S6594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 12, 1995

NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND

NATIONAL SPEED LIMIT

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this

week, the Senate Environment and

Public Works Committee reported out

a bill to designate the National Highway System or NHS. I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee on his leadership.

While some provisions in the bill

cause me some concern, there is one

feature that I would like to highlight

today.

The National Highway System authorization bill repeals the national

maximum speed limit. This is a commonsense feature. Repeal removes the

threat of Federal highway dollar sanctions if a State does not post its roads

at a 55- or 65-mile-per-hour speed limit.

The current standard of 55 or 65 miles

per hour may make sense in some

States—especially in urban, congested

areas. However, for big, sparsely populated States like Montana, it may

make sense to change that standard.

And there is no need for Washington to

decide for us.

Mr. President, the point is that the

States should have the ability to set

their own speed limits. The citizens in

each State should have a say in these

decisions without the threat of a Federal highway fund sanction.

I spend a lot of time walking the

roads in Montana. I have walked from

Livingston to Bozeman along I–90;

down Route 93 from Missoula to Hamilton; up from Butte along the road to

Missoula; and this summer I hope to

spend a lot of time on the Hi-Line.

And I can tell you first-hand, those

are easy roads to walk and they are

easy roads to drive. They do not get a

lot of traffic. People stop and talk. I

can wave to every other driver as he or

she goes by. And we should not treat

these roads as if they have bumper-tobumper New York traffic.

We made at least a start by letting

States raise the limit to 65 on rural

roads. But a Montana driver could

drive very safely on many of our roads

at a higher speed. Montana should be

able to set its own speed limit without

threatening our highway money.

So, Mr. President, among all the

things the NHS bill does—tucked in

amongst the big construction projects,

new technology, increased competitiveness, and new jobs—is something that

is pretty small, but which does a lot to

make life easier and Government more

sensible.

It is just plain, simple common sense.

Thank you, Mr. President.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

AMENDMENT NO. 1075

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk and ask for

its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for himself and Mr. BAUCUS, proposes an amendment numbered 1075.

Mr. CHAFEE. 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:

Delete from page 34, line 5 through page 35,

line 2 and replace with the following:

‘‘(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.’’.

On page 36, line 12, add ‘‘and the Governor

of the importing State may only apply subparagraph (A) or (B) but not both’’ after ‘‘facilities’’.

On page 38, line 2, after ‘‘year’’ insert ‘‘,

and the amount of waste that was received

pursuant to host community agreements or

permits authorizing receipt of out-of-State

municipal solid waste’’.

On page 38, line 3, delete ‘‘July 1’’ and insert ‘‘May 1’’.

On page 38, delete from line 17 through

page 39, line 6 and replace with the following:

‘‘(C) LIST.—The Administrator shall publish a list of importing States and the out-ofState municipal solid waste received from

each State at landfills or incinerators not

covered by host community agreements or

permits authorizing receipt of out-of-State

municipal solid waste.’’.

On page 35, line 20, strike ‘‘800,000’’, replace

with ‘‘750,000’’.

On page 35, line 22, strike ‘‘600,000’’, replace

with ‘‘550,000’’.

On page 52, strike line 6, insert the following: ‘‘sources outside the State.

‘‘(g) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.—

Any State may adopt such laws and regulations, not inconsistent with this section, as

are necessary to implement and enforce this

section, including provisions for penalties.’’.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this

managers’ amendment that I have sent

to the desk is the result of laborious

and lengthy negotiations involving the

distinguished Senator from Indiana,

who spent so much time in connection

with this legislation, and the distinguished Senator from New York, and

many other Senators who have an interest in this legislation.

So I urge its adoption.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have

examined the amendment. It is my understanding that various Senators, particularly the Senator from Pennsylvania, as well as the delegation from Illinois, who had some questions in the

last final moments, have now found

their objections are no longer such as

to prevent the Senate from passing this

bill. They no longer have those objections.

With those assurances, Mr. President, I urge the passage of the bill.

I want to particularly thank the Senator from Indiana, Senator COATS. Senator COATS labored in the vineyards in

this issue for years and years, and I

highly commend him for his efforts to

limit out-of-State garbage from coming into his State of Indiana. I also

want to compliment the chairman of

the committee.

Last year, we almost passed this

bill—within an eyelash of passing it. I

compliment the chairman of the committee for helping make passage a virtual reality here today.

Many other Senators worked very

hard trying to get the right balance,

basically, between those States who

want to limit trash coming into their

States and those States that still do

export a lot of trash.

Now, the exporting States, particularly New York and New Jersey, I

think are to be commended for taking

significant action to reduce the

amount of exports to those States to

put less pressure on importing States.

Nevertheless, I think it is very important that the importing States—including my State of Montana—have

the ability to say no to out-of-State

trash. It is very important we have

that.

I compliment, again, the Senator

from Indiana as well as the Senator

from New York [Mr. D’AMATO]. I urge

the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana commended me for

laboring in the vineyards for so many

years. It did not seem like I was in the

vineyards—more like the town dump.

I want to thank the chairman, Senator CHAFEE, for his work this year

with me and with the coalition in fashioning this legislation, in particular

this amendment that is being sent to

the desk. It is the culmination of a lot

of years, of a lot of work, by a lot of

people.

As the Senator from Montana said, it

is critical that States that are unwilling recipients of out-of-State waste

have a say as to whether or not they

receive this waste.

The Senator from Montana has

worked tirelessly to help Members accomplish this effort. I would say to the

Senator from Rhode Island, what a difference a year makes. We are here, together, working together on fashioning

what I think is very appropriate legislation. I want to thank him, along with

Senator SMITH, Senator D’AMATO, and

others, for helping to put this amendment together. I urge its adoption.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, again I

would like to say that the reason we

have this legislation is really because

of the steady, persistent tenacity of

the Senator from Indiana.
May 12, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6595

I can assure the world that everybody in Indiana should feel very, very

grateful for the work that Senator

COATS has done in connection with this

legislation. I can also assert that when

the definition of ‘‘bulldog’’ is given,

there is no one the tenacity shown by

a bulldog more appropriately fits than

Senator COATS. He has pressed this

issue to its fullest. I congratulate him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

So, the amendment (No. 1075) was

agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider

the vote.

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would

like to take this opportunity to thank

the distinguished Senator from Montana for his patience and help in all

these measures; not only this one we

are dealing with right now, but the

whole series of them. His suggestions

have been excellent. I want to express

my personal appreciation, but I know

that everyone in the Senate is indebted

to him for his hard work in seeing we

get these agreements.

AMENDMENT NO. 1076

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk and ask for

its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for Mr. D’AMATO, proposes an

amendment numbered 1076.

The amendment is as follows:

Page 64, line 2, insert the following as letter (f) and reletter subsequent paragraphs accordingly—

(f) STATE-AUTHORIZED SERVICES AND LOCAL

PLAN ADOPTION.—A political subdivision of a

State may exercise flow control authority

for municipal solid waste and for recyclable

material voluntarily relinquished by the

owner or generator of the material that is

generated within its jurisdiction if, prior to

May 15, 1994, the political subdivision—

(1) had been authorized by State statute

which specifically named the political subdivision to exercise flow control authority

and had implemented the authority through

a law, ordinance, regulation, contract, or

other legally binding provision; and

(2) had adopted a local solid waste management plan pursuant to State statute and was

required by State statute to adopt such plan

in order to submit a complete permit application to construct a new solid waste management facility proposed in such plan; and

(3) had presented for sale revenue or general obligation bond to provide for the site

selection, permitting, or acquisition for construction of new facilities identified and proposed in its local solid waste management

plan; and

(4) includes a municipality or municipalities required by State law to adopt a local

law or ordinance to require that solid waste

which has been left for collection shall be

separated into recyclable, reusable or other

components for which economic markets

exist; and

(5) is in a State that has aggressively pursued closure of substandard municipal landfills, both by regulatory action and under

statute designed to protect deep flow recharge areas in countries where potable

water supplies are derived from sole source

aquifers.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we examined this amendment and we urge

its adoption.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment.

So, the amendment (No. 1076) was

agreed to.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move to

reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 1077

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an

amendment to the desk and ask for its

immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. COATS],

proposes an amendment numbered 1077.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent further reading be

dispensed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 52, between lines 10 and 11 insert

the following:

‘‘SEC. 102. NEEDS DETERMINATION.

‘‘The Governor of a State may accept, deny

or modify an application for a municipal

solid waste management facility permit if—

‘‘(1) it is done in a manner that is not inconsistent with the provisions of this section;

‘‘(2) a State law enacted in 1990 and a regulation adopted by the governor in 1991 specifically requires the permit applicant to

demonstrate that there is a local or regional

need within the state for the facility; and

‘‘(3) the permit applicant fails to demonstrate that there is a local or regional

need within the State for the facility.’’.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this

amendment is thoroughly agreeable to

the Members on this side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment.

So, the amendment (No. 1077) was

agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. JOHNSTON. 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. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to be allowed to

proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning

business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN MOSCOW AND

fKIEV

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, in

my judgment, there have been a number of premature pronouncements

about the outcome of the President’s

trips to Moscow and Kiev that I believe

are one-sided and unfair. Many important achievements have been overlooked and ignored, and important

foundations have been laid for success

on more contentious issues in the future.

It is far too early to know what the

ultimate outcome will be on the very

contentious issue of the proposed Russian sale of nuclear reactors to Iran.

The President began the process of engaging the Russians seriously on the

serious global security implications of

such a sale by sharing information

with the Russians which they will not

assess and debate. The Russians have

not closed the door to reconsideration

of this issue; the President kept it open

through persuasive argument which we

hope, when fully evaluated by the Russian side, will lead to the Russians decided to cancel this sale.

Lost in the coverage of the reactor

sale was an important victory in the

resolution of a number of outstanding

issues regarding Russia’s closing down

arms sales to Iran. The Vice President

and Chernomyrdnin will draw up the

final agreement on this very important

issue, which will permit Russia to join

in with other States as a founding

member of the post-COCOM regime.

Key sticking points on biological weapons cooperation, notably the Russian

agreement to begin visits to biological

weapons factories on August 1, 1995,

were resolved and the United States

and Russia also issued a joint statement on principles on theater missile

defense systems and their relationship

to the ABM Treaty. Yeltsin also

reaffirmed strong support for START II

ratification.

In large part because of the President’s personal effort, Russia recommitted herself to being part of the

evolving European security landscape.

Yeltsin agreed to drop his opposition to

moving forward with Russia’s Partnership for Peace Membership and agreed

to proceed with implementation of its

program before the end of this month.

Yeltsin also indicated agreement with

plans to launch an expanded RussiaNATO dialog at the May NAC.

These are all significant developments, developments which will give us

a more secure and more peaceful world.

My own view is that the President’s

decision not just to visit Moscow but