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
S6596 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 12, 1995

to travel on to Kiev was also very important and underscores the policy of

the United States of supporting all the

newly independent States, not just

Russia.

Fortunately, we have excellent relations with Ukraine now, and because of

the groundwork that President Clinton

and his delegation laid we can expect

to see expanded trade, investment, and

commercial relations in the future.

None of these changes happen overnight, and they will never occur unless

a strong and positive foundation is

carefully laid. President Clinton’s visit

laid just such a foundation.

In addition, President Clinton and

President Kuchma entered into an excellent exchange of views on how the

United States and Ukraine can cooperate to shape a stable, undivided Europe

in the future. As many have reflected

on the events in Europe 50 years ago, I

believe we all know and understand

how critically important this is to

world peace and to a peaceful future for

the United States.

I applaud President Clinton for undertaking this trip at this time. He has

reached out to the people of Russia and

to the people of Ukraine at a critical

time in the evolution of their political

systems, and I believe through his visits with political leaders from throughout the Russian political spectrum and

with students at Moscow University

spoke up clearly, firmly, and loudly for

democracy, free elections, and reform.

Fifty years ago, it would have been

unthinkable for an American President

to travel to Moscow, speak to students

about democracy, free elections, economic and political reform, and have

that message broadcast throughout

Russia by Russian radio. This unthinkable event happened earlier this week.

I am confident that this message was

not lost on the Russian people, and I

hope it will not be lost here, for I believe this shows concretely how far our

relationship has evolved and how much

each step we have taken has meant in

the long run toward real and meaningful change.

I believe the steps President Clinton

took in Moscow and Kiev will result in

more permanent, lasting changes in

the future, and I congratulate him for

tackling the many difficult and

daunting problems which he took on

straightforwardly. Ultimately, I believe the record will reflect that significant progress was achieved in many

areas because of the foundation which

President Clinton laid this week.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The bill 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am

pleased that the Senate has turned to

this critical environmental issue and I

urge my colleagues to support this legislation, the Interstate Transportation

of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995.

Congress came very close to enacting

similar legislation in 1994, and I am

hopeful that we will achieve closure on

the interstate waste and flow control

issues shortly. I commend my colleagues JOHN CHAFEE, BOB SMITH, and

DAN COATS for their dedicated effort in

bringing this bill to the floor at this

early date.

It is high time that the largest trash

exporting States bite the bullet and

take substantial steps towards self-sufficiency for waste disposal. This legislation would provide much-needed relief to Pennsylvania, which is by far

the largest importer of out-of-State

waste in the Nation. According to the

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 3.9 million tons of

out-of-State municipal solid waste entered Pennsylvania in 1993, and 4.3 million tons of out-of-state municipal

solid waste entered Pennsylvania during 1994. Most of this trash came from

other States in the Northeast; in 1994,

New York and New Jersey were responsible for 3.8 million of the 4.3 million

tons imported into Pennsylvania, representing 88 percent of the total. New

York alone sent 2.3 million tons of municipal solid waste into Pennsylvania

last year.

This legislation would go a long way

toward resolving the landfill problems

facing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and similar waste importing States. I am personally familiar with the anxiety that

the landfill crisis provokes in local

communities. On several occasions, I

have met with county officials, environmental groups, and residents of

northeastern Pennsylvania to discuss

the solid waste issue. I came away from

those meetings impressed by the deep

concerns expressed by the area’s residents.

Recognizing the recurrent problem of

landfill capacity in Pennsylvania’s 67

counties, since 1989 I have pushed to resolve the interstate waste crisis. In

1989 and 1991, I joined my late colleague, Senator John Heinz, to introduce the Solid Waste Disposal Act

Amendments Act, which would have

provided incentives for States to devise

realistic long-term plans for handling

solid waste disposal.

I also supported the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Waste Act of

1992, which passed the Senate by an 89–

2 vote in July, 1992. That bill would

have allowed a Governor, at the request of a local government, to prohibit the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste in any landfill or incinerator within its jurisdiction. The House

failed to take action on that bill, leaving it to this Congress to act on this

issue.

At the beginning of the 103d Congress, I joined Senator COATS in trying

to build on our near success the previous year and joined 16 of our colleagues to introduce bipartisan interstate waste legislation (S. 439). That

bill, which was introduced on February

25, 1993, was modeled on the waste legislation which had passed the Senate in

July 1992 by an overwhelming margin.

I was pleased that many of the concepts contained in the Coats-Specter

bill were relied upon in S. 2345, the bill

unanimously reported out by the Environment and Public Works Committee

last August and again in the bill being

considered by the Senate today. Last

year’s bill provided legal authority to

every State to restrict out-of-State

municipal solid waste and was approved in the Senate by voice vote on

September 30, 1994. A modified version

of that bill, which included both interstate and flow control provisions, was

received by the Senate on the last day

of the 103d Congress, but was not considered on the floor.

On March 22, 1995, I joined Senator

COATS and other colleagues in introducing S. 589, which parallels the

Coats-Specter bill from the 103d Congress (S. 439). The legislation we are

considering today builds upon the legislation that passed the Senate by

voice vote in 1994 and the bills I have

worked on with Senator COATS in 1993

and 1995. I am confident that S. 534 will

empower States to deal with their solid

waste more effectively because it

would provide every State with significant new authority to restrict imports

of out-of-State municipal solid waste.

Some may wonder why there is a

need for Federal legislation to empower States to restrict cross-border

flows of garbage. Simply put, Pennsylvania and other States that were in

the forefront of solid waste management have ended up as the dumping

ground for States that have been unwilling to enact and enforce realistic

long-term waste management plans.

Although I am advised that these

States are making some progress, some

continue to ship increasing amounts of

waste to Pennsylvania landfills.

This legislation will lead to significant reductions in the amounts of outof-State waste imported into Pennsylvania and other States. Let me explain how this will be accomplished.

First, the legislation allows a Governor

to unilaterally freeze out-of-State

waste at 1993 levels at landfills and incinerators that received waste in 1993.

In addition, an import State ratchet

provides that a Governor may restrict

waste imported from any one State in

excess of 1.4 million tons in 1996, down

to 550,000 tons in 2002 and thereafter. I

was pleased that this provision has

been carried over from last year’s bill

and is even more restrictive on out-ofState trash. This provision provides a

concrete incentive for the largest exporting States to get a handle on their

solid waste management immediately.

It is important to note that title I of

this legislation explicitly protects

State contract law and protects host

community agreements. It also authorizes restrictions on waste imported

from Canada if doing so is found by the
May 12, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6597

President to be consistent with NAFTA

and GATT.

Mr. President, I am also pleased to

support S. 534 because it contains provisions addressing the issue of waste

flow control authority, an issue of vital

importance to Pennsylvania’s counties.

During the 103d Congress, we encountered a new issue with respect to municipal solid waste—the issue of waste

flow control authority. As a result,

today we are also considering legislation which would restore local authority to control the flow of municipal

solid waste.

On May 16, 1994, the Supreme Court

held—6–3—in Carbone versus

Clarkstown that a flow control ordinance, which requires all solid waste to

be processed at a designated waste

management facility, violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. In striking down the

Clarkstown ordinance, the Court stated

that the ordinance discriminated

against interstate commerce by allowing only the favored operator to process waste that is within the town’s limits.

As a result of the Court’s decision,

flow control ordinances in Pennsylvania and other States are considered

unconsitiutional. Therefore, it is necessary for Congress to enact legislation

providing clear authorization for local

governments to utilize waste flow control.

I have met with county commissioners who have made clear that this

issue is vitally important to the local

governments in Pennsylvania. As further evidence of the need for congressional action, I would note the numerous phone calls and letters my office

has received from individual Pennsylvania counties and municipal solid

waste authorities that support waste

flow control legislation. The County

Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania has pointed out that since

1988, flow control has been the primary

tool used by 65 of the 67 Pennsylvania

counties to enforce solid waste plans

and meet waste reduction/recycling

goals or mandates. Many Pennsylvania

jurisdictions have spent a considerable

amount of public funds on disposal facilities, including upgraded sanitary

landfills, state-of-the-art resources recovery facilities, and co-composting facilities. In the absence of flow control

authority, many of these worthwhile

projects could be jeopardized. There is

also a very real concern that as a result of the Carbone decision, prompt

congressional action is necessary to ensure that local communities may meet

their debt service obligations related

to the issuance of revenue bonds for

the construction of their solid waste

management facilities.

I believe that this bill will protect

the ability of municipalities to plan effectively for the management of their

municipal solid waste while also guaranteeing that market forces will still

provide opportunities for enterprising

companies in the waste management

industry.

In conclusion, this legislation makes

sense because in the absence of Federal

legislation to empower States to restrict cross-border flows of waste,

Pennsylvania and other States inevitably become dumping grounds for

States that haven’t shown the fortitude to enact realistic long-term

waste management plans. Further, by

restoring flow control authority, this

legislation protects Pennsylvania and

its component local jurisdictions,

which have promulgated comprehensive solid waste management plans and

established state-of-the-art facilities to

handle waste generated within the

Commonwealth.

I yield the floor.

AMENDMENT NO. 869

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, possibly the most important provision of

this legislation for my State is in restoring the opportunity for small community or county landfills to be exempt from the ground water monitoring requirements of RCRA, if they

meet certain conditions.

Under the bill a community landfill

can be exempt from monitoring if it

can demonstrate four things: that it

takes in no more than 20 tons of waste

per day, that there is no evidence of

ground water contamination, that it is

in an area that receives less than 25

inches of precipitation, and that it has

no practical landfill alternative.

The problem we have in Colorado

and, I suspect, throughout the West, is

that we have many landfills that pose

zero threat to ground water but they

may be taking in more than the bill’s

limit of 20 tons of trash per day.

My amendment does two things:

First, it codifies an existing regulation

under which a landfill operator may

file a no-migration petition with the

State; if the petition is approved, the

landfill operator becomes exempt from

the ground water monitoring requirements.

And second, my amendment directs

the Administrator to publish within 6

months an explanatory, or guidance,

document by which small towns and

counties will be able to easily and directly take advantage of this opportunity.

Since the implementation of RCRA,

about a third of the landfills in Colorado have closed. Towns and counties

have spent millions developing new

landfills that comply with the subtitle

D requirements, in spite of the fact

that in most of Colorado there is practically zero threat of leaching dangerous substances from landfills into

ground water.

Dozens of landfills in Colorado are

situated more than 100 feet above the

water table; the intervening layers are

often composed of shale and clay, making it impossible for materials to leach

downward. Under the existing subtitle

D landfill rules these landfills must be

lined with an impermeable liner; to

then require that these communities

spend an additional $15,000 per year or

so to test the ground water is an extreme form of overkill.

Mr. President, the EPA understands

that these conditions exist and to their

credit the agency conceived of and

adopted this no migration petition

process. All that my amendment does

is to codify this opportunity, an opportunity that has already stood the full

test of rulemaking, and to push EPA to

make the program available in our

rural counties.

Mr. President, I want to particularly

thank the distinguished chairman,

Senator CHAFEE, and the distinguished

ranking member, Senator BAUCUS, for

working with me on this important

amendment to our western counties.

COMMENDING FORMER PRESIDENT

fBUSH

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want

to commend former President Bush for

the courageous stand he has taken in

canceling his National Rifle Association membership based upon the improper language that was used in a solicitation letter by the National Rifle

Association.

I previously have spoken on this floor

about the intemperate language that

was used in that letter. It is no excuse

to say, ‘‘Well, fundraising letters are

not always accurate. There was a little

bit of hyperbole here, and it went a little bit overboard, but perhaps otherwise it was all right.’’

I think to describe members of law

enforcement organizations of the United States as ‘‘jack-booted thugs’’ and

individuals wearing ‘‘nazi bucket helmets’’ who randomly shoot civilians is

just totally improper.

So, Mr. President, I commend former

President Bush. I think what he did

was the right thing. I hope it sends a

sobering note to the National Rifle Association to watch its language, particularly language it sends out in solicitations, or in whatever manner in

which they dispense such language.

I congratulate the former President

for his actions.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will 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.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we are

ending the long, long trail toward passage of S. 534.

In order to accomplish crossing that

goal line, I ask unanimous consent

that, except for the following amendments, no other first-degree amendments be in order after the close of