May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6489 

those who knowingly provide—knowingly provide—guns to felons. Under 

current law, you can be prosecuted by 

providing a gun only if you knew for 

certain that it would be used in a 

crime. The revision I propose would 

make it illegal to provide a firearm if 

you have reasonable cause to believe 

that it is going to be used in the commission of a crime. This is the best 

way, I believe, to go after the illegal 

gun trade, those who provide guns to 

those people who are predators in our 

society. We will no longer, under this 

provision, allow these gun providers to 

feign ignorance. They are helping felons and they need to be stopped. 

Mr. President, all of these proposals 

are motivated by a single purpose. I, 

along with the police officers of this 

country, believe that we have to get 

the guns away from the gun criminals. 

Project Triggerlock was one major initiative that we can pursue at the Federal level to help make this happen. 

Imposing stiff mandatory minimums, 

cracking down on illegal gun providers, 

are also good, important measures. 

All of the gun proposals contained in 

my crime legislation, Mr. President, 

really have the same goal. They are designed to assure American families who 

are living in crime-threatened communities that we are going to do what it 

takes to get guns off of their streets. 

We are going to go after the armed career criminals. We are going to prosecute them, convict them, and we are 

going to keep them off of our streets. 

That is why we have a Government in 

the first place, to protect the innocent, 

to keep ordinary citizens safe from violent, predatory crimes. 

Mr. President, I believe that Government needs to do a much better job 

with this fundamental task. That is 

why targeting the armed career criminals is such a major component of the 

crime bill that I will be introducing. 

Mr. President, tomorrow I intend to 

talk briefly about a third major component of my bill, and that is how we 

help the victims of crime, those who 

are victimized by the criminals, those 

who we, many times, forget. 

It has been my experience that, unfortunately, many times society treats 

the criminals as if they are victims and 

the victims as if they are criminals. 

Provisions in the bill that I will be discussing tomorrow deal with that. We 

will reach out to the victims of crime 

to help them and to make the playing 

field more level. 

Mr. President, at this point, I will 

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. 

SANTORUM). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

AMENDMENT NO. 789

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send a 

manager’s amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the pending amendments 

will be set aside, and the clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 

SMITH] for himself, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. 

BAUCUS, proposes an amendment numbered 

789. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 38, line 18, strike the phrase ‘‘the 

Administrator has determined’’. 

On page 39, after line 8 insert the following: ‘‘For purposes of developing the list 

required in this Section, the Administrator 

shall be responsible for collating and publishing only that information provided to the 

Administrator by States pursuant to this 

Section. The Administrator shall not be required to gather additional data over and 

above that provided by the States pursuant 

to this Section, nor to verify data provided 

by the States pursuant to this Section, nor 

to arbitrate or otherwise entertain or resolve 

disputes between States or other parties concerning interstate movements of municipal 

solid waste. Any actions by the Administrator under this Section shall be final and 

not subject to judicial review.’’

On page 38, after the ‘‘.’’ on line 16 insert 

the following: ‘‘States making submissions 

referred to in this Section to the Administrator shall notice these submissions for 

public review and comment at the State 

level before submitting them to the Administrator.’’

On page 33, line 20, strike ‘‘(6)(D)’’ and insert ‘‘(6)(C)’’. 

On page 34, line 13, strike ‘‘determined’’

and insert ‘‘listed’’. 

On page 34, line 13, strike ‘‘(6)(E)’’ and insert ‘‘(6)(C)’’. 

On page 36, line 16, strike ‘‘(6)(E)’’ and insert ‘‘(6)(C)’’. 

On page 50, strike line 18 and insert the following: ‘‘in which the generator of the waste 

has an ownership interest.’’. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this 

amendment has been agreed to by both 

sides. It is a managers’ amendment, a 

very technical amendment that has 

been requested by EPA, and it applies 

to tracking interstate waste pursuant 

to title I of the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

further debate on the amendment? If 

not, the question is on agreeing to the 

amendment of the Senator from New 

Hampshire. 

The amendment (No. 789) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair, in his capacity as a Senator 

from Arizona, moves to table the motion. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 769

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would 

like to address the pending amendment 

which is, indeed, the Kyl amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would 

just like to say a few words about the 

amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Arizona. 

In our Environment and Public 

Works Committee, there are 16 members: 9 Republicans and 7 Democrats. 

The bill that is before the Senate today 

that the Senator from Arizona seeks to 

amend was approved in the committee 

by a vote of 16 to 0. Every Democrat 

and every Republican voted for it. 

Now, this bill before the Senate represents a delicate balance. There are 

two sides to this issue. On one side is 

the following: The State and local governments say, why should we not be allowed to designate that all municipal 

solid waste, all solid waste within this 

entity, be it the city of Detroit or be it 

some small town in Michigan or town 

or city in Rhode Island, whether it is in 

the Nation—why should we not be able 

to designate that all of the municipal 

waste within that community go to a 

facility that we designate—we, the 

town fathers; and in that fashion, we, 

the town fathers and the community, 

will be able to afford a proper disposal 

facility, be it an incinerator or be it a 

licensed proper landfill? 

If our citizens do not like this arrangement, if they think they can have 

their solid waste hauled away by some 

private entrepreneur in a different 

fashion, then they can vote Members 

out of office and we will be gone and 

the citizens can have a separate system, if that is what they want. At least 

we ought to have that power. 

Now, on the other side of the equation is the view espoused by Senator 

KYL, which is that flow control is anticompetitive and is against the U.S. 

Constitution, in addition to all that. 

The Constitution has said that flow 

control is against the commerce clause 

and it should not be permitted. 

However, the Senator in his amendment recognizes that there are some 

facilities that have been built pursuant 

to the belief that flow control will be 

there in perpetuity and, therefore, he 

has arranged under his amendment 

that those investments made by those 

communities can be paid off. In other 

words, his amendment is tailored to 

the life of the outstanding bonds. 

Once they are paid off, then that ends 

it regarding flow control existing in 

that community. In other words, he 

has kept the flow control limited to a 

minimal period to provide for the payment of the bonds. Now, he has put a 

lot of thought into that argument, and 

as I say, an argument can be made for 

it, as indeed he has made. 

In crafting this view, we balanced 

these two views. The ones who say on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

one side, we do not want to have anything that inhibits competition; and on 

the other side those who say, why 

should we, in our communities, not be 

able to do what we want to do? If it is 

wrong we will be voted out of office. 

Leave that to the citizens. Do not have 

Big Brother in Washington, DC, saying 

how to do things. 

We had those views vigorously 

brought to our attention both in the 

committee and on the floor of the Senate and in our conversations with other 

Senators. 

What did we say? We set limits. We 

said, ‘‘We are going to give broader 

flow control possibilities than that 

suggested by the Senator from Arizona 

in his amendment.’’ However, we are 

going to set an outside limit. This is 

going to end at a certain time under 

our bill. It ends at 30 years. That does 

it. But we did not want to cut it off immediately, for the same reasons the 

Senator from Arizona has suggested. 

We go a little beyond him because 

there are communities here that are 

tied up in contracts that are different 

from just paying off the bonds. They 

have different situations. 

Indeed, they feel very strongly about 

the arrangements they have made 

within their communities, within some 

States. They do not want this limitation. If we are going to have this legislation passed, then it seems to me we 

have to recognize the views on both 

sides to a greater extent than is recognized by the Senator from Arizona in 

his amendment. 

Therefore, Mr. President, when the 

proper time comes I will move to table 

the amendment of the Senator from 

Arizona—not that I think it is totally 

out of line. I can see the rationale that 

is behind his amendment. 

The truth of the matter is it will 

upset this delicate arrangement that 

we have put together here over the 

past several weeks. I might say this 

was not just created by the imagination of this Senator or that Senator. It 

came as a result of hearings we had in 

connection with flow control and trying to craft a bill that is very, very difficult. 

Indeed, what has been going on today 

and yesterday? We were on this bill 

starting at 12 o’clock yesterday, going 

up until something like 6:30. Today we 

have been on it since 9:30, with very little action on the floor. 

Why? Because we are trying to compromise and recognize and deal with 

these various forces that are tugging in 

exactly opposite directions here. That 

is difficult to reconcile. 

Therefore, Mr. President, I would 

hope that our colleagues would support 

the efforts of the committee in trying 

to meet this very, very, difficult compromise. 

Mr. KYL addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if 

the Senator from Rhode Island would 

engage in a colloquy with me regarding 

this legislation? 

Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate 

his characterization of my remarks. 

They are precisely as he described 

them. I appreciate the difficult dilemma that a chairman always has in 

trying to get legislation which is not 

uniformly agreed to and, therefore, requires some compromise. 

Having conceded that much, first I 

want to make a very quick point, because there is some misinformation, I 

think, being conveyed, and that is that 

our amendment does not permit refinancing. 

This is not something that the Senator from Rhode Island addressed but 

was addressed earlier. Under our 

amendment, I make it clear, that refinancing is committed so you are not 

bound by the original financing. Entities can refinance, and however long it 

takes for either the original bond issue 

or the refinanced bond issue to be repaid, that would be the length of time 

that this exemption under my amendment would pertain. 

Mr. CHAFEE. In your bill—in other 

words, you refinance and you could extend beyond the period of the original 

bond? 

Mr. KYL. I believe that is correct, 

yes. 

Mr. CHAFEE. It was my understanding that refinancing was permitted but it could not extend beyond 

the date of the original financing. I 

may be wrong there. 

Mr. KYL. I am sorry, yes. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. In 

subsection (B): 

(A) shall not be construed to preclude refinancing of the capital costs of a facility, but 

if, under the terms of a refinancing, completion of the scheduled for payment of capital 

costs will occur after the date on which completion would have occurred. * * * 

Then the authority expires at the 

earlier of those two dates. The Senator 

is correct. With respect to the issue 

generally that a community should 

have the right to grant a monopoly, 

and that the remedy is to vote them 

out of office—the argument posited 

against this—I ask my colleague this 

question: 

It is true that if a municipality, a 

county government or whatever, creates this monopoly they could be voted 

out of office. But is it not true that the 

U.S. Congress, by this legislation, will 

have created the situation where despite these people being voted out of office, the contract, under the bill as 

written—the contract term, or as long 

as it takes to refinance, or even the 

point at which the useful life ceases to 

exist, after it has been extended, up to 

30 years—would still allow the monopoly to continue? So the candidates 

themselves may be defeated but that 

which they constructed, because we 

protected it, would continue to exist? 

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct. 

Mr. KYL. I think that makes my 

point. We ought to be very, very careful when we are seeking ways to get 

around the U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution; 

that we should do so in the narrowest 

way possible. I think what we have 

done here is, in order to accommodate 

the special desires of different Senators 

from different States to go beyond just 

the repayment obligations but to actually continue to act as a monopoly so 

they will have a competitive advantage 

over others who might wish to provide 

the same kind of service, that in constructing the compromise we have, I 

think, gone too far and acted beyond 

the principle which justifies the more 

limited grandfathering, if you will, 

more limited exemption which I provided for in my amendment. 

That is why, while I certainly recognize the difficulties the chairman has 

in cobbling together a compromise in 

something of this nature, I suggest colleagues may wish to support my 

amendment. I hope they would support 

my amendment. If that means we then 

have to go back and do some more 

working of the bill, then at least it 

might be done from a better basis. 

I might ask the Senator from Rhode 

Island another question here. I can understand, under a very limited circumstance, why we might want to recognize a contract term which extends 

beyond the term for refinancing or financing bonds. There are basically 

three reasons why the monopoly is 

being granted here. One, to allow the 

refinancing to occur—both of us have 

agreed on that. Two, in order to extend 

the exemption to the point that contracts are outstanding. And, three, to 

extend it when something has been 

done to the plant to extend its useful 

life. I can understand a limited rationale in the second situation and we both 

provided for the first. 

What I cannot understand is a rationale for the third aspect of the exemption whereby, simply because it makes 

economic sense to do so, or the jurisdiction in question decides to do something to the plant to extend its useful 

life, that fact ought to occasion us to 

grant an additional exemption. 

At that point there is no longer contract obligation that might be more 

difficult to fulfill. There is no more investor interest out there. This is simply, perhaps, a very rational decision 

to extend the life of the plant, but not 

one which creates in my mind any rationale for extending the grant of authority here. 

Would the Senator from Rhode Island 

care to respond to that? 

Mr. CHAFEE. That is a good question. But the answer is—and we have 

had this raised, obviously, not only on 

the floor here but in calls from Governors that come to us. The original 

plea of the Governors is, ‘‘Why can’t we 

do what we want to do? Who are you in 

Washington, always telling us, yes/ 

no?’’

As the Senator has pointed out, it is 

the Supreme Court that said no. It is 

not us who said ‘‘no.’’ Indeed, what we 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6491 

are doing is in effect coming to the rescue, if you would, of those communities that want to extend flow control 

or have flow control because, as the 

Senator knows, it was declared unconstitutional. So we are stepping in, trying to fill a void, fill a problem that exists. 

But you say, OK, if you step in just 

step in for this limited period which is, 

as you say, the length of the bonds that 

are outstanding or what the contract 

requires between the facility and the 

community—whatever it might be. But 

the answer is that in many of these 

States and communities they set up arrangements based on flow control continuing to exist. In other words, they 

pass statutes that flow control be 

there. So we have some occasions 

where the length of time of the contract is not necessarily going to cover 

all the expenses and is going to be renegotiated for a variety of reasons, but 

all with the anticipation that the flow 

control statute that the municipality 

had entered into was going to continue 

to be there. 

So they say, ‘‘We made arrangements.’’ The arrangements might be 

the original bonds, for example, and did 

not cover the total construction cost of 

the facility. Or that they were dependent upon flow control to provide the 

flow of waste and the tipping fees for 

the rather high maintenance costs. 

They had it all worked out and they 

say, ‘‘Why can’t we continue to do 

that?’’

That is the rationale that we have, 

when we have State A, or B, or C, or 

Governor A, B, or C, calling us and saying this is what we want. So we have 

tried to juggle it around, leaving not 

everybody happy, as is apparent today. 

Mr. KYL. If I could respond, I appreciate that fact. And I suspected that 

basically was the rationale for it. But 

it does seem to me that just because 

the operators of the plant want a monopoly does not necessarily mean that 

is good public policy or that we ought 

to go along with it. By definition, if at 

the time bonds have been paid off—

since I doubt seriously these plants are 

constructed by anything other than 

bond issues—but once the bonds have 

been paid off, they have been built. 

They may continue to have high operating costs. But at that point it is the 

citizens of the State and the community whose interests we ought to have 

in mind, which is the rationale behind 

the interstate commerce clause in the 

first place, that a State should not 

grant a monopoly to either a private 

business or a State enterprise to extract more money from the taxpayers 

of the community than is necessary. 

And if a private investor or some 

other competitor can build a plant, can 

come up with the capital to do so and 

compete favorably with an institution 

that has already been totally financed 

by public funds and had that financing 

repaid, then at that point public policy 

would suggest that the people are more 

benefited by the lower prices and the 

competition because, by definition, 

they are the ones who are getting the 

contract rather than the older, outmoded or very expensive facility that 

we have been protecting in the meantime. 

So I guess I can recognize that the 

owners or operators of the plants may 

wish to stay in business without competition. I still am not clear as to why 

that should occasion us to grant an exemption from an otherwise constitutional prohibition here. 

As I say, I can understand the rationale as to the first point as to the bonds, 

and to some extent on the contracts, 

but on this third area here—and what I 

am searching for here is a possible accommodation with the chairman and 

others who would be involved in this—

I just really fail to see the rationale for 

the third. Perhaps that is something 

we could explore an agreement on. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I think the Senator 

made a rather telling point. He pointed 

out that if they enter into these contracts and the town fathers say, ‘‘Look, 

if you do not like it you can vote us 

out of office,’’ you say, ‘‘What good 

does it do to vote you out of office, you 

have locked us in for 20 years? It is little satisfaction for us that you are 

gone but we are stuck with the contract.’’

But I would like to say this. Here we 

are in a situation where if this Senate 

does nothing or this Congress does 

nothing, there will be no flow control 

at all. 

Yet we have publicly elected servants, Governors, Senators, coming to 

us and say, ‘‘Extend this in perpetuity.’’ That is what many of them 

want. These are people who are saying 

this before it is a done deal. In other 

words, the public knows their position, 

should know it, and many Governors—

it has been no secret—do not say, 

‘‘Don’t tell anybody, I am urging you 

to do this.’’

So there are a lot of factors involved. 

But pursuant to the wishes and the 

views of the Senator from Arizona, and 

our own views likewise, we have set a 

sunset. We said this is all over with. 

We do not care what your arguments 

are. At the end of 30 years, there is not 

going to be any more flow control. You 

did give us arguments about bonds, 

this, that, but that is it. You may say 

30 years is a long time. It is not just 

some people on the floor of the Senate 

who are after us to change that. 

Mr. KYL. Unlike STROM THURMOND, 

we are going to be gone by the end of 

30 years. But I see the point. 

If the Senator will just yield for one 

final comment, I appreciate the arguments the Senator has made. I think 

what I am suggesting is something 

that is correct on principle. I would not 

want it to impede good legislation. I 

tried to suggest a couple of areas of 

possible ways of dealing with the issue 

and would be happy to continue to pursue those areas should anyone be interested. 

On my behalf, I am not doing this for 

anybody in my State, because we do 

not have this. But I urge my colleagues 

to support the amendment and enable 

us perhaps with a little stronger leverage to go back and construct something that would make a little more 

sense. 

I thank the Senator for yielding. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absence 

of a quorum, Mr. President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

find this a rather distressing moment 

because the amendment that is proposed, frankly, will do much to undo a 

lot of hard work that was done in a 

consensus fashion in trying to arrive at 

a way to accommodate the need for 

States to dispose of their trash in a 

sensible way. When you say ‘‘trash, 

garbage,’’ et cetera, immediately it 

sounds like the subject is on the trivial 

side of things. It is hardly that because 

there are a few States that do not have 

a problem. As a matter of fact, this 

country of ours, and this world of ours 

is filled with problems created by the 

excess creation of trash by its citizens. 

It is a serious problem when you 

come from a State like mine, the most 

crowded State in the country. We still 

value the quality of life that we can develop. We like our hills. Some call 

them mountains. It depends on whether you have seen mountains or not. But 

they are our hills and they are our forests, they are our woodlands, and our 

streams. And we try to make as good 

use of those as we can. We want for our 

children nothing different than those 

who live in Montana or Wyoming or in 

the other places, the wide open places. 

As a matter of fact, population growth 

in this country is much more toward 

the crowded areas because young people like to be where other young people 

are, and as a consequence there has to 

be a national cooperation on efforts 

like this to help us deal sensibly with 

the problem. 

Now, this bill is carefully crafted—

the bill itself; I am not talking about 

the amendment of the Senator from 

Arizona—to give States the power to 

restrict in some form or fashion the 

amount of trash that comes to their 

States from other States. This is not a 

simple calculation because within 

States there is often enormous disputes 

between those who govern the local 

community—mayors, councils—those 

sometimes who are responsible for 

county government and State government because the mayor in a town may 

very well be able to find a way to get 

rid of their trash from the community 

by shipping it to the nearest, cheapest 

out-of-State facility. 

To give you an example, in my own 

State we have created some waste disposal facilities, and in order to build 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

those facilities we had to go out and 

arrange for financing, indebtedness, 

and that indebtedness, like any other 

business, was calculated on a particular revenue or financial stream 

that was going to permit them to pay 

their bills and also to pay off their indebtedness. 

So lots of communities across this 

country developed something called a 

flow control program that says a State 

may regulate where the trash is going 

to go, not simply permit a mayor, even 

though it looks on its surface to be in 

the best interests of the residents of 

the community, to simply say OK, tipping fees, which are the fees associated 

with the disposal of garbage, to send it 

to State X nearby are one-third or 40 

percent of what it might cost to send it 

to a nearby waste processing facility. 

That can be true on a particular day at 

a particular moment. 

However, Mr. President, what happens if suddenly the opportunity to 

ship to State X, Y, or Z is terminated 

by laws that are pending in this body 

that say look, we are not going to take 

your garbage. We are not going to permit our communities to take it even 

though it is a revenue-producing 

source, even though it is clean, even 

though it has met all of the standards 

under RCRA for being a sanitary landfill where there is no possibility of 

leaching into the water supply, there is 

no danger to the community, even 

though we know it is great politics to 

keep the garbage out of the contract 

State. The fact is we have a contract 

and the Supreme Court says you cannot interfere with interstate commerce—unless, of course, laws are 

drawn to permit obstructing it in an 

ingenious way so that it gets around 

the constitutional question. 

Well, what happens is those of us who 

live in exporting States are very nervous about the future, of what happens 

if suddenly the export possibility is cut 

off. And I repeat, though I have said it 

on this floor several times, the New 

Jersey story. When we were an importing State for garbage—Philadelphia 

used to ship its trash to my State—we 

tried through the courts to stop it. We 

went as far as the Supreme Court, and 

the Supreme Court said no, you cannot 

stop it. Well, we learned something. We 

were a net importer, and now as fate 

would have it we are an exporter. And 

in order to protect the solvency of our 

State, it was determined that my State 

would have a flow control structure, 

and they tried to direct the trash to 

the facilities that can accommodate it 

not just now, not just next year but in 

much of the next century as well. 

That is the thought that went into 

this bill. Do not cut us off at the border 

and at the same time not permit us to 

control the flow within our States. My 

State of New Jersey wants to be independent. We do not want to depend on 

anybody else, to be gracious and fair 

and all that kind of stuff. We know 

that we have to take care of ourselves, 

so as a consequence we wrote the law 

to permit us to do that. 

Well, now, after all of the deliberations that have gone on—and the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee 

from Rhode Island is in the Chamber. 

He worked very hard to get a consensus. He supports the flow control 

notion because he knows how important it is to the States that are concerned. Forty States in this country of 

ours have flow control authority, and 

they will be adversely affected by this 

amendment. 

The amendment makes it difficult to 

expand landfills. For example, there 

are many landfills that need to be improved. If a 10-year bond was taken out 

for the original landfill 8 years ago, 

then that landfill operator will have 

little incentive to make improvements 

because he does not know how much 

waste will be coming in after 20 years. 

How good business is going to be he 

does not know because we are liable to 

cut off the opportunity for him to continue financing. 

So we have an amendment now which 

I frankly believe would be very disruptive, and I want all the Senators from 

all the States that have flow control 

authority to pay attention because 

they could be losing a valuable asset, 

the sensible management of their trash 

problems. 

We are going to have a vote on this 

amendment, I understand, at 2:30, and I 

would caution those offices where there 

is any interest at all in what happens 

with flow control to make sure that 

those Senators are alerted to the problems that might be created for them. 

This amendment, by the way, is opposed by the National Association of 

Counties. They know what the problems are. It would be difficult to finance equipment, to finance new facilities because the amendment limits 

very specifically the financing of facilities to those that are presently in operation; would limit them to 30 years of 

life even if 25 have gone by. That 

means only 5 more. And the State may 

not have any other solution to its problems. 

So I hope our colleagues will listen 

very carefully to what is being discussed, to note that the chairman of 

the Environment and Public Works 

Committee, that the chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Superfund, under 

whose jurisdiction this is, will be opposing this amendment and that others 

will take leave from them. 

With that, I yield the floor, Mr. 

President. 

Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to 

my colleague, the Senator from 

Vermont. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will 

submit an amendment to the pending 

bill. I ask unanimous consent that the 

pending amendment be set aside temporarily. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 867

(Purpose: To provide flow control authority 

to certain solid waste districts) 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I 

send an amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. JEFFORDS], for himself and Mr. LEAHY, proposes 

an amendment numbered 867. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert 

the following: 

‘‘(f) STATE SOLID WASTE DISTRICT AUTHORITY.—A solid waste district 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 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 2000, 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—

‘‘(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, 1990) to exercise 

flow control authority, and subsequently 

adopted the authority through a law, ordinance, regulation, 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that I be listed as a 

cosponsor with the Senator from 

Vermont. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, hopefully we will be able to reconcile our 

differences that we have right now 

with respect to the pending bill. 

Vermont, I think, is a pioneer in this 

area. Some years ago, it set up a methodology of trying to reach what we believed were national goals as well as 

our own State’s goals, and that was to 

try and develop recycling to reduce the 

amount of solid waste that enters into 

our waste system. Thus, we organized 

districts throughout the State. And 

also to try to enhance the ability to recycle, we have allowed some tipping 

fees to be exacted in order to take care 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6493 

of the costs that are involved with recycling. 

If my memory serves me right, when 

I was on the committee that is handling this legislation, we had set or 

were going to set national goals that 

we ought to try to reach a 30-percent 

goal of recycling. Vermont right now is 

over 25 percent and moving toward 30 

percent. 

What would happen, if this bill passes 

and if the existing Supreme Court decision is not changed, is that Vermont 

will have to move away from what is a 

very desirable situation, and that is to 

be able to reduce our flow of trash by 

over 25 percent. 

Mr. President, in 1987 the State of 

Vermont passed a solid waste management act which allowed small rural 

towns and cities to band together to 

solve their solid waste problems. Building a landfill which complies with EPA 

standards under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is not 

cheap. Recognizing that landfills out of 

compliance would be shutting down, 

and facing the reality that landfill 

space was dramatically declining, 

Vermont acted to assist small communities in their effort to handle their 

solid waste. The 1987 solid waste management law allows Vermont towns the 

ability to band together. Passage of 

Vermont’s solid waste law and the implementation of the State’s solid waste 

plan has been incredibly successful to 

date in achieving this goal. But we are 

not finished yet. 

Mr. President, Vermont has spent 

over $20 million developing its district 

waste management plans. The vast majority of these plans rely on flow control. Without this ability, many small 

towns and cities would not have been 

able to plan for the future, reduce their 

production of waste or implement far 

reaching recycling and waste reduction 

programs. The communities in my 

State need to be able to count on the 

results of their investments. They need 

to continue to work to solve their solid 

waste problems together, in coordination with the State. 

The loss of local authority over solid 

waste planning would be disastrous. 

These solid waste districts have developed comprehensive waste reduction 

plans, in order to reduce the costs of 

disposal and remove the need to continually open new and costly landfills. 

Since 1992, there has been a dramatic 

increase in the number of households 

and businesses participating in local 

waste reduction and recycling programs. And it is working. Currently, 

Vermont recycles approximately 25 

percent of its solid waste and over 40 

percent of Vermont’s towns have recycling programs in place. And these are 

rural towns. Recycling in rural areas is 

not easy, nor cheap. I am proud of what 

these Vermont communities have 

achieved and want to ensure the continued growth of this trend in the future. 

Mr. President, Vermont is among the 

most rural States in the Nation. Our 

solid waste districts generally have not 

financed disposal facilities, such as 

landfills, nor recycling infrastructure 

through the issuance of revenue bonds. 

Therefore, the exemptions in the bill 

will not hold. But the financial health 

of these communities necessitates the 

continuation of their ability to direct 

flows of waste. And these waste districts are just beginning to fully implement their waste management plans, 

which may include the sighting of safe, 

but expensive, waste disposal facilities. 

My State has chosen to manage its 

waste in this manner. Now, in this 

time when the theme is to reduce mandates from Washington, are we going to 

impose a Washington solution on 

Vermont and other States who are 

properly managing their waste? Essentially, Washington will be removing 

Vermont’s ability to implement their 

solid waste management plan. Washington will dismantle Vermont’s recycling program. Washington will increase Vermont’s waste generation, 

thereby increasing costs associated 

with waste disposal. Washington will 

end Vermont’s ability to safely manage 

its waste, waste which without my 

amendment can go to out-of-State incinerators and less preferable landfills. 

I ask my colleagues to let Vermont 

manage its waste as it chooses, not as 

Washington dictates. Do not impose a 

Washington mandate on Vermont. Let 

us maintain our extremely successful 

waste reduction and recycling programs. 

Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join 

with Senator JEFFORDS on this, because I think it is extremely important 

to our State. S. 534, as it is presently 

written, trashes Vermont’s solid waste 

management plan, I might say literally 

and figuratively. 

What we want to do is let the 

Vermont solution work in Vermont. 

We hear a lot about States’ rights 

these days, but we are about to undermine our State’s right to manage 

waste in Vermont. We hear a lot about 

how States could find the best solutions to their problem, but this bill 

says the States’ solutions are wrong. 

We hear a lot about not forcing States 

to adhere to national environmental 

standards, but when my own State goes 

and exceeds the national standard 

within the borders of our own State, we 

are told we cannot do that. 

Now here we have a bill that says 

States can control what comes across 

their borders, but they cannot control 

what is within their borders. That is 

absurd. 

My State uses flow control to reduce 

the leakage of household hazardous 

waste into the environment. That is 

something that benefits all Americans. 

My State uses flow control to increase 

recycling in rural areas. 

Vermont manages waste better than 

Federal statutes, like the Clean Air 

Act and the Clean Water Act require. If 

a State like Vermont wants to go 

above and beyond the call of duty in 

addressing solid waste problems, then 

the Federal Government ought to 

stand out of its way. We are not suggesting we do less. We are just saying 

give us the right to do more if that is 

what we want. 

The opponents of this amendment 

say the free market will take care of 

our solid waste management. Well, the 

fact is in a rural State like Vermont 

the free market will not increase recycling nor separate and collect household hazardous wastes or address a 

number of the other things that we are 

doing in Vermont. 

When the State legislature or an individual waste management district 

chooses to pursue the policy suggested 

by Senators from other States, they 

will have the opportunity to do so. 

Until then, they ought to be allowed to 

pursue the policies they have set up 

themselves, especially when everybody 

agrees the policy goes beyond any national standards. We ought to be able 

to do what we want within our own 

borders in a case where we are not only 

not harming anybody else, but we are 

actually making the environment better. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I 

would also point out that this does not 

interfere in the sense of competition. 

There are bids that go out for those 

who want to bid. The only problem 

that is created is the tipping fee, which 

has to eventually, of course, be paid by 

the people that are getting the advantage of the waste disposal. And that 

helps in paying for the recycling programs. 

In rural areas where you do not have 

large amounts of trash that is recyclable in the sense that it can be sold, you 

have to make up that cost some way. 

The question is, is it not better to put 

that cost on those that are getting the 

advantages of the waste disposal system? I think everyone would agree, the 

answer is yes. And if the answer is yes, 

then why should we not be allowed to 

do it? It is not in any way interfering 

with the problems that the Supreme 

Court handled, which was interfering 

with respect to fair and open competition 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. President, I note the absence of a 

quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The 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. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, am I 

correct in believing that 2:30 is the 

time set for the vote on the Kyl amendment? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. 

Mr. CHAFEE. That is the pending 

amendment, right? 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

AMENDMENT NO. 769

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will now 

resume consideration of amendment 

No. 769 offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. KYL]. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move 

to table the Kyl 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. 769. 

The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 79, 

nays 21, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.] 

YEAS—79 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

Mack 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NAYS—21 

Ashcroft 

Brown 

Bryan 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Cochran 

Craig 

Domenici 

Feingold 

Gramm 

Inhofe 

Kempthorne 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lott 

McCain 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Stevens 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 769) was agreed to. 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, seeing no 

other Members of the Senate seeking 

recognition at this time, I would like 

to ask unanimous consent that I may 

be allowed to speak as in morning business, not to exceed 12 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

COMMENDATION TO FORMER 

PRESIDENT BUSH 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank 

the Chair for recognizing me and I 

thank the distinguished managers for 

allowing me to speak. 

Mr. President, this morning’s Washington Post and many television and 

radio news programs throughout America and perhaps the world, reported on 

what I would like to call a portrait in 

courage, and the person standing tall 

in that portrait was none other than 

former President George Bush. 

Like many of my friends and family 

in Arkansas, former President Bush is 

a gun enthusiast. He is a long-time 

member of the National Rifle Association. 

But like many other NRA members, 

President Bush was deeply offended by 

a recent NRA fundraising letter signed 

by Mr. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president. The LaPierre 

letter referred to several law enforcement officials: ‘‘Jack-booted thugs who 

harass, intimidate, even murder lawabiding citizens.’’ The NRA referred to 

Federal agents ‘‘wearing Nazi bucket 

helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.’’

This irresponsible, inflammatory 

NRA fundraising letter incited the 

former President of the United States 

to the point that he wrote NRA President Thomas Washington to resign his 

NRA membership. 

Former President Bush’s letter reads 

as follows: 

Your broadside against Federal agents 

deeply offends my own sense of decency and 

honor and it offends my concept of service to 

our country. 

President Bush continues in his letter: 

It indirectly slurs a wide array of government law enforcement officials who are out 

there day and night, laying their lives on the 

line for all of us. 

Mr. President, I am asking unanimous consent that an excerpt from the 

story in the Washington Post about 

President Bush resigning his membership from the National Rifle Association be printed at this point in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

But his resignation letter was more personal than political. 

‘‘Al Whicher, who served on my [Secret 

Service] detail when I was vice president and 

president, was killed in Oklahoma City,’’

Bush wrote. ‘‘He was no Nazi. He was a kind 

man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to 

serving his country—and serve it well he did. 

‘‘In 1993, I attended the wake for ATF 

agent Steve Willis, another dedicated officer 

who did his duty. I can assure you that this 

honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was 

no Nazi.’’ Willis was one of four federal 

agents killed in the initial February 1993 

raid on the Branch Davidian compound near 

Waco, Tex. 

‘‘John Magaw, who used to head the [Secret Service] and now heads ATF, is one of 

the most principled, decent men I have ever 

know,’’ Bush wrote. ‘‘He would be the last to 

condone the kind of illegal behavior your 

ugly letter charges. The same is true for the 

FBI’s able Director Louis Freeh. I appointed 

Mr. Freeh to the federal bench. His integrity 

and honor are beyond question.’’

The letter concluded, ‘‘You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre’s unwarranted attack. 

Therefore, I resign as a life member of NRA, 

said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name 

from your membership list. Sincerely, 

George Bush.’’

f 

GATT AND GENERIC DRUGS 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, when we 

in Congress voted on the GATT treaty 

recently, we all knew that we were 

breaking down trade barriers and leveling the playing field in international 

trade. 

Make no mistake, I believe that 

Americans will benefit from this agreement when it is implemented in June. 

But never, Mr. President, in our 

wildest dreams or imagination, would 

we have ever thought we were voting 

to give special treatment and a $6 billion windfall to the prescription drug 

industry on one hand and higher drug 

prices to American consumers on the 

other. Yet that is exactly what is happening. 

Mr. President, here is what has happened to bring us to this point today. 

Last year, the United States agreed 

under GATT to a new patent law, good 

for 20 years from filing. Our old patents 

were for 17 years, the effective date 

from their date of issue. 

We also agreed under GATT to give 

existing patents the longer of the two 

patent terms. This extension applies to 

all industries. 

At the same time, we knew that generic companies of all kinds all over 

America had already made significant 

investments based upon old patent expiration dates. These companies were 

prepared to introduce their competitively priced drug products just as the 

brand-name monopolies end. 

We did not want to jeopardize the 

jobs and the factories which were at 

stake. So we decided under GATT to 

adopt a formula under which these generic companies could proceed with the 

introduction of their products if they 

paid the patent holders ‘‘equitable remuneration’’ for the period of time left 

on their patents. 

Mr. President, here is where this 

story really begins. It just so happens 

that over 100 prescription drugs now 

protected by patents will be getting 

extra patent life under GATT. 

For example, Glaxo’s patent for the 

world’s best selling drug, Zantac, 

would have run out December 5, 1995, 

but will now last until 1997. Generic 

drug companies have already spent 

millions of dollars to prepare to market lower cost, equivalent drugs on 

that date, giving consumers of America 

a tremendous price break. 

But a small handful of brand-name 

pharmaceutical companies have objected. They are saying, ‘‘Thank you 

for the extra patent life. We really appreciate that part of GATT. But you 

should know there is an obscure provision in U.S. drug law which we think 

protects us from the rest of the GATT 

treaty. We are sorry our generic competitors have invested heavily in their 

business, but they do not deserve the 

protections that are rightfully theirs 

under GATT. So we guess we will not 

have any competition for quite some 

time.’’

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS