```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6499-S6505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a vote has been scheduled at 6 o'clock by 
the managers on an amendment which has been offered by Senator Craig, 
Senator Grassley, Senator Brown, Senator Kempthorne, and myself which 
would establish a sense of the Senate that hearings should be held on 
Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX, on or before June 30.
  The purpose of the amendment is to set a date where there may be an 
inquiry by the full Judiciary Committee on those events because of the 
widespread reports of public unrest as to what occurred there.
  I have attempted to get a hearing on the Waco incident since mid-
1993. The incident there happened on April 19, 1993. It has always 
seemed to me that it is not sufficient to have the executive branch 
investigate itself when there is so much concern as to the propriety of 
the action which was taken there, with the assaults and with the rush 
and with the gases which were used.
  There have been numerous reports and there is very substantial 
evidence of public unrest on what has happened there. It is speculative 
to an extent, or it may not be speculative, as to a connection between 
the Oklahoma City 
[[Page S6500]] bombing on April 19, which is 2 years to the day after 
the events at Waco, TX. The subcommittee has held a series of hearings 
and had planned to have an inquiry scheduled for April 18, and the full 
committee did convene on the first date which was set back on April 26. 
And I think it is entirely appropriate for the full committee to handle 
the matter as opposed to the terrorism subcommittee.
  But after having a series of hearings--we had our third hearing 
today--I am more convinced than ever that there is real public tension 
as to the events in Waco, TX, and Ruby Ridge, ID. I think it is just 
inappropriate for the Senate to wait an indefinite period of time.
  Senator Hatch has proposed that there be hearings in the near future, 
as he categorizes it, and has further articulated the near future to 
mean sometime in the current session, which would be at the end of the 
year. If there is unrest, and if there is a causal connection, or if 
there is any connection, however slight or however tenuous, between the 
incident at Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, I suggest it is our 
duty to proceed to clear the air to the maximum extent possible and to 
demonstrate that ranking public officials at whatever level will be 
held accountable. It seems to me this is something which is very 
important to do.
  In establishing the date of June 30, I would be prepared to be 
flexible until the August recess, to extend the time for another period 
until August 4, which would be acceptable from my point of view. There 
has been an issue raised as to the completion of the FBI investigation, 
and that certainly could be done by August 4.
  Mr. President, I think I will relax the language and ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be modified so that the date August 4 would 
be inserted in place of the date June 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 754), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear 
     in the U.S. over international terrorism for many years;
       (2) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear 
     in the U.S. over the threat of domestic terrorism after the 
     bombing of the New York World Trade Center on February 26, 
     1993;
       (3) There is even more public concern, worry and fear since 
     the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
     Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995;
       (4) Public concern, worry and fear has been aggravated by 
     the fact that it appears that the terrorist bombing at the 
     Federal building in Oklahoma City was perpetrated by 
     Americans;
       (5) The United States Senate should take all action within 
     its power to understand and respond in all possible ways to 
     threats of domestic as well as international terrorism;
       (6) Serious questions of public concern have been raised 
     about the actions of federal law enforcement officials 
     including agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms relating to the 
     arrest of Mr. Randy Weaver and others in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, 
     in August, 1992 and Mr. David Koresh and others associated 
     with the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas, between 
     February 28, 1993, and April 19, 1993;
       (7) Inquiries by the Executive Branch have left serious 
     unanswered questions on these incidents;
       (8) The United States Senate has not conducted any hearings 
     on these incidents;
       (9) There is public concern about allowing federal agencies 
     to investigate allegations of impropriety within their own 
     ranks without congressional oversight to assure 
     accountability at the highest levels of government;
       (10) Notwithstanding an official censure of FBI Agent Larry 
     Potts on January 6, 1994, relating to his participation in 
     the Idaho incident, the Attorney General of the United States 
     on May 2, 1995, appointed Agent Potts to be Deputy Director 
     of the FBI;
       (11) It is universally acknowledged that there can be no 
     possible justification for the Oklahoma City bombing 
     regardless of what happened at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, or Waco, 
     Texas;
       (12) Ranking federal officials have supported hearings by 
     the U.S. Senate to dispel public rumors that the Oklahoma 
     City bombing was planned and carried out by federal law 
     enforcement officials;
       (13) It has been represented, or at least widely rumored, 
     that the motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing may have 
     been related to the Waco incident, the dates falling exactly 
     two years apart; and
       (14) A U.S. Senate hearing, or at least setting the date 
     for such a hearing, on Waco and Ruby Ridge would help to 
     restore public confidence that there will be full disclosure 
     of what happened, appropriate congressional oversight and 
     accountability at the highest levels of the federal 
     government.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that hearings should be held before the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee on countering domestic terrorism in all possible 
     ways with a hearing on or before August 4, 1995, on actions 
     taken by federal law enforcement agencies in Ruby Ridge, 
     Idaho, and Waco, Texas.

  Mr. SPECTER. I do that, Mr. President, so that there may be a little 
more lead time as to the completion of the investigation by the FBI. I 
make that modification because of my discussion with the FBI Director 
that, as he put it, 8 to 10 weeks would give ample latitude for that to 
be completed. So I am prepared to move at that time. I think that it is 
important that a specific date be set so that there is an 
acknowledgement by the Senate that we do plan to move forward on a date 
and the date has been established.
  I understand we are to vote at 6 o'clock, Mr. President. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment, which is the Jeffords amendment, be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                           Amendment No. 754

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to table the Specter amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 754, offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], 
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 
Warner] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--23

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Brown
     Cohen
     Craig
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     D'Amato
     Dole
     Warner
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 754) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  [[Page S6501]] Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to inform all my 
colleagues--I do not need to take much time on this bill, but just a 
few minutes--that I called for hearings last year. I have only been 
chairman for a little over 4 months.
  Every Member knows the Judiciary Committee has had a lot on its 
plate, and we have a lot more on our plate. However, there are very few 
things that I feel more deeply about than what happened at Waco and at 
Ruby Ridge.
  These are people in States that I admire and love. Many of the people 
I know--at least in Idaho. I admire and love them. I have said that we 
will hold hearings on these important issues, and I will do so as 
expeditiously as I can.
  Everybody does know that to do it properly, we are going to have to 
spend some time investigating this. We are already in the process of 
that. Recently, I lost my chief investigator who moved to another 
office.
  We will do this as expeditiously as we can. We will do it in the best 
interests of the Senate. I want to tell my dear friend from 
Pennsylvania that his desires here are not going to go ignored. It is 
just that I want to do it the right way. I want to make sure that all 
of the issues are aired and that they are aired fairly and in front of 
the full committee, because no hearings could be held unless they are 
Department of Justice oversight hearings. That is what they will have 
to be.
  I certainly committed the other day, and I will again reaffirm my 
commitment that these hearings will be held. Therefore, there was no 
reason to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I understand the 
sincerity of my colleagues. I hope that they will not feel badly with 
this vote.
  I also want to say that I am very concerned about making sure that 
every available agent, every available leader of the FBI, every person 
in law enforcement that we can bring to bear on the Oklahoma situation, 
is out there doing that, rather than up here testifying on Capitol 
Hill.
  We want to get that solved, and I want it solved. I speak almost 
daily with members of the Justice Department, including the FBI. We are 
on top of this. We will do what has to be done here. I want to reaffirm 
that to the Senate.
  I think when we do it, it will be done right, and I think people will 
be pleased with it in the end. I hope my colleague from Pennsylvania 
will be particularly pleased with it and, as a distinguished member of 
the committee, will have every opportunity to participate. And I expect 
him to do so. In fact, I invite him to do so and will work with him to 
see what we can do to bring this to a fruition that is satisfactory to 
everybody.
  Having said that, I can say more. There are some things that have 
been very irritating to some of us with regard to what has gone on 
here, but we will forget all that and just go forward and make the 
commitment to do this as expeditiously as we can, in good faith and in 
a good manner that hopefully will please everybody.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had, frankly, hoped to avoid the 
necessity of a rollcall vote to spare my colleagues a vote on the 
matter. But I felt, and continue to feel very, very strongly, that it 
is incumbent upon the U.S. Senate and the Congress to have oversight 
hearings in order to show the American people--a lot of people think 
there has been a coverup on Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX--and to show 
those people we are willing to air all of the matters, let the chips 
fall where they may, and demonstrate that people at the highest ranks 
of Government will be held accountable.
  No one is second to Arlen Specter in concern that the FBI have a full 
opportunity to complete its investigation. I talked to Director Freeh, 
who said if he had 8 to 10 weeks more there would be ample time and the 
FBI would be in a position to cooperate. And this is more than the 8 to 
10 weeks that Director Freeh asked for when the amendment was modified 
beyond the June 30 date, to provide for a date of August 4.
  I believe that the potential for violence is enormous. We have had a 
number of wake-up calls. And it is no coincidence that the Oklahoma 
City bombing occurred on April 19, 2 years to the day after the 
incident at Waco, TX. If anything happens in the interim, if we have 
not had the ventilation, the safety valve, then there is a real issue 
as to whether the U.S. Senate is doing its job.
  We have a lot of hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We have a lot 
of hearings in other committees. And there is not a single hearing 
being held which is more important than to air the public concern about 
Waco and about Ruby Ridge. I have been conducting hearings in the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism; I finished the third one today. It is an 
overwhelming problem.
  The first hearing which was scheduled became a full committee 
hearing, which I thought was entirely appropriate, to allow more 
Senators to participate. But what I intend to do is to continue my own 
inquiry and my own speaking out on the facts as to what happened. I 
talked at length with Director Louis Freeh, and I have talked at length 
with Mr. Spencer, who is the attorney for the Weavers, and I intend to 
talk to the Weavers and I intend to review all the facts and to make 
periodic reports to the American people about what I find. Because I 
think it is totally inadequate to have an inquiry--a hearing sometime 
in the near future.
  I felt strongly enough about it to bring the matter to the floor and 
I respect the conclusion of my fellow colleagues. But I intend to carry 
on this inquiry myself and to make these periodic reports.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Pennsylvania is on 
the floor I want my colleagues to know that in the good old days, when 
I was chairman of the committee and the Democrats were in charge, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania shared the same view. I want the record to 
show that this is nothing new the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
suggesting. I have read some accounts that suggest that because the 
Senator from Pennsylvania may have other aspirations, this is 
propelling his interests. I want to vouch for the fact that I know that 
not to be true.
  The fact of the matter is that when Waco occurred, shortly after 
Waco, the Senator did repeatedly talk to me about it and thought that, 
although I believe that we did have oversight hearings and everybody 
had an opportunity to ask about Waco--and a few did--that the Senator 
thought then, thinks now, and is totally consistent, whether he is 
seeking another office or not, in his view that this issue should be 
ventilated.
  For those of us on this side of the aisle, this has been a little 
like watching a family quarrel. Both the Senators are my friends but I 
do not think I have a closer friend in the Senate than the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and because a number of press people have come to me, and 
my colleagues have come to me, to ask me about issues relating to 
motivation--I can assert with absolute certainty, without any 
equivocation, that there has been absolutely no change in the intensity 
of the interest of the Senator from the time the matter occurred when I 
was chairman of that committee to the time I am the ranking member of 
that committee.
  I just want that to be made clear, notwithstanding the fact I voted 
the other way. I voted to table the Specter amendment because of my 
consistent view as to how this should be handled.
  The Senator may be right in terms of the value of the ventilation and 
when, and sooner than later. I have a slight disagreement with him on 
when. But I do not have any--any--any doubt, and I can confirm for my 
colleagues and anyone who is listening, that there is an absolute, 
total, unequivocal consistency to his position on this from the moment 
the tragedy in Waco occurred through this day.
  I just want the record to reflect that. Not that anyone in particular 
has suggested otherwise, but I get a number of inquiries because people 
are looking to make press outside this institution. I just want the 
record to reflect it.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  [[Page S6502]] Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to bring this to 
a head. I would like to put into the Record, just so everybody 
understands, a letter we received today from Louis J. Freeh, Director 
of the FBI, to me.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your inquiry concerning my 
     views about congressional hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. I 
     have no hesitancy about testifying on the issue.

  And that is the position he has always taken with me.

       I have often stated that a full and open hearing will 
     provide an excellent forum for the Department of Justice and 
     the FBI to bring all the facts before the American public. It 
     undoubtedly would serve to debunk some of the ``conspiracy'' 
     theories being discussed and provide the FBI with an 
     opportunity to explain and distinguish our role in these 
     incidents as well as provide our views concerning the proper 
     role of federal law enforcement.
       It is Congress' prerogative as to timing. It would be 
     helpful, however, to remove any hearing from such close 
     proximity to the Oklahoma bombing. All of our attention is 
     focused on this heinous crime as we continue to investigate 
     and prepare for prosecution. While I am looking forward to 
     the opportunity, I believe to schedule the hearing in the 
     immediate future will distract from our Oklahoma efforts and 
     could preclude us from discussion of issues relevant both to 
     Oklahoma and Waco.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Louis J. Freeh,
                                                         Director.

  I just want to put that in the Record because that is one of the 
things that has caused me great concern. We will hold hearings and we 
will do it in an expeditious and good way and hopefully to the 
satisfaction of all concerned, including my friend from Pennsylvania.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,

                              Federal Bureau of Investigation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1995.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your inquiry concerning my 
     views about congressional hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. I 
     have no hesitancy about testifying on the issue.
       I have often stated that a full and open hearing will 
     provide an excellent forum for the Department of Justice and 
     the FBI to bring all the facts before the American public. It 
     undoubtedly would serve to debunk some of the ``conspiracy'' 
     theories being discussed and provide the FBI with an 
     opportunity to explain and distinguish our role in these 
     incidents as well as provide our views concerning the proper 
     role of federal law enforcement.
       It is Congress' prerogative as to timing. It would be 
     helpful, however, to remove any hearing from such close 
     proximity to the Oklahoma bombing. All of our attention is 
     focused on this heinous crime as we continue to investigate 
     and prepare for prosecution. While I am looking forward to 
     the opportunity, I believe to schedule the hearing in the 
     immediate future will distract from our Oklahoma efforts and 
     could preclude us from discussion of issues relevant both to 
     Oklahoma and Waco.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Louis J. Freeh,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a word or two. The letter which 
Senator Hatch has just read is entirely consistent with the 
representation I made earlier that I had talked to Director Louis Freeh 
this afternoon, who told me, as I said earlier, that if he had 8 to 10 
weeks that would be ample time. And that is why, as I had said earlier, 
I modified the amendment from the date of June 30 to August 4, which 
would give more than the 8 to 10 weeks.
  So, when Senator Hatch cites a letter about the immediate future, the 
8 to 10 weeks was accorded to the Director and the hearings could have 
been held within the timeframe of the resolution as framed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for my colleagues I will just outline what 
in my judgment will take place this evening.
  We will have a vote on the Jeffords amendment and I do not know how 
long that will take. If the Senator could give us some indication, that 
will be helpful.
  But following the Jeffords amendment there will be no more rollcall 
votes. However, tomorrow it is my belief we will have a series of 
rollcall votes. There will be a cloture vote at 10 o'clock and there 
will be some other votes after that.
  I would very much hope we could finish this bill tomorrow. I hope, 
with the negotiations that take place tonight, we will be able to do 
so. But there will be no votes after the Jeffords vote.

                     Amendment No. 867, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 867), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(f) State Solid Waste District Authority.--A solid waste 
     district or 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--
       ``(1) the solid waste district political subdivision or 
     municipality within said district is currently required to 
     initiate a recyclable materials recycling program in order to 
     meet a municipal solid waste reduction goal of at least 30 
     percent by the year 2005, and uses revenues generated by the 
     exercise of flow control authority strictly to implement 
     programs to manage municipal solid waste, other than 
     development of incineration; and
       ``(2) prior to May 15, 1994, the solid waste district 
     political subdivision or municipality within said district--
       ``(A) was responsible under State law for the management 
     and regulation of the storage, collection, processing, and 
     disposal of solid wastes within its jurisdiction;
       ``(B) was authorized by State statute (enacted prior to 
     January 1, 1992) to exercise flow control authority, and 
     subsequently adopted or sought to exercise the authority 
     through a law, ordinance, regulation, regulatory proceeding, 
     contract, franchise, or other legally binding provision; and
       ``(C) was required by State statute (enacted prior to 
     January 1, 1992) to develop and implement a solid waste 
     management plan consistent with the State solid waste 
     management plan, and the district solid waste management plan 
     was approved by the appropriate State agency prior to 
     September 15, 1994.

  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if we could enter into a time agreement?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I had several people who asked to speak. I do not see 
them present, but I think we could finish in 15 minutes on our side.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Would the Senator be willing to agree to 10 minutes on 
that side and no more than 10 minutes on this side?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is agreeable to me.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Is there any objection to that agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not take very 
long. I think it is a very sensible one. I will explain to my 
colleagues what the amendment does, and I believe they will find it 
acceptable.
  I understand the position of the chairman of the committee, who is 
reluctant to grant any exceptions to the bill because there would be 
two other exceptions. But to my knowledge the exceptions are that the 
State of Vermont and some municipalities in two other States have a 
situation which I think this body would agree deserves an exception. 
Let me review very briefly what we are talking about here.
  The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which said the States 
themselves had no right to be able to control the flow of solid waste, 
that this has to be approved by the Federal Government because it was 
an interference with interstate commerce. That decision by the Supreme 
Court created a serious problem for the State of Vermont and some 
political subdivisions in West Virginia and Michigan.
  The purpose, and what we are trying to accomplish in this Nation with 
respect to solid waste, is to do three things, basically. First of all, 
we are trying to reduce the amount of solid waste that we have. Second, 
we are trying to improve the ability to recycle and to build a system 
in this Nation which will recycle and, therefore, reduce the demand on 
resources and reduce costs. Third, to find an equitable way to do it 
looking toward those that 
[[Page S6503]] create the problem to have to pay for it; that is, those 
who create the trash ought to pay for it.
  So Vermont, in view of these national purposes--and I was a member of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I know we were trying 
very desperately to set standards for recycling to try to get this 
country to move up gradually. Vermont, in pursuant of that, passed a 
plan and program statewide that sets up districts for solid waste. In 
these districts, the system is set up which allows for haulers to get a 
tipping fee in order to take care of the additional costs of recycling 
the materials that were delivered to them. The only way it will work is 
if we have that ability. There is no other way they can do it other 
than to require the State of Vermont to provide the tipping fees and to 
take care of those people that are in those districts, and not others. 
And it would be very cumbersome. There are districts in West Virginia 
and Michigan that have a similar problem.
  So all we are trying to do here is to make sure that this national 
goal, which everyone agrees ought to be reached, can be reached by the 
State of Vermont, which is leading the way in this. Right now we have a 
system which is recycling 25 percent of our waste. This amendment is 
limited and says that we might continue forward in pursuance of that 
goal, and we may continue with our present system, and, if we reach the 
goal, that we be permitted to do so. We have established a goal of 30 
percent, which was the national goal which was in RCRA which was never 
passed.
  Why should a State be penalized which has done what everyone in the 
Nation believes should be done, and then to turn around in an amendment 
by the committee to try to help those who have made investments but 
limit it to those on a temporary basis? In Vermont there are only two 
areas which qualify when the whole State is doing it. It makes no sense 
at all. I can understand the committee saying, if we give you an 
exception, then somebody else is going to come in for an exception.
  I say if other communities have an exception like we do and like we 
are talking about which furthers the national goal, reduces waste, 
takes care and improves recycling, then sure, maybe they ought to have 
that. However, I do not know of any in that category.
  So I would like to say that I hope the body will recognize that 
people who are trying to do what is right in this country should not be 
forced to buy onto a bill which is attempting to help in this area but 
just by the nature of things makes it impossible for those who are 
really leading out front doing what is in the national interest, and 
who would be foreclosed, destroys their system, and makes it impossible 
for the States to continue to pursue those goals.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senators from 
Vermont for the amendment that they have offered and to suggest, just 
as the junior Senator from Vermont has said, that this is an example of 
federalism at its best. Vermont has some special concerns. It is a 
State with a very high level of environmental consciousness. It wants 
to be able to meet those needs in a manner that is appropriate to the 
specific circumstances of that beautiful State.
  Yesterday, I spoke at some length about some of the special concerns 
that we have in our State of Florida, which are quite different from 
Vermont. Vermont is a mountainous State. We are a State where anything 
above 20 or 30 feet is considered to be a mountain. We have the very 
serious problem of our ground water supply and its vulnerability to 
contamination and have used the mechanisms which require flow control 
in order to be able to support effective and appropriate landfills and 
other technologies to dispose of our solid waste while also diverting a 
substantial amount of our solid waste into a recycling stream.
  My basic concern with this legislation is that it goes beyond what is 
required to meet the Supreme Court's directive. The Supreme Court, as 
quoted on page 8 of the committee report, in the words of Justice 
O'Connor, who stated:

       It is within Congress' power to authorize local imposition 
     of flow control. Should Congress revisit this area and enact 
     legislation providing a clear indication that it intends * * 
     * States and localities to implement flow control, we will, 
     of course, defer to that legislative judgment.

  So, clearly, the decision is within our hands. It reminds me of the 
old story of the callow youth who held a bird behind his back and asked 
the wise, older man, ``Is the bird dead or alive?'' The wise man, with 
solemn wisdom, opined, ``It is in your control.'' That is, the young 
man had the ability to open his hand and allow the bird to fly free or 
to crush the bird.
  Well, we are somewhat in that same situation with the opinion of the 
Supreme Court. It is in our control to do, allowing States to have a 
wide range of options as to how to deal with this issue, or to narrowly 
constrain.
  This is particularly focused on the question of whether there should 
be prospective operations for States. Should States be allowed in the 
future to utilize this important technique as a means of achieving the 
broader end result of public health and environmental sensitivity as 
that State and its local communities find to be most appropriate for 
their particular set of circumstances?
  In an era in which we are applauding federalism, or seriously 
considering reversing a half century of the consolidation of power by 
allowing States and local communities to have more control over issues 
such as health care financing, welfare, child care programs, it seems 
peculiar and strange in an area that has been as historically local as 
any in our Nation's history, the disposition of garbage, that we would 
now be nationalizing that issue.
  So I join the Senator from Vermont. I applaud his creativity in 
crafting this amendment and hope that we will be wise enough to allow 
Vermont to take this initiative for the protection of that beautiful 
State and as a statement of our own sensitivity to the tremendous 
diversity in America and its desire to let the creativity of the local 
communities operate to the benefit of their local citizens.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, why are we here? We are here because of a 
Supreme Court decision a year ago, just a year ago, in the so-called 
Carbone case. So currently, the law of the land is that there cannot be 
these restrictive agreements that limit the delivery of municipal solid 
waste to one specific point. In other words, there cannot be what is 
known as flow control.
  Now in our committee, we recognized that many communities across the 
States had made very, very substantial financial contributions or 
commitments to incinerators and to landfills, and they would be placed 
in a very difficult position if so-called flow control did not exist, 
if they were not able to tie up the entire waste from the community to 
go to a central point.
  But we said we are going to limit this. We are going to limit it to 
the situations where they have problems arising from debt commitment, 
from bonded indebtedness, or that they already had flow control on 
their books and were used to functioning in that fashion.
  In the Vermont situation, we have taken care of those communities 
where there is a commitment into a solid waste facility or--and they do 
not have incinerators for Vermont--to a landfill. They are taken care 
of.
  But the Senator is stressing that, absent us giving an exception to 
the situation that exists in Vermont, Vermont will not be able to 
continue the excellent record it has had in connection with recycling. 
But, Mr. President, I do not think that necessarily follows. Who knows 
that recycling will fail because they do not have flow control?
  Indeed, here is a report from the Office of Solid Waste in the EPA. 
The report is dated March 1995, 2 months ago. This is what the report 
says. There was a question.

       Identify the impact of flow control on the development of 
     State and local waste management capacity and on the 
     achievement of State and local goals for source reduction, 
     reuse, and recycling.

  In other words, what flow control does for recycling. We are all for 
recycling. The conclusion is as follows, on page ES-5.

       [[Page S6504]] There is no data showing that flow controls 
     are essential either for the development of new solid waste 
     capacity or for the long term achievement of State and local 
     goals for source reduction, reuse and recycling.

  So the Senator's point, it seems to me from the study that has taken 
place here, just is not valid. He may feel strongly about it, and they 
have had considerable success in Vermont--although I suspect there are 
other communities across the Nation in States that have done extremely 
well likewise--but, at least from the data we have here, there is not a 
connection between having flow control and having a better recycling 
record.
  But then we get back to the other point. Why did the Supreme Court 
decide the way it did? The Supreme Court decided the way it did because 
of the commerce clause.
  And what does the commerce clause do? It says that it is good for the 
Nation to have competition, to permit commerce to flow. And that is 
exactly what flow control does not do.
  Now, you might say, well, I argued earlier today for a situation 
where we had flow control. That is right. We did it, as I say, in those 
instances where a community made a commitment and was still involved 
with that commitment. But the overall thrust of this legislation is to 
take care of those specific situations that arose where the communities 
were harmed, financially harmed, as a result of the Carbone decision.
  But we said, enough is enough. No matter how long the indebtedness 
is, no matter what the particular situation as far as bonded 
indebtedness, at the end of 30 years this privilege that we have given 
these communities to go against the commerce clause ends.
  And so, Mr. President, for that reason, I strongly believe that the 
proposition from the State of Vermont, as advanced so ably by the 
junior Senator, is not valid in this particular situation
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me answer the arguments that have 
been put forth by my good friend from Rhode Island. I think if you 
examine our situation, it does not in any way fly in the face or raise 
any concerns.
  The question is: Is our system working? It is. It is reducing waste, 
it is bringing about recycling, and most importantly, it does allow 
competition. There is competition among the haulers. The only thing is, 
every hauler has to pay the tipping fee. But there is no problem. We 
have haulers that are bidding on it. We have put contracts out for bid. 
There is no problem with any interference with competition.
  Now, what the Supreme Court said was that the Federal Government can 
allow this, they just have to do it because a State cannot do it under 
the commerce clause without the authority of the Federal Government.
  All we are asking for is a simple exception for a system that is 
working well. And there is no way it will work in rural areas unless 
you can have tipping fees; that is, getting the people in the areas 
sharing the cost of this to have a way to participate, in other words, 
in order to get the haulers to come in.
  So I think this is a perfect example of what happens when Congress 
gets to look at a problem and gets carried away with some study done by 
EPA which is irrelevant to the situation and tramples on States rights 
to do what is right for the Nation and right for Vermont.
  I understand--and this is the basic problem--that my colleagues are 
afraid of opening this bill up for exceptions. Well, if anybody can 
come with an exception as we have, fine. But I do not think you will 
find anybody.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield to my good friend from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I just ask for a moment to associate myself with the remarks of the 
Senator from Vermont, as well as the other Senator from Vermont, 
Senator Leahy.
  Obviously, Vermont has had a very good experience with flow control. 
It has been able to promote programs for recycling and disposal of 
household hazardous waste. This amendment recognizes that fact and 
address the issue of flow control as it pertains to these Vermont 
programs. It recognizes that Vermont may be unique in this regard and 
gives that state the opportunity to continue to make those programs 
work.
  That is all we are saying with this amendment. Let us give Vermont a 
little more flexibility. Let us defer to that State with regard to flow 
control, if it is going to be able to respond to this issue 
effectively.
  So I applaud the Senator's amendment. I certainly hope that our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I yield to the Senator whatever time I have remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I encourage Senators to not support this 
amendment, very simply because the committee has worked long and hard 
to try to find a balance here, to balance out interests of those 
communities on the one hand that want to have the right to control the 
flow of trash, garbage, dedicated facilities in their communities, and, 
on the other hand, the rights of companies, entrepreneurs, to ship 
trash to whatever location seems to make the most sense to let the free 
market work. It is a classic battle between those who want to control 
by statute and law in the market on the one hand, and those, on the 
other hand, who want total free market.
  As is always the case, the right answer is somewhere in between. The 
solution crafted by the committee, we think, is a good solution in 
between.
  Frankly, Mr. President, if the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Vermont were to pass, I believe we are going to start to find this 
compromise begin to unravel, and it would, therefore, very strongly 
jeopardize this bill.
  If this bill does not pass, then we are not going to be able to have 
any kind of flow control because of the Carbone decision. At the same 
time, States will not be able to limit out-of-State trash coming into 
their State because of another Supreme Court decision.
  So I urge Senators to vote against the Jeffords amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is the Senator ready to conclude debate on 
this?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Leahy wishes to speak.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will support the 
Jeffords-Leahy amendment. If you defeat this amendment, you help nobody 
in the country, but you hurt one State, the State of Vermont. This 
simply says that Vermont, provided we want to operate beyond what may 
be required under Federal laws, would be allowed to do so; that if we 
want to set up a procedure that fulfills everything that the Federal 
law might require but does even better but fits our small very special 
State, that we be allowed to do so.
  Basically, we are saying to every Member of the Senate who has given 
speeches over the last year that States can design programs better, we 
agree and let us do that. We are making sure that we violate no Federal 
law, that we have followed every Federal rule, but we be allowed to 
design something that fits our State.
  Every single Senator, I am willing to wager, Mr. President, in this 
body, has given a speech saying, ``If we can do it better, allow us to 
do it, allow us to design it.''
  Basically what the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and I are 
saying is that is what we want to do. So let us adopt this. This is no 
different than taking care of a unique situation for Alabama yesterday 
in the product liability bill. This takes care of Vermont. It hurts 
nobody, but it helps us.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Vermont. Let me 
advise the Senator, time has expired.
  [[Page S6505]] Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I have some time remaining; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, the Senator has 3 minutes 7 
seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I will just use a couple minutes of that.
  Mr. President, there are a couple of points I briefly want to make. 
The present situation is that it is against the Constitution of the 
United States to do what Vermont is suggesting. So what we have done is 
we have crafted an amendment which will help Vermont and all the other 
States in the Nation that have made these financial commitments, but it 
still says when all is said and done, that they cannot go against the 
Constitution in these other areas.
  It is not correct to say that this is just a little something for 
Vermont. If this is adopted, there is no way in the world that we could 
keep flow control from being adopted universally across the Nation, 
because the Vermont case is what you might call a weak case.
  So, Mr. President, if this amendment is adopted, then, I suspect, the 
whole effort to deal with this goes down the tube and then there will 
be no exceptions to the Constitution as provided.
  So I am going to move to table the amendment, and I very much hope my 
colleagues will join with me.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and move to 
table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 867, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], 
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 
Warner] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     D'Amato
     Dole
     Warner
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 867), as 
modified, was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we vitiate the 
request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 867), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________
```