bill that I call commonsense language that relates to small

and arid landfills. They are relieved of

some very expensive monitoring, and I

compliment the Senator for that.

Second, I would like to go a little

further, because I want to add a little

more common sense. I think common

sense, with reference to regulatory

processes, was part of the last election.

You do not hear me come to the floor

trying to second-guess what the election was about. But I am convinced

that as to people regulated, be it cities,

counties, tiny communities, small

business people, the election was about

common sense.

So I am going to send an amendment

to the desk which would allow States

to promulgate their own regulations

with regard to small landfills, provided

that those regulations are sufficient to

protect human health and environment.

In my amendment, small landfills are

those which receive 20 tons or less of

municipal waste per day based upon an

annual average. Such landfills, as the

occupant of the chair, the former Governor of a great State would know,

serve very small communities. In my

State of New Mexico alone there are 50

such small community landfills. Let

me suggest that they are not next door

to anything. Those landfills are out in

a huge, huge open space surrounded, in

most instances, by hundreds, if not

thousands, of acres of unused land,

public or private.

So we are not talking about these

small landfills in my 50 small communities as, per se, bothering anyone. The

question is, are they safe? Do they protect the health and environment?

Frankly, I believe that our States are

sufficiently different, and that States

ought to be able to determine the regulations that these small landfill operators, small communities, must comply

with in order to meet the standards of

our law. I believe States are totally capable of drafting the regulations for

safe and healthy small landfills in

rural America and in rural New Mexico.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these small landfills

make up 50 percent of the total number

of landfills and contribute only 2 percent in terms of the total cumulative

waste—2 percent.

Now, I realize that some argue that

EPA does give States flexibility with

regard to landfill management, and I

assume the managers might even say

that they believe it has already been

done. I also know, however, that my

State’s environment department has

not experienced this purported flexibility on EPA’s part.

Frankly, I believe we ought to make

it clear that the Environmental Protection Agency shall give this authority to the States to draw up their own

regulations with reference to small

community landfills so long as the regulation adequately protects human

health and the environment. That is

very simple.

I have seen small communities attend meetings for 3 years in New Mexico. They are looking for a regional

landfill, I say to Senator SMITH, and

they are going to meetings for 3 years,

trying to figure out how to have this

big regional landfill and how this little

small town can buy into that. And it is

not getting done yet. The little towns

are worried about it, and they are out

telling their 100 citizens, or 300, what

they might have to pay, what they

might have to do. And many of them

are not even cities, as the occupant of

the chair knows. They are villages.

They are less than municipalities,

many of them.

So I believe common sense says as to

those small, but very important, community landfills that we ought to

make it mandatory that they can be

operated pursuant to State regulations

in terms of their adequacy.

With that I yield the floor. I hope I

have not taken too much time. I hope

the managers will accept this amendment, and I yield the floor.

AMENDMENT NO. 1092

(Purpose: To revise guidelines and criteria

for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)

Mr. DOMENICI. 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 New Mexico [Mr. DOMENICI], for himself, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, and Mr.

SMITH, proposes an amendment numbered

1092.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that reading of the

amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 69, line 22, strike ‘‘‘‘.’’

On page 69, between lines 22 and 23, insert

the following new provision:

‘‘(5) FURTHER REVISIONS OF GUIDELINES AND

CRITERIA.—Not later than April 9, 1997, the

Administrator shall promulgate revisions to

the guidelines and criteria promulgated

under this subchapter to allow states to promulgate alternate design, operating, landfill

gas monitor, financial assurance, and closure

requirements for landfills which receive 20

tons or less of municipal solid waste per day

based on an annual average, provided that

such alternate requirements are sufficient to

protect human health and the environment.’’.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would

like to compliment the Senator from

New Mexico. I think his amendment is

helpful. I intend to support it. It provides additional flexibility for the

States to more closely tailor their own

individual problems. One-size-fits-all

Federal regulations do not always

work. Many times they do not work. I

think the Senator has hit on an area

here that improves the bill. It would be

helpful, certainly, for very small communities in very remote areas, which

we find everywhere in almost every

State in the country.

One area the Senator did not mention which would have a positive impact on his amendment is many rural

areas used to burn their garbage, a lot

of it. Of course, when it is burned and

not buried, we do not have the methane

buildup. So this would give those communities great flexibility because you

do not need to monitor where you did

not bury and you did burn.

So I think that is another dimension

which is really attractive and, frankly,

the main reason I support this amendment.

So this Senator will be voting for the

amendment, and I congratulate the

Senator on his amendment.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is attempting to

address the concerns of small communities, a concern which we all share.

Under the bill before us, and according

to pursuant regulations, generally the

State of New Mexico can already now

do what this amendment asks EPA in

to do. That is quite clear.

The Senator from New Mexico thinks

there is some ambiguity, and I respect

the Senator’s view there might be some

ambiguity, although we checked with

the EPA and checked the regulations

and today they can do already what

New Mexico wants to do.

I am in a bit of an awkward position

because the State of Montana, frankly,

sent me a letter expressing their reservations about this amendment. Their

reservations generally revolve around

the following point; namely, that when

the landfill regulations went into effect in 1991, States acted pursuant to

these regulations. And under these regulations virtually all authority was
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6715

delegated to the States—43 States have

approved plans, the State of Montana

is one, the State of New Mexico is another—and they began to plan.

One of the goals under each of the

State plans is to not only be sure

small, local communities are able to

develop their landfills in a commonsense way, but also to consolidate landfills where, in the opinion of the State,

it makes sense.

So the State of Montana is saying

this is probably not a great problem,

this amendment. However it is changing horses in the middle of the stream.

It has the effect of changing regulations after 1991. The State of Montana

is doing fine with the 1991 regulations,

and they are also working with some

communities, small communities, to

keep their landfills open but consolidating other landfills because you need

volume to make landfills economically

feasible. This amendment might have

the effect of disrupting those States’

efforts to try to get some consolidation.

It is not a major point. I do not mean

to raise it in any serious degree, but it

is a consideration I think all States

have when they are adopting their

plans. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on the

Domenici amendment there appears to

be no further debate. I support the

amendment and also want to say the

views of the Senator from Montana

were certainly worthy of consideration.

We are ready to go forward with this

amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent Senator

KEMPTHORNE and Senator SMITH be

shown as original cosponsors of this

amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the floor

managers. With regard to the ambiguity as to whether States are currently

given adequate flexiblity over their

regulation of small landfills, I might

say to my friend from Montana we received a call the day before yesterday

from New Mexico’s environmental department asking us to do this. They,

and I, are still convinced that this

amendment will help States with their

small landfill problems. But I very

much appreciate clarifying this, and I

thank my friend for that.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all

time yielded back? All the time has

been yielded back.

If there be no further debate, the

question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1092) was agreed

to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that

motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

STATES’ AUTHORITY

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I

would like to take this opportunity to

clarify the meaning of language contained in title I of S. 534, regarding the

Governors’ authority to ban interstate

waste shipments. Section 4011(a)(4)(A)

limits that authority when its exercise

would ‘‘result in a violation of, or

would otherwise be inconsistent with,

the terms of a host community agreement or a permit issued from the State

to receive out-or-State municipal solid

waste.’’

During the committee markup on

this title, the chairman of the committee and I engaged in a colloquy in the

business meeting of the Environment

and Public Works Committee on March

23, 1995, regarding the meaning of this

provision in the case of a host community agreement that contains no tonnage limitation. The chairman agreed

with me that where there is no specified tonnage amount in a host community agreement, a Governor’s ban of

interstate waste shipments to a facility covered by such an agreement

would be in violation, or inconsistent

with, the terms of the host community

agreement.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the

distinguished chairman of the committee whether this colloquy still reflects

the committee’s understanding about

how the 4011(a)(4)(A) limitation should

be interpreted when a host community

agreement contains no specified tonnage amount?

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from

Idaho is correct. Where a host community agreement contains no specified

tonnage, a Governor’s use of his authority to ban interstate waste shipments would be in violation of, or inconsistent with, the terms of the host

community agreement.

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If a Governor

imposes a cap at 1993 tonnage levels on

waste received, affecting a facility

with a host community agreement that

does not have a tonnage limitation,

would the cap be considered to be inconsistent with the host community

agreement?

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct,

a cap would be inconsistent with such

an agreement.

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Does the provision, as interpreted, apply only prospectively, or is it intended to cover

host community agreements entered

into, or permits issued by a State, both

before and after enactment of section

4011?

Mr. CHAFEE. The provision applies

both retroactively and prospectively to

those host community agreements that

were in effect before and after the date

of enactment.

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Has anything

happened during the course of this

floor debate on the bill to change this

understanding as to the interpretation

of this provision, section 4011(a)(4)(A)?

Mr. CHAFEE. No. But it is this Senator’s view that this colloquy confirming our understanding of section

4011(a)(4)(A), as previously set forth in

the committee business meeting, does

not apply to amendment 1077, an

amendment that was offered by Senator COATS and only affects the State

of Indiana.

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you, Mr.

President.

Mr. SIMPSON. We are once again

trying to pass legislation dealing with

the export of solid waste from one

State to another. This issue has become a concern because some of the

large Northeastern States have been

shipping large amounts of garbage to

States such as Indiana, Pennsylvania,

and Virginia for disposal. This waste is

being exported in part because the cost

of disposing of this waste in another

State, even after figuring in shipping

costs, is less than the cost of disposal

in the home State.

We find that high population States

such as New Jersey and New York have

been running short of landfill capacity.

That has been caused by a shortage of

usable land and more importantly because State and local governments

have not been building new landfill capacity or new incinerators. Local citizens in these area have opposed such

efforts. This is a classic example of the

‘‘not in my back yard’’ or ‘‘NIMBY’’

principle. The citizens in States generating the waste oppose the construction of new incinerators. With proper

environmental controls incinerators

may be one of the best methods of disposal. Heat energy can be recovered

from burning trash and we do not end

up with the huge volume that must be

buried in a landfill. Without local disposal options the next option becomes

shipping trash somewhere else and disposing of it in a neighbors back yard.

Now the folks who have been receiving

trash from out of State are finding

their landfill capacity being used up by

citizens who live hundreds of miles

away. They are saying ‘‘not in my

backyard either’’ and I can understand

their frustration.

The people of Wyoming do not want

trash being brought in from other

States in large quantities because others will not make the tough political

decisions needed to expand landfill capacity or to build incinerators. Wyoming is the largest coal producing

State in the Nation. We have large

open pit coal mines. We had a proposal

floating around in my State at one

time to bring empty coal train cars

back into the State loaded with garbage to be dumped in the old open pit

mines. Someone thought that was a

marvelous idea. The people of Wyoming did not think it was a marvelous

idea though. There was a hue and cry

across the land when that trial balloon

was floated. The opposition to this proposal was vocal and near unanimous.

So I am pleased that we are granting

Governors authority to limit the importation of waste from out of State. I

understand the issue with the commerce clause. But we do need to ensure
S6716 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

that some States will not just take the

easy way out and send their problems

down the road to someone else. This is

not about interstate commerce—this is

about States and counties failing to

face up to their own problems and responsibilities.

We see some of the same issue when

dealing with low level nuclear waste.

We have set up a system of compacts

where States join together and make

group decisions about where to locate

low level waste disposal sites. Every

State generates low level waste and it

must be disposed of in a thoughtful

manner. But the State compact system

does not work well for interstate trash

because there are just a few States

with huge volumes of waste and no

place to put it. So we are letting individual States limit or accept out of

State waste as they see fit.

I trust that this legislation will ensure that the exporting States will

take a more constructive approach to

this problem in the future. Citizens of

every State must recognize that as

consumers they are responsible for the

waste they generate and they must

bite the bullet and deal with it locally.

I trust we can get this bill through

conference and to the President in a

timely fashion. We came very close

last year to getting it done but the bill

died the last day of the session. Senator CHAFEE and Senator SMITH have

done yeoman work on this bill and I

commend them for their efforts and I

look forward to the passage of this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in

support of the bill, S. 534, as amended.

Let me first thank Senator CHAFEE,

the chairman of the full Environment

and Public Works Committee, and Senator SMITH, the chairman of the subcommittee, for their assistance to Senator COHEN and me on several amendments of great importance to the people of Maine. We offered three amendments to this bill, and all of them have

been accepted, for which I am very

grateful. The amendments relate to

put-or-pay contracts, the term ‘‘original facility’’ on page 58 of the bill, and

to the ‘‘substantial construction’’ requirement on page 56.

I would also like to thank the ranking members of the full committee and

the subcommittee, Senator BAUCUS and

Senator LAUTENBERG, for their cooperation and acceptance of our

amendments.

And finally, I would like to thank my

colleague from Maine, Senator COHEN,

for working with me on these amendments on behalf of the State of Maine.

Mr. President, Maine has had a keen

interest in the issue of flow control

since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its

ruling in C&A Carbone, Inc. versus

Town of Clarkstown, New York almost

1 year ago today, on May 15, 1994. That

ruling, which invalidated municipal

solid waste flow control ordinances

across the country, threatened to unravel the painstakingly crafted waste

management systems of local governments in Maine and many other States.

Over 200 municipalities in my State

made expensive investments in modern

waste-to-energy facilities based on the

assumption that flow control authority

would be available to them. As a result

of the Carbone decision, they now fear

for their future financial well-being.

S. 534 focuses primarily on municipalities that issued bonds to pay for

the construction and operation of designated waste management facilities

like waste-to-energy plants. These municipalities relied on flow control ordinances to meet their financial obligations and to repay the bonds. The bill

contains a grandfather provision that

allows these communities to continue

using flow control as long as they enacted their original flow control ordinances and designated their waste

management facilities before May 15,

1994.

At first glance, the bill’s grandfather

provision would appear to protect the

communities associated with the Regional Waste Systems waste-to-energy

plant in Portland, ME, and the MidMaine Waste Action Corp. plant in Auburn, ME. These municipalities banded

together in the 1980’s to construct the

facilities, and they issued bonds to pay

for that construction. Flow control ordinances were enacted to guarantee delivery of sufficient amounts of waste to

the facilities. But separate provisions

in the bill would unintentionally and

unfairly exclude many of these communities, and Senator COHEN and I offered

amendments to rectify these problems.

The first problem relates to the bill’s

use of the term ‘‘original facility’’

when it defines the duration of the flow

control authority available to qualified

political subdivisions in the future.

Title II, subsection (b)(4)(C) allows

qualified municipalities to continue

using flow control through the end of

the remaining useful life of the original waste management facilities that

had been designated. The problem with

the term ‘‘original facility’’ is that it

could be interpreted to exclude facilities that had been the subject of the

original designation by a group of municipalities, but that had also been

overhauled prior to the Carbone decision.

The MMWAC facility in Auburn, ME,

is one facility that could have been unintentionally excluded from S. 534’s

grandfather provisions by this language. Due to significant deficiencies,

the MMWAC plant, which had been

constructed in 1988, was temporarily

shut down in 1990, and subsequently

overhauled. The plant resumed operations in 1992, and it has functioned

well since that time. Under the original language of the bill, a party could

have argued that because of the renovations, MMWAC could not be considered an original facility, and therefore

flow control would not be available to

its member municipalities through the

plant’s remaining useful life.

The amendment that I offered with

Senator COHEN, and which has been accepted, deletes the word ‘‘original,’’

and ensures that municipalities whose

designated waste management facilities were in operation as of May 15,

1994, will be able to continue using flow

control through the remaining useful

life of the facility.

Another problem in S. 534 relates to

the ‘substantial construction’’ requirement found in title II, subsection

(b)(1)(B). This provision States that

qualified municipalities would only be

able to use flow control if the ordinance or legally binding provision in

existence before Carbone had been enacted or signed before ‘‘substantial

construction’’ of the designated facility had been completed. Unfortunately,

more than 61 municipalities in Maine

had enacted flow control ordinances or

legally binding provisions after the

substantial construction of their designated facilities had been completed.

Even more problematic, this provision requires the ‘‘substantial

contruction’’ to have been completed

after the ‘‘effective date’’ of the ordinance or provision, rather than the

date of enactment. As a result of this

language, most of the municipalities in

Maine that would otherwise qualify for

S. 534’s grandfather provision would be

denied the bill’s protection. Municipalities in Tennessee, Michigan, and

other States would be similarly affected.

In recognition of the unintentional

problems that this language poses for

so many otherwise qualified municipalities, I joined Senators COHEN,

SMITH, and THOMPSON in offering an

amendment to strike this language. As

I noted earlier, that amendment has

been accepted by the managers of the

bill.

The last amendment that Senator

COHEN and I offered relates to put-orpay contracts. Municipalities that

signed put-or-pay contracts with designated facilities prior to Carbone, but

that did not enact flow control ordinances before that date, do not qualify

for flow control authority in S. 534 as

written. Under a put-or-pay contract, a

municipality agrees to deliver a specified amount of waste to the designated

waste management facility every

month. If the muncipality cannot deliver the required amount of waste,

then it must pay the facility for the

waste that was not delivered.

In Maine, 160 communities in the

sparsely populated central, eastern,

and northern parts of the State determined that the put-or-pay approach

was the best one for them, and they

signed contracts with the Penobscot

Energy Recovery Corp. [PERC] in

Orrington, a $100 million waste-to-energy plant.

These cities and towns signed longterm contracts with PERC in response

to the same policy signals from the

Federal and State governments as communities that actually issued bonds to

pay for municipally-owned facilities.

The difference is that the PERC towns

chose a somewhat different route. They
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6717

decided to sign put-or-pay contracts

with a privately owned waste-to-energy

plant that was created in response to a

request for proposals from these communities.

The original contracts, which were

30-years long and set a tipping fee at

$10 a ton, were signed in 1988. Due to financial difficulties that threatened the

plant in 1989, however, the contracts

were renegotiated.

The new contracts increased the tipping fee fourfold, to $42 a ton. The municipalities agreed to sacrifice in the

short-term and pay such a large fee increase for two reasons: to finance essential capital improvements to the

plant to help it run more efficiently;

and to ensure a stable tipping fee over

the life of the contract.

In addition, the new contracts not

only required each municipality to deliver a specified amount of waste, but

they included a kind of aggregate putor-pay provision which allows the

PERC facility to void the existing contracts if the total amount of waste

from all member communities declines

below a specified minimum tonnage.

Finally, the new contracts provided

that the cities and towns that signed

would receive 50 percent of any distributable profits earned by the plant.

After signing the contracts, some of

the larger cities in this region of Maine

like Waterville, and Bangor—cities

that have a council form of government—enacted flow control ordinances

to ensure that they could deliver the

minimum amount of waste specified in

the contract. But most of the 160 towns

are very small, and they rely on town

meetings for public decisionmaking. As

anyone familiar with the town meeting

form of government knows, the meetings are held infrequently, and the

towns generally do not vote on measures unless they must be addressed at

that particular time.

Consequently, after signing the putor-pay contracts, a lot of the Maine

towns deferred passage of flow control

ordinances in the hope that they could

deliver the required amount of waste

without having to go through the process of formally enacting a flow control

ordinance. But these towns always believed that, if necessary, they could resort to flow control to guarantee delivery of the amount of waste specified in

their contracts. If they had known that

flow control would not be an option,

most, if not all, of them would not

have signed these contracts. The

Carbone decision eliminated the flow

control option, changing the rules in

the middle of the game, and leaving

these communities vulnerable to significant financial hardship if they

being to have trouble delivering the

amount of waste required in their contracts.

Without flow control, these towns

may not only find it more difficult to

meet their individual contractual obligations, however. They could fail to

meet their aggregate tonnage requirements as well, giving PERC’s owners

the right to void all 160 of the contracts and to initiate a new round of

negotiations.

The current contract provide stable

tipping fees and terms for the member

municipalities. And it allows them to

receive half the profits generated by

the facility—which is only reasonable

since the communities have paid for

necessary capital improvements

through the higher tipping fees negotiated in 1989 and 1990.

These cities and towns cannot afford

to lose this arrangement. Because they

are dispersed across a large, rural region, and because nearly all of the

local landfills have had to close due to

Federal and State mandates, the PERC

waste-to-energy plant is the only real

waste disposal option for most of the

160 towns. Under a renegotiation, these

towns, tucked away in the far northeastern corner of the United States,

will find themselves facing what

amounts to a waste disposal monopoly.

Needless to say, in such a weak negotiating position, the towns could see

their waste disposal costs rise sharply,

despite having already invested so

much money to make the plant viable.

And they could lose the opportunity to

get a return on the substantial investment that they made in this facility

through the higher tipping fees negotiated in 1990.

Mr. President, this elaborate but

workable waste disposal system for

central, northern, and eastern Maine

was predicated on the understanding

that flow control would be available to

all participating communities. Since

flow control was overturned by

Carbone, the communities of the region

have been placed in a very vulnerable

position, one which they would not

have placed themselves in had flow

control not been an option.

In order to avoid substantial financial hardship in the future, put-or-pay

communities that signed contracts before Carbone must retain the authority

to enact flow control ordinances if they

need to. The net effect of the Carbone

decision on these communities is not

dramatically different from the decision’s effect on other communities that

actually issued bonds for their own facilities. In both cases, a court decision

leaves the communities dangerously

exposed to financial hardship. In both

cases, the communities designed new

waste systems in response to Federal

and State policies that encouraged

them to do so. And in both cases, the

systems were predicated on access to

flow control. Considering these

similarities, the put-or-pay communities do not deserve to be treated differently and excluded from the flow

control grandfather in S. 534.

The amendment offered by Senator

COHEN and I simply clarifies that the

term ‘‘legally binding provision’’ in

title II, subsection (b) of the bill, includes put-or-pay agreements of the

kind negotiated in Maine. As a result

of this clarification, the municipalities

that have contracted with the PERC

facility will continue to have access to

flow control, and their intricate but

successful waste management system

will remain intact. I am very pleased

that the managers of the bill agreed to

accept this important amendment.

Mr. President, with these amendments, S. 534 treats all deserving municipalities equitably, without creating

loopholes for other municipalities that

did not rely on flow control before the

Carbone decision. The bill as amended

restores fairness for local governments

that acted and invested in good faith,

according to the rules that existed before May 15, 1994,

Senators CHAFEE, SMITH, BAUCUS, and

LAUTENBERG deserve credit for crafting

a reasonable and balanced compromise

bill, and I am happy to announce my

support for it.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, over the

past several years the Senate has discussed the issue of interstate trash and

has passed two interstate trash bills.

The provisions contained within those

bills were the result of significant efforts and provided authorization for an

integrated approach to interstate trash

control. The bill before us today accomplishes similar goals, but also addresses flow control and reinstates the

ground water monitoring exemption

for small landfills.

I commend the efforts of Senator

COATS who has worked so hard for the

past several years to pass such a bill.

Senator CHAFEE, Senator SMITH, and

others have all worked extensively on

this legislation. I believe the authority

granted to Governors provides the

right flexibility, with local community

participation being an important part

of this legislation. While I remain concerned about long term implications of

the flow control provisions, I believe

the committee sought to achieve a balance that provides security for existing

flow control authorities while providing for a competitive marketplace in

the future.

Public and private authorities need

to work together in a free market system to address waste management concerns. Congress should only work to assist these decisions, not impede sound

environment practices, by providing

flexibility to State and local governments to their waste management

needs.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise

today in support of passage of the

Interstate Transportation of Municipal

Solid Waste Act of 1995. Although I

support more stringent restrictions on

waste imports, I believe that this legislation is a necessary tool for Ohio and

other importing States for implementation of their solid waste management

plans.

The accumulation of solid waste in

municipal landfills is one of the most

urgent and fundamental environmental

problems facing Federal, State, and

local officials today. According to the

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [OEPA], all the landfills in Ohio
S6718 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

could be full by the year 2000. For several years, I have supported and voted

for measures to stem the tide of interstate waste, and I commend my colleague, Senator COATS, for his perseverance on this important issue. In

1992, I voted for the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Waste Act

which passed the Senate on a vote of

89–2. In 1993, I was an original cosponsor of legislation to restrict imported

waste. I am pleased that the Senate is

again acting to address this issue, and

it is my hope that this year these restrictions will be enacted into law.

Mr. President, Ohio currently receives about 1.7 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other

States. As old landfills are closed or

reach capacity, Ohio has reached the

point where 28 of the 88 counties have

no landfill, and 35 have 5 years or less

capacity remaining. Clearly, my State

cannot implement its environmental

objectives and deal with thousands of

tons of imported trash at the same

time.

The increasing flood of waste imports

from out-of-State is a serious threat to

the health and safety of Ohioans and to

the environment in my State and the

other States that receive vast quantities of imported waste. Ohio has

taken strong and effective actions to

reduce its waste generation and to recycle waste. However, my State’s efforts are being overwhelmed by trash

from other States.

Mr. President, this bill takes several

steps that will reduce the amount of

out-of-State waste coming into Ohio

and other States. The bill will allow

Governors to immediately freeze outof-State waste at 1993 levels at facilities that received imported waste in

1993. In addition, the bill contains

strengthened authority to impose an

import control, or ratchet, on out-ofState waste. I worked with my colleagues from the other largest importing States—Michigan, Pennsylvania,

and Indiana—to make this ratchet

more effective by placing tougher limitations on waste exports.

This legislation also contains provisions to restore local authority to control the flow of municipal solid waste.

Many county commissioners and solid

waste district managers have expressed

concerns to me about the need for flow

control authority to enforce solid

waste planning goals as well as recycling mandates. Although this bill does

not accommodate each individual situation in Ohio, it is a strong statement

about the necessity of local flow control authority, and I will continue to

work through the House-Senate Conference to ensure that Ohio’s specific

needs are met.

Mr. President, a national solution to

the problem of interstate waste is long

overdue. We must act decisively, and

we must act now to avert a national

crisis in solid waste disposal. I urge my

colleagues to join me in supporting

this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate is about to pass S. 534, the Interstate Transportation of Municipal

Solid Waste Act of 1995. I am pleased

that the Senate is moving early in this

session toward resolving this important matter.

This bill is a positive step in the

right direction. It has been much improved during the amendment process

on the floor, particularly with respect

to the provisions on flow control authority. The bill now more clearly provides counties in Michigan with the

ability to protect investments they

have made in recycling and waste reduction programs, or disposal facilities, using their previously existing authority to control the out-flow of municipal solid waste and recyclables

from their jurisdiction.

Several amendments, in particular,

should alleviate local government concerns about the effects of the Supreme

Court’s Carbone decision. These

amendments provide the Grand Traverse, Clinton, and other Michigan

counties, should be able to continue to

use flow control to generate revenue to

fund waste management programs, including recycling. And, Kent County,

MI, is more clearly grandfathered to

continue to exercise its flow control

authority.

The bill also provides States and

local governments with the ability to

control the importation of municipal

solid waste into their jurisdiction. At

the request of local governments, Governors would be able to half the shipment of waste to disposal facilities in

their States that did not receive outof-State waste in 1993. Governors will

be able to freeze shipments of waste to

landfills and incinerators at 1993 levels.

And, Governors would also be authorized to gradually limit imports of

waste from States that did not reduce

the amounts of waste they exported.

I offered an amendment to clarify

that the definition of ‘‘out-of-State

municipal solid waste’’ should include

out-of-country waste, because of Michigan’s experience with Canadian waste.

I also supported another amendment

that authorized the EPA to conduct a

study of solid waste management issues associated with increased border

movement of waste due to NAFTA.

Mr. President, I would prefer that the

Senate’s’s bill include a requirement

that halted all waste imports until

such time as a host community agreement could be negotiated between a

local government and a waste exporter.

Such an agreement would specify the

quantities out-of-State municipal solid

waste that would be acceptable to the

local government for disposal in their

jurisdiction.

Also, construction and demolition debris has been a problem at Michigan

disposal facilities for some time. I

would hope that the conferees could

find a way to include this waste in the

definition of municipal solid waste or

otherwise provide local governments

with some measure of control over its

disposal. I cosponsored Senator

DEWINE’s amendment to do this, but

the amendment was ultimately not offered because of the threat of a filibuster for States that export large

quantities of this waste.

Michigan is a net importer of municipal solid waste [MSW]. We receive

MSW from sources all over the country

and Canada. For many years, Michigan

had a model comprehensive solid waste

management and planning system that

provided for long-term local waste disposal needs. Starting with the Fort

Gratiot Sanitary Landfill case in 1992

and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, this system was thrown into disarray. These decisions jeopardized

good-faith investments made by State

and local governments in programs and

facilities to manage municipal waste in

an environmentally sound, cost-effective manner.

Congress should act quickly and explicitly to put municipal solid waste

disposal decisions back into the hands

of the people most directly affected by

them and best suited to make them—

the taxpayers of the municipalities

that generate the waste and the States.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I

rise today in support for the passage of

S. 534, the Interstate Transportation of

Solid Waste Act of 1995. This legislation is long overdue. For too long

States like Kentucky have been forced

to deal with the uncontrollable flows of

out-of-State waste. I do not need to remind my colleagues of the garbage

barge in 1987 that sailed up and down

the east coast looking for a place to deposit its foul load. It came to symbolize our Nation’s burgeoning solid waste

problem.

Since then, States and communities

have attempted to manage their own

waste flows, but were helpless to stop

the flow of out-of-State waste. For the

past 6 years, I have worked to provide

States the authority to control the

waste being sent to their State. Finally, we have a bill that allows States

to say no to out-of-State trash.

It is particularly troubling to think

that there are States and localities

that have either been unwilling or unable to dispose of their own garbage in

a responsible manner, forcing it on

States like Kentucky. The disposal of

garbage is truly a local concern and

should be handled that way. I do not

believe States should be forced to share

valuable landfill space with out-ofState waste they do not want.

Gone are the days of open dumps and

multitudes of cheap landfills. in 1996,

new landfill standards will be implemented mandating liners, leachate collection and treatment and ground

water monitoring. The EPA has estimated that nearly half of the Nation’s

6,000 landfills will be closed. This will

obviously force many States to rethink

their disposal needs. Therefore, it is

critical that States are provided the

authority to control out-of-State garbage.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6719

Last week, I offered an amendment

that was accepted to protect the authority of States and regional authorities to develop and implement comprehensive waste reduction strategies

in an effort to conserve costly landfill

space.

For the past 6 years, I have worked

hard to ensure that States and localities are given the discretion to manage their own waste and to protect

themselves from becoming a dumping

ground for those States that take the

position of ‘‘out of State, out of mind.’’

I refuse to allow Kentucky to become a

garbage colony.

In 1990, I introduced S. 2691, a bill to

give States the ability to fight longhaul dumping by charging higher fees

for disposal of waste coming from other

States. This bill passed the Senate

with 68 votes.

During the 102d Congress, I introduced S. 197 to once again provide

States the authority to impose a fee

differential for out-of-State waste. In

1992, Senator COATS and I joined forced

and produced comprehensive legislation to provide States the authority to

regulate waste. That same year, the

Senate passed an interstate waste bill

by an overwhelming vote of 88–2. Unfortunately, the bill died in the House.

During the 103d Congress, I joined

with Senators COATS and Boren in introducing S. 439. Although the Senate

didn’t act until late in the session,

Congress came extremely close to passing an interstate waste bill. Again, the

House stalled long enough to effectively kill the bill on the last day of

the session.

I am encouraged by the quick action

taken by the committee under the

leadership of Senator SMITH and the

chairman, Senator CHAFEE to address

the problem of interstate waste. I am

hopeful that the House will work expeditiously to pass their own interstate

waste bill so that we can finally give

States the authority to control out-ofState waste and protect their own

landfill space.

I urge my colleagues to join me in

support of this legislation.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today,

for the third time, the Senate is attempting to resolve the many difficult

issues that are involved with municipal

solid waste flows. For the third time in

the last 6 years, I have worked with my

colleague on the Environment Committee, Senator LAUTENBERG, to defend

our home State of New Jersey and the

many ways in which we handle, recycle, or dispose of the tons of municipal

solid waste produced every year.

Last Congress, we were within a single vote of resolving this issue. All of

the relevant parties hammered out a

bill that was as fair as it could be to

those States that are called waste exporters and those States that are waste

importers—actually, most states are

both. It responded to the needs of

States that tried to manage solid waste

flows within their boundaries. It tried

to balance the contradictory impulses

to create a more competitive waste

market or to impose more restrictions

on waste flow.

It was not a great bill. But it was a

pretty fair bill. And it was as least reasonably consistent. When the bill now

before us was first reported to the Senate floor, it was a poor facsimile of last

year’s effort. Yet, fortunately, the

bill’s managers were willing to work

with Senator LAUTENBERG, State officials, and myself to guarantee New Jersey the security we needed to move forward on this most contentious issue.

Mr. President, this is not the easiest

bill to support. Title I of this bill will

be restrictive of interstate trade. It

will give Governors and citizens the

real ability to slow and ultimately stop

the flow of municipal solid waste from

State to State. Fundamentally, these

actions are anticompetitive. They will

result in more expensive waste disposal

for many Americans and American

businesses.

Title II, however, has quite a different purpose. Title II responds to recent legal decisions that, if left standing, would greatly reduce the ability of

a State to manage waste flows within

its own borders. Because of this title II,

as modified on the Senate floor, New

Jersey will be able to continue its efforts to control and reduce the municipal waste flow.

For years, many States have anticipated the need to manage internally

waste flows, exactly because of the

pressures for and against exports, as

well as environmental concerns. In my

State, we started very early to close

inadequate landfills and waste facilities. Early on, we realized that to do

the job of waste disposal right was neither cheap nor easy. New Jersey responded with State law setting up a

broad program of environmentally progressive waste facilities.

These facilities were not and are not

cheap. Many counties in my State were

essentially compelled to build facilities

that they probably—or certainly—

would not have built otherwise. Now

these counties depend on mandated

trash flows for revenue. Unfortunately,

without some legislative redress, these

revenues are at risk for many facilities. Additionally, the potential financial collapse of authorized waste facilities would certainly make it far less

likely—perhaps exceedingly unlikely—

that my State ever develops a truly

comprehensive waste management plan

again.

I have heard the arguments that, in a

world of competition, we do not need to

allow States flow-control authority.

Trash would end up in the lowest cost

facilities that meet the appropriate environmental requirements. Consumers

and businesses would save money and

the environment could be protected in

this world. But title I obliterates any

hope of truly competitive markets in

solid waste. Once title I is adopted,

trash is transformed from an issue of

commerce to an issue of baldfaced politics. In such a world, my State has to

have effective flow-control authority

and that authority is provided in title

II of this bill.

In the best of all worlds, frankly, we

probably would not be passing any bill.

We would simply recognize that trash

represents goods in commerce; that a

bag of potato chips which moves freely

from State to State is not mysteriously transformed once the chips are

eaten. But all of my experience dealing

with the interstate waste issue confirms to me that we are not living in

that world now. I have seen political

commercials run attacking my State. I

have seen demagoguery. And I have

seen efforts that were far more restrictive of interstate waste flows pass this

body with overwhelming support.

Mr. President, I have come to conclude that this bill does protect my

State and will give us the flexibility we

need to resolve these waste flow issues.

To be truthful, I am not wild about

this bill. However, it can be the basis

for a resolution of this matter and it is

a compromise that I will support, notwithstanding my obvious reservations.

FLOW CONTROL AND INTERSTATE WASTE

Mrs. BOXER. I voted against final

passage of S. 534, which amends the

Solid Waste Disposal Act, because the

final bill does not adequately address

the needs of many California cities and

counties which have incurred debt to

achieve California’s ambitious integrated waste management requirements.

From the beginning, I have had concerns about the impact of this bill on

California. California requires its communities to meet stringent recycling

and waste reduction goals—a 25-percent reduction by the beginning of this

year and 50 percent by the turn of the

century. To meet these goals, California communities must aggressively

manage their municipal solid waste.

However, California communities do

not use statutory flow control authority, as do communities in many other

States. Instead, California communities rely on contracts with private

companies to ensure that their waste

goes to a designated recycling plant or

other facility. Consequently, the California League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties

asked me to try to amend the bill to

ensure that it would not restrict their

ability to employ these contractual

agreements.

I worked with my colleagues on the

Environment and Public Works Committee, and with Senator FEINSTEIN in

the full Senate, to try to amend the

bill to address the needs of California

cities and counties. Unfortunately, our

efforts failed. I understand that the bill

moving through the House of Representatives may be more favorable to

interests of California cities and counties. If that is the case, and this bill is

amended in conference to address some

of my concerns, I will reconsider my

position when the Senate votes on a

conference report.
S6720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would

like to offer my support for S. 534, as

amended, and to discuss the importance of flow control to the State of

Connecticut.

I want to thank the chairman, Senator CHAFEE, and ranking member,

Senator BAUCUS, of the Environment

and Public Works Committee for moving forward with this important legislation.

The bill, as crafted by Senators

SMITH and CHAFEE, was much narrower

than the compromise legislation

agreed to at the end of the 103d Congress. The bill before us today, S. 534,

seeks to protect only public debt incurred by municipalities to construct

waste disposal facilities. Flow control

authority would apply to those communities that were operating or constructing their own disposal facilities,

or had contracted for such disposal

prior to the May 1994, Carbone decision. There is to be absolutely no prospective flow control—flow control authority would cease 30 years after enactment of the legislation.

Unfortunately not all Connecticut

mnnicipalities and public service authorities were protected by the original

language in S. 534. Therefore, Senator

LIEBERMAN and I offered amendments

at the committee markup and on the

floor of this body. The Senate agreed to

our amendments which contained technical changes and small provisions intended to address situations unique to

Connecticut.

It is my belief that State and local

governments and State-created entities have a vested interest in how solid

waste produced within their borders is

transported and disposed. Flow control

is the backbone of Connecticut’s integrated waste management plan. Localities made significant capital investments to construct waste disposal facilities. Approximately 86 percent of

Connecticut’s waste is disposed of in

these state-of-the-art facilities. The

State, and ultimately the taxpayers,

are backing nearly $500 million in

bonds that were used to finance the

construction of regional waste disposal

centers and recycling transfer stations.

Profits from the facilities, used to pay

off the bonds, were to be ensured by

flow control authority. Without the

ability to direct waste to appropriate

facilities, these revenue bonds would be

in jeopardy.

Again, I thank the managers of this

bill for working with staff to understand and incorporate the needs of individual States. If this legislation

passes today, I am confident that Connecticut municipalities and localities

around the Nation will be able to administer their solid waste management

systems in environmentally sound and

fiscally responsible manners. Therefore, I hope my fellow Senators will

support this bill and I urge the House

of Representatives to take up this

measure in a timely manner.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the committee substitute.

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might

inquire of the Chair as to what vote it

would be proper to request the yeas

and nays on. At what stage in what

vote?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On final

passage.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, the committee substitute is

agreed to.

So the committee substitute was

agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on the engrossment and

third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed

for a third reading and was read the

third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Indiana will be here

in a few minutes and would like to

make a statement on the bill. That

would be the only business in connection with this legislation.

So I ask unanimous consent that at

the hour of 2:15 today, the Senate proceed to a vote on final passage of S. 534,

as amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for

the yeas and nays on final passage.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would

like to take this opportunity to thank

the staff on both sides of the aisle for

their work on this bill. The Senate has

been grappling with these issues for

several years. They are very contentious. They are very arcane. They are

hard to understand and in many respects they are totally confusing.

But, nonetheless, I believe we came

out with a bill that is balanced on the

interstate portion of the bill. The bill

in effect is divided into three sections,

the first being the interstate part. It is

very difficult balancing the views of

the importing States, those who have

garbage shipped into them, and those

who are the exporting States who do

not want to be cut from exporting their

trash. We tried to wrestle with that. I

hope and I believe we have been successful.

I hope that the package we put together will resolve many of the differences that have prevented a solution

to the interstate waste.

The flow control dilemma has been a

separate one. We have had several

votes in connection with that, not

leaving everybody happy, but hopefully

this will resolve itself in the months

and years to come.

I want to thank the staffs of Senator

D’AMATO and Senator COATS who labored hard to develop the compromise

on title I, the interstate portion of the

bill. I would like to thank Jim McCarthy of the Congressional Research

Service, George Hall of the EPA, and

Tim Trushel of the Senate Legislative

Counsel’s office for their work in facilitating passage.

On our side of the aisle, the staff, I

want to thank John Grzebian and

Steve Shimberg, and Jeff Merrifield

who worked so hard on this.

Senator D’AMATO’s office, Peter

Phipps; Senator COATS’ office, Sharon

Soderstrom and Melissa Murrell.

Of course, we are deeply indebted for

the splendid work of the ranking member of the committee, the senior Senator from Montana who has always

been helpful and knowledgeable on

these difficult issues. I want to pay my

respects to him for the splendid work

he has done, and to Cliff Rothenstein

and Tom Sliter and Scott Slesinger

also.

So, Mr. President, we are winding up

a long and contentious period. If all

goes well, this will be approved at 2:15

this afternoon.

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be

brief because we have been so long on

this bill—it has been 6 years—so that

we do not prolong the agony and get it

passed, and very much hope the House

also passes a similar bill so that we can

deal with this in this Congress finally.

To follow up on the points of the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman

of the committee, JOHN CHAFEE, it is

the staff around here that does the

work. All Senators know that. They

work very, very hard, long, long hours,

know the details, know the substance,

and are not frankly sufficiently complimented I think for all the work they

do.

Mr. President, I think that the most

noble human endeavor is service. It is

service to friends, it is service to families, to the church, to the community,

to the State, and the Nation—service.

Some of us who spend our lives in

public service get all of the attention

and the thanks for a lot of what we do.

I must say we get a lot of a contention

and criticism for what we allegedly do

and do not do as well. But it is the

staff, it is the people around here who

do the work who get no attention, who

do not get thanked who really deserve

it for all the work they do. And to

again give the names because these are

the people who did most of the work on
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6721

the majority side, John Grzebian, who

was very, very diligent, very helpful.

We had many late-night meetings back

in the cloakrooms trying to work this

out, and John is particularly helpful.

Steve Shimberg, staff director for the

committee, we have known Steve for

many years, those of us who have been

on the committee. He is very knowledgeable, very gracious, very helpful;

and also Jeff Merrifield who is a bit

new to this but nevertheless very, very

competent, very diligent, as everyone

on the staff working.

On the minority side, Tom Sliter,

who is the minority staff director, very

gracious, and knowledgeable. I have

worked with Tom for many years. I

know no one who is more competent.

Tom is very effective and very knowledgeable and substantive; that is, not

acrimonious, not bitter, and not nasty

but very, very solid and very gracious.

The same with Cliff Rothenstein. I

frankly do not know anybody not only

on Capitol Hill but in this town who

knows more about this subject than

Cliff. That is because Cliff has been

working on it for 6 years. Cliff is bound

to know this subject very well, and

does, and frankly when we got to a lot

of the parts of the amendments we

were trying to work out, it was Cliff

who was able to provide the solution or

the idea of bringing it together.

Mike Evans, who is the minority

chief counsel, has also worked on this

issue for several years. Mike’s knowledge of the issue and his advice was

very helpful throughout the course of

this bill.

Scott Slesinger works for Senator

LAUTENBERG, the ranking minority

member of the relevant subcommittee.

Scott, too, has added a lot of advice all

along every stage of this bill.

We compliment the Senators here on

the floor very often. I will not at this

point again compliment all the Senators. I have done so many times on

this bill. But I want to at this time

highlight the staff, and those are the

key staff that have worked very diligently. I think all should pause for a

moment and reflect to thank them for

all of their effort.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire is the

chairman of the subcommittee that

dealt with this legislation and has done

wonderful service here on the floor despite demands on his time with very

difficult matters that came up simultaneously.

So I want to pay tribute to Senator

SMITH for his very, very helpful support

on this entire legislation, for his

knowledge of it, and the fact that he

moved along so swiftly in the subcommittee. We would not be here but

for Senator SMITH taking charge of

that subcommittee and determining

that this bill was going to come to the

floor in due order and in short order.

So we are very grateful to Senator

SMITH for what he has done and appreciate it and look forward to continued

working with Senator SMITH as his

committee has a series of other bills

that will be coming, including the

great big Superfund bill, which is a real

challenge.

Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would

like to thank Senator CHAFEE first of

all for his very fine remarks. It has

been a delight to work with the chairman of the Environment and Public

Works Committee on this legislation.

He several months ago said we want to

try to get the flow control bill and the

interstate waste matter brought up.

And I took it seriously. We were able

to do that. It has been a delight to

work with him and his staff as we

brought this bill here to the floor for a

close, hopefully. It has been a long

haul.

We tried to accommodate a number

of Senators. I had a long list of some 27

or 28 Senators I think that we were

able to accommodate that had specific

concerns. I know there were some who

we were not able to accommodate because we felt it would essentially violate the spirit and intent of the legislation that we brought forth.

But particularly the majority staff,

John Grzebian, Steve Shimberg, and

Jeff Merrifield who were really right

there doing a lot of work, most of the

work I guess behind the scenes to work

on these amendments and get the compromise language agreed to. Certainly,

Cliff Rothenstein and Tom Sliter and

Scott Slesinger on the minority staff;

and Peter Phipps of Senator D’AMATO’s

staff and Melissa Murrell of Senator

COATS’ staff were all particularly helpful, and as were others.

I think we ended up with essentially

a good bill. There are some things I

would not have put in it, and Senator

CHAFEE would not have put in it. There

are certain things we wish we had put

in. But the bottom line is that this legislation is a compromise. We tried to

accommodate those who brought up

concerns that you had not thought of

or maybe did not realize that needed to

be put in there. And they come up with

these ideas, and we tried to work them

out.

I think it deals essentially with the

issue of flow control. It takes care of

those people who made investments,

who stood a grave risk had we not

passed this legislation. It does grandfather the flow control authority so

that it is not a permanent anticompetitive piece of legislation. It does grandfather it. So we went to great lengths

to reach a compromise.

Again, I want to thank Senator

CHAFEE for his leadership. It has really

been a pleasure to work with him in

the position of subcommittee chairman. He has been 100 percent cooperative every step of the way personally

and at the staff level. As the Senator

said, last week I had a number of conflicts. I had three separate subcommittees to chair at the same time, two on

Superfund, which is another priority

item in our subcommittee, and Senator

CHAFEE was willing to step in and participate almost fulltime on the floor

debate and the management of the bill,

for which I am very grateful.

Mr. President, at this point, I will

yield the floor.

Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Yogi

Berra said, ‘‘It ain’t over ’til it’s over.’’

We are not through yet, but it is awful

close; we are in the bottom of the ninth

on this issue I have been working on

for 6 years.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. CHAFEE] and the Senator

from New Hampshire [Mr. SMITH] and

Senator BAUCUS, who is not in the

Chamber right now, and others who

have joined with me in this effort that

started out as a lonely vigil and now

has turned into nearly a consensus effort.

Senator D’AMATO was willing to sit

down at the table and negotiate a very

difficult problem for his State with

those of us who had difficult problems

for our States. I believe we reached,

last Friday afternoon, a satisfactory

resolution of that concern.

We have every reason to believe there

will be favorable treatment of this in

the House. It has been stopped there

before. I believe we are as close to success there as we have ever been and we

can resolve whatever differences may

exist between the House and Senate

and put this on the President’s desk,

and finally give the States and communities we represent a basis for dealing

with their own environmental problems but not having to solve everybody

else’s environmental problems—the

ability to say that is all we can take,

or we cannot take anymore, or you are

going to have to find a way to dispose

of that in your own State. We are doing

our share; you do your share.

We are that far away, and I am optimistic we are going to finally complete

this effort. A lot of people have participated in it, and I thank them for their

efforts. I am looking forward to finally

putting this issue to rest and then

moving on to other concerns before the

Senate.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the

floor.

HARRISBURG, PA, FLOW CONTROL ISSUE

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish

to enter into a brief discussion with

the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the sponsor of this legislation. The city of Harrisburg owns and

operates a municipally financed resource recovery facility that was originally constructed in 1972. Harrisburg

has issued $40 million in outstanding

revenue bonds and has had a flow control ordinance in place for several

years. The facility is required, however, to undergo a substantial retrofit

pursuant to the Clean Air Act, which

will necessitate the issuance of an additional $150 million in bonds and a
S6722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

new waste stream from nearby counties which have not previously flow

controlled to the Harrisburg facility. It

would appear to me that the existence

of outstanding bonds and the unfunded

mandate on Harrisburg under the Clean

Air Act would justify the extension of

flow control authority to the counties

that would want to send waste to the

Harrisburg facility in the future.

Would the distinguished chairman be

willing to look closely at this issue as

this legislation goes forward?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as the

Senator from Pennsylvania knows, this

legislation provides flow control authority which is predicated on meeting

debt obligations. The issuance of new

debt at a facility that has operated

since 1972 and that would require expanded flow control authority is not

one that the committee has had the opportunity to examine in any detail at

this time. I would be glad to work with

the Senator from Pennsylvania as the

bill goes forward and to determine

whether the Harrisburg facility is or

should be covered by this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague

from New Hampshire.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I share

all of the views set forth by the distinguished Senator from Indiana. We have

all been struggling with this issue for

many years, nobody as hard as he has

and with more tenacity. As he indicated, we are this close. I think he said

we are in the bottom of the ninth. I

hope we complete the game, and I

know we will. Then, of course, comes

what the House does and then the conference with the House. But all of that

we will pursue with great vigor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

RECESS UNTIL 2:15 P.M.

fthe previous order, the hour of 12:30

having arrived, the Senate will stand

in recess until the hour of 2:15.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:34 p.m.,

recessed until 2:15 p.m.; whereupon, the

Senate reassembled when called to

order by the Presiding Officer (Mr.

G

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

RAMS

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

).

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the bill having been

read the third, the question is, Shall

the bill pass? The yeas and nays have

been ordered. The clerk will call the

roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

The result was announced—yeas 94,

nays 6, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

YEAS—94

Abraham

Akaka

Ashcroft

Baucus

Bennett

Biden

Bingaman

Bond

Bradley

Breaux

Bryan

Bumpers

Burns

Byrd

Campbell

Chafee

Coats

Cochran

Cohen

Conrad

Coverdell

Craig

D’Amato

Daschle

DeWine

Dodd

Dole

Domenici

Dorgan

Exon

Faircloth

Feingold

Ford

Frist

Glenn

Graham

Gramm

Grams

Grassley

Gregg

Harkin

Hatch

Hatfield

Heflin

Helms

Hollings

Hutchison

Inhofe

Inouye

Jeffords

Johnston

Kassebaum

Kempthorne

Kennedy

Kerrey

Kerry

Kohl

Lautenberg

Leahy

Levin

Lieberman

Lott

Lugar

Mack

McCain

McConnell

Mikulski

Moseley-Braun

Moynihan

Murkowski

Nickles

Nunn

Packwood

Pell

Pressler

Pryor

Reid

Robb

Rockefeller

Roth

Santorum

Sarbanes

Shelby

Simon

Simpson

Smith

Snowe

Specter

Stevens

Thomas

Thompson

Thurmond

Warner

Wellstone

NAYS—6

Boxer

Brown

Feinstein

Gorton

Kyl

Murray

So the bill (S. 534), as amended, was

passed, as follows:

S. 534

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interstate

Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act

of 1995’’.

TITLE I—INTERSTATE WASTE

SEC. 101. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

(a) AMENDMENT.—Subtitle D of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is

amended by adding at the end the following

new section:

‘‘SEC. 4011. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

‘‘(a) AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT OUT-OF-STATE

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (4), immediately upon the

date of enactment of this section if requested

in writing by an affected local government, a

Governor may prohibit the disposal of outof-State municipal solid waste in any landfill or incinerator that is not covered by the

exceptions provided in subsection (b) and

that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Governor and the affected local government.

‘‘(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4),

immediately upon the date of publication of

the list required in paragraph (6)(C) and notwithstanding the absence of a request in

writing by the affected local government, a

Governor, in accordance with paragraph (5),

may limit the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal at

each landfill or incinerator covered by the

exceptions provided in subsection (b) that is

subject to the jurisdiction of the Governor,

to an annual amount equal to or greater

than the quantity of out-of-State municipal

solid waste received for disposal at such

landfill or incinerator during calendar year

1993.

‘‘(3)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (4),

any State that imported more than 750,000

tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste in

1993 may establish a limit under this paragraph on the amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal at landfills and incinerators in the importing State

as follows:

‘‘(i) In calendar year 1996, 95 percent of the

amount exported to the State in calendar

year 1993.

‘‘(ii) In calendar years 1997 through 2002, 95

percent of the amount exported to the State

in the previous year.

‘‘(iii) In calendar year 2003, and each succeeding year, the limit shall be 65 percent of

the amount exported in 1993.

‘‘(iv) No exporting State shall be required

under this subparagraph to reduce its exports to any importing State below the proportionate amount established herein.

‘‘(B)(i) No State may export to landfills or

incinerators in any 1 State that are not covered by host community agreements or permits authorizing receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste more than the following

amounts of municipal solid waste:

‘‘(I) In calendar year 1996, the greater of

1,400,000 tons or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in calendar year 1993.

‘‘(II) In calendar year 1997, the greater of

1,300,000 tons or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in calendar year 1996.

‘‘(III) In calendar year 1998, the greater of

1,200,000 tons or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in calendar year 1997.

‘‘(IV) In calendar year 1999, the greater of

1,100,000 tons or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in calendar year 1998.

‘‘(V) In calendar year 2000, 1,000,000 tons.

‘‘(VI) In calendar year 2001, 750,000 tons.

‘‘(VII) In calendar year 2002 or any calendar year thereafter, 550,000 tons.

‘‘(ii) The Governor of an importing State

may take action to restrict levels of imports

to reflect the appropriate level of out-ofState municipal solid waste imports if—

‘‘(I) the Governor of the importing State

has notified the Governor of the exporting

State and the Administrator, 12 months

prior to taking any such action, of the importing State’s intention to impose the requirements of this section;

‘‘(II) the Governor of the importing State

has notified the Governor of the exporting

State and the Administrator of the violation

by the exporting State of this section at

least 90 days prior to taking any such action;

and

‘‘(III) the restrictions imposed by the Governor of the importing State are uniform at

all facilities and the Governor of the importing State may only apply subparagraph (A)

or (B) but not both.

‘‘(C) The authority provided by subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply for as long as

a State exceeds the permissible levels as determined by the Administrator under paragraph (6)(C).

‘‘(4)(A) A Governor may not exercise the

authority granted under this section if such

action would result in the violation of, or

would otherwise be inconsistent with, the

terms of a host community agreement or a

permit issued from the State to receive outof-State municipal solid waste.

‘‘(B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a

Governor may not exercise the authority

granted under this section in a manner that

would require any owner or operator of a

landfill or incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in subsection (b) to reduce the

amount of out-of-State municipal solid

waste received from any State for disposal at

such landfill or incinerator to an annual

quantity less than the amount received from

such State for disposal at such landfill or incinerator during calendar year 1993.

‘‘(5) Any limitation imposed by a Governor

under paragraph (2) or (3)—

‘‘(A) shall be applicable throughout the

State;

‘‘(B) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against any particular landfill or

incinerator within the State; and

‘‘(C) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against any shipments of out-ofState municipal solid waste on the basis of

place of origin and all such limitations shall