S6712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

President of Russia ought to meet on a

regular basis every year concerning the

nuclear warheads of both sides. We

should not set as a standard that the

only time they can meet is if they

come back with some enormous agreement. As a practical matter, that guarantees failure. They have to meet with

or without agreement because there is

too much at stake, and we ought to

take the lessons of those Congresses in

the past to at least let the President

come home before we tell him we disagree with him. Let us not have foreign

leaders when he is meeting with them

see a cacophony of criticism coming,

often from those who are not really

fully informed of what is going on.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues for allowing me to

have this time.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

I yield the floor.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have

now reached a point where the Senate

is about to give our small towns the

right to say no. I hope the House will

follow suit quickly so that we can send

the bill to the President this year.

We have debated this bill extensively. We have heard a lot of statistics. We have heard a lot about policy.

So I would like to use a small example

to remind the Senate of why this is so

important.

Miles City, MT, is a small prairie

town of 8,500 people on the Yellowstone

River. Not too long ago, its people

faced the prospect of what was probably a Noah’s flood of garbage imports.

A garbage entrepreneur from Minneapolis came out to look them over.

He had a rather remarkable plan:

Empty coal trains run out of Minneapolis. Each one of them has about

110 cars—open-roofed cars, 50 feet long,

10 feet wide, 11 feet high. He wanted to

fill them to the brim with garbage and

bring all that garbage to Miles City

and dump it in Miles City. Think of it.

A giant garbage snake over a mile long

ripening in the sun for anywhere up to

5 days on the run out of Minneapolis,

shedding rotten food, broken glass, and

used diapers into the Yellowstone

River at every bend in the track,

steaming into town on a hot summer

day with as much trash in one single

trip as Miles City throws out in a

whole year.

It is crazy; it is humiliating; and

Miles City should have the right to say

no. So far, the people of Miles City and

their representatives in the Montana

Legislature have been able to stop

these plans. But, with no disrespect to

the legislature, it is a weak reed.

Every time waste companies have

challenged State laws restricting outof-State waste, the State laws have

been overturned by the courts. So we

cannot rely on State legislatures. We

need a Federal law. Without congressional action, according to the Supreme Court, neither the people of

Montana nor of any other State can

stop these garbage trains.

Some interstate movement of garbage makes sense. In Montana, two

towns have made arrangements to

share landfills with western North Dakota towns and some trash from Wyoming areas of Yellowstone Park is disposed in Montana. These arrangements

save money for the communities involved and shared regional landfills

can be a policy that makes sense. But

it only makes sense when the communities involved agree to it. No place

should become an unwilling dumping

ground. Nobody should have to take

garbage they do not want from another

community— not Miles City, not anybody.

This bill is a very good start, and I

strongly support it. But like any other

bill, it is not perfect. In particular, I

am concerned that it would allow

waste to be imported until a community gets wise to it and has to say no.

I believe we should take a goodneighbor approach. Waste from big

cities should not be allowed into our

communities until the people agree to

accept it. I do not want the people of

Miles City to wake up one morning

with a garbage train in the station. I

want the garbage broker to come to

town first and ask the people’s permission before using the community as a

trash dump. That is just common courtesy.

I hope we can move in that direction

as the bill goes ahead, and for now I

urge the Senate’s support for this critical new law.

Finally, Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senators who have

worked so very hard over the years in

finally developing a balanced bill. Senator COATS from Indiana has been a

bulldog, and Senators LAUTENBERG and

SMITH, and our new chairman, Senator

CHAFEE, have worked tirelessly.

Brokering the agreements that brought

the bill to this point was not easy, but

they met the challenge.

In closing, let us stand up for small

towns and give them the right to protect their people from unwanted trash.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor

and 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. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the

quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

RATIFICATION OF THE LAW OF

THE SEA CONVENTION WILL

fPROMOTE THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Law of

the Sea Convention entered into force

on November 16, 1994, and was transmitted to the Senate for its advice and

consent on October 6, 1994 [Treaty Document 103–39]. On this occasion I applauded the President’s transmittal of

this historic treaty and spoke to the

ways in which it will protect the economic, environmental, scientific, and

most importantly, the national security interests of the United States

(CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 140, No.

144, p. 14467). On March 14, 1995 I addressed the importance of ratification

of the Convention to the fishery interests of the United States (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141, No. 47, p. 3862).

Today I would like to address how ratification of the convention will best

serve U.S. economic interests.

The Third U.N. Conference on the

Law of the Sea was initiated as early

as 1973 by the United States and the

U.S.S.R. to protect navigation rights

and freedoms, at a time where coastal

States were claiming excessive areas of

jurisdiction. Most of the provisions of

the convention have long been supported by the United States, and at the

conclusion of the law of the sea negotiations in 1982, the Reagan administration indicated that it was fully satisfied with, and supported the entire

convention, except for the deep seabed

mining part. The recently negotiated

part XI implementation agreement,

which is also before the Senate [Treaty

Document 103–39] addressed all the reservations that the United States and

other industrialized countries had. I

will speak to the deep seabed mining

issues in a forthcoming statement.

The convention directly promotes

United States economic interests in

many areas: It provides the U.S. with

exclusive rights over marine living resources within our 200 miles exclusive

economic zone; exclusive rights over

mineral, oil and gas resources over a

wide continental shelf that is recognized internationally; the right for our

communication industry to place its

cables on the sea floor and the continental shelves of other countries

without cost; a much greater certainty

with regard to marine scientific research, and a groundbreaking regime

for the protection of the marine environment. With regard to national security, the Department of Defense has repeatedly expressed its strong support

for the ratification of the convention

because public order of the oceans is

best established by a universally accepted Law of the Sea Treaty that is in

the U.S. national interest.

The extension by other nations of

their national claims were not always

limited to matters of resources use but

also represented a potential threat to

our interests as a major maritime nation in the freedom of commercial and

military navigation and overflight. The

United States is both a maritime power

and a coastal Stage and, as such, it

benefits fully from the perfect balance

that the convention strikes. It gives

extensive rights to States over the resources located within their EEZ’s, but

also recognizes the need to maintain

freedom of navigation on the high seas,
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6713

through archipelagic waters thanks to

the concept of transit passage and even

through the territorial seas of other

States based upon the principle of innocent passage.

Mr. President, seaborne commerce

represents 80 percent of trade among

nations and is a lifeline for U.S. imports and exports. Ninety-five percent

of U.S. export and import trade tonnage moves by sea. With continuing

economic liberalization occurring globally, exports are likely to continue to

grow as a percentage of our economic

output. In addition, on some sectors,

such as oil, our dependence on imports

will continue to grow. Thus our economic well being—economic growth

and jobs—will increasingly depend on

foreign trade. Without the stability

and uniformity in rules provided by the

convention,we would see an increase in

the cost of transport and a corresponding reduction of the economic benefit

currently realized from an increasingly

large part of our economy.

Consequently, the United States

would stand to lose a great deal if it

was no longer assured of the freedom of

navigation: trade would be impaired,

ports communities would be impacted

and our whole maritime industry could

be put in jeopardy. The convention addresses these concerns and failure of

the United States to ratify would impose a tremendous burden on this industry.

Within its EEZ, the United States

has exclusive rights over its living marine resources. Foreign fleets fishing in

our waters can be controlled or even

excluded, and our regional management councils are in a position to

adopt the best management plans

available for each of the fisheries on

which our industries depend. The settlement of disputes provisions of the

convention do not apply to the measures taken by the coastal State within

its EEZ. Consequently, the United

States has discretionary powers for determining the allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other States and the terms

and conditions established in its conservation and management measures.

The provisions of the convention generally reflect current U.S. policy with

respect to marine living resources

management, conservation and exploitation. As such, they incur little new

U.S. obligation, commitment, or encumbrance. The U.S. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, commonly referred to as the Magnuson

Act, was crafted to parallel closely

most of the law of the sea’s provisions

for living resources. But the convention also ensures that some of the

stricter measures that the U.S. has

adopted, precautionary in nature, are

also incumbent on other States, in

their EEZ’s and, more importantly, on

the high seas. As such, some measure

of increased stability in international

living marine resources policy can be

anticipated as a beneficial aspect of

U.S. participation of the law of the sea

regime.

The convention also provides a jurisdictional framework for the negotiation of a new regime for straddling

stocks and highly migratory fish

stocks on the high seas. A conference is

currently under way at the United Nations to establish such a regime, and I

am happy to note that at the last session, held a few weeks ago in New

York, the U.S. delegation expressed its

satisfaction at the progress already

achieved. The negotiators involved are

cautiously optimistic that an agreement will be reached by the end of this

year, which should help prevent the

kind of incidents that recently pitched

Canada and the European Union in the

latest case of gunboat diplomacy. The

convention will provide both the basis

and the framework for this new agreement.

Representatives of the oil and gas industry served as active advisers to the

U.S. Government throughout its negotiation of the convention. In 1973 the

National Petroleum Council published

a detailed analysis of industry objectives in relation to this treaty, all of

which have been achieved. The National Petroleum Council determined

that it was important to its industry

that the convention reflect the following principles:

Confirmation of coastal State control

of the continental shelf and its resources to a distance of 200 nautical

miles, and beyond to the edge of the

continental shelf;

Establishment of a continental shelf

commission to advice States in delimiting their continental shelves in order

to promote greater certainty and uniformity regarding resources ownership;

A constructive mechanism for the

settlement of disputes;

And guarantees that the principles of

freedom of navigation essential to the

movement of tankers and other commercial vessels will not be undercut by

the extension of coastal State jurisdiction.

Working in close coordination with

our offshore oil and gas industry, our

negotiators successfully obtained convention provisions that serve U.S. interests both in regards to development

of energy resources off our coasts as

well as the interests of our nationals

operating abroad. The convention goes

further than the Truman Proclamation, in which our country asserted our

rights over oil and gas resources on the

continental shelf, because it specifies

the outer limits of the area.

This new certainty is very important

for our oil and gas industry because

offshore development is enormously

capital intensive and security of tenure

is the key. The convention’s standards

and procedures avoid uncertainty and

disagreement over the maximum seaward extent of our jurisdiction. The resulting clarity advances both our resource management and commercial

interests, as well as our interest in stabilizing claims to maritime jurisdiction by other States.

At the same time, the convention ensures the protection of the marine environment in relation to pollution, including the allocation of enforcement

responsibility between flag, port, and

coastal States. It here again strikes

the right balance between the need to

ensure the development of the oil and

gas industries and greater certainty

that the environment is adequately

protected.

The convention also provides significant benefits to the communication industry. As we know, our country is a

proud leader in the technology and

communication revolution. In that respect, we depend upon ships to carefully lay fiber optic cables on the sea

floor. When these cables are broken,

U.S. companies and consumers incur

huge repair costs. For example, one

such cable, connecting the United

States and Japan, can carry up to 1

million simultaneous telephone calls

and is valued at over a billion dollars.

As one of our major growth industries,

telecommunication firms have ambitious plans for replacing existing coaxial cable on our ocean floor and expanding the existing cable network

globally.

Our telecommunication industry had

long suffered from the poor legal protection afforded to cables laid on the

seabed. The Geneva Convention on the

High Seas of 1958 provided that the laying of cables and pipelines is a high

seas freedom, and that coastal States

may not impede laying or maintenance

of cables on the continental shelf. Yet

it did not contain clear provisions designed to prevent mariners from working dangerously close to cables.

The Convention on the Law of the

Sea incorporates the language and

principles of the 1958 Geneva Convention. Most important, it also goes further in providing that States are to

make it a punishable offense, not only

to break a cable, but to engage in conduct likely to result in such breaking

or injury. For the first time, cable

owners and enforcement authorities

are able to act to prevent cable breaks

from occurring. Consequently, the protection afforded submarine cables is

substantially increased by the convention.

Mr. President, the negotiations on

this new ‘‘Constitution for the Oceans’’

took more than 9 years, and when the

first version, open for signature in 1982,

did not meet all our concerns, the

Democratic and Republican administrations refused to sign it. It was only

after 12 more years of negotiations

that all the concerns of the United

States were addressed. Significant U.S.

economic interests are now protected

by this convention and we now need to

reap the benefits of these long years of

negotiations.

President Clinton said it best in his

transmittal letter to the Senate,

‘‘Early adherence by the United States

to the Convention and the Agreement

is important to maintain a stable legal

regime for all uses of the sea, which
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