```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6595-S6597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN MOSCOW AND KIEV

  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 
Russia-NATO 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 
 [[Page S6596]] 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 out-of-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-of-State 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 
 [[Page 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.

                          ____________________
```