[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 82 (Friday, June 24, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   INTRODUCTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                          HON. BILL RICHARDSON

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 24, 1994

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Jack Fields and I have 
introduced H.R. 4643, the Municipal Solid Waste Flow Control Act of 
1994. I am pleased that Representatives John Bryant and Rod Grams have 
joined us in support of this legislation. Our bill sets a historic 
precedent by simultaneously addressing the needs of local governments, 
the business community, and the environmental community.
  The flow control issue has taken on a new urgency in light of the 
Supreme Court's recent Carbone decision dealing with municipal solid 
waste flow control. Flow control is the authority by which local 
governments require trash to be disposed of at waste management 
facilities that they specify. In many cases, these facilities have been 
municipal waste combustors. In the 1980's, local governments concluded 
that they needed to direct waste to these facilities to keep them in 
business and satisfy the demands of the contracts they had signed for 
financing of the facilities.
  In the late 1980's, several legal challenges were filed to flow 
control laws around the country as an unconstitutional interference 
with interstate commerce. On the basis of that argument, several courts 
struck down flow control laws around the country. The issue finally 
reached the Supreme Court in the context of the Carbone case. The 
Supreme Court's ruling made clear as a national matter what these other 
courts had already said--flow control represents a clearly 
unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce.
  The urgency of this situation is made real by the hundreds of local 
governments now seeking relief from Congress as a result of the Supreme 
Court decision. Without flow control authority, they argue, they cannot 
hope to maintain successful waste management policies without 
bankrupting their local customers. While it makes sense that 
municipalities need limited relief from the effects of the Carbone 
decision, unlimited flow control in the future will have a damaging 
effect on competition, waste reduction, recycling, and effective waste 
management polices.
  There are many reasons against conferring unlimited flow control 
authority on State and local governments. For one, I believe that open 
competition is preferable to the monopolization of waste management 
disposal. With flow control, waste management decisions are often based 
not on best management practices or the most environmentally preferable 
disposal options, but on the cheapest method possible with the least 
financial risk for the local government.
  The free market is better able to address solid waste needs than is a 
government monopoly. A small business owner would presumably prefer to 
have the benefit of competition which drives down collection rates for 
his trash than doing business in a marketplace where disposal costs are 
established by the local government.
  There is evidence already that waste collection prices for small 
businesses will decrease in the absence of flow control. With the many 
pressures already facing small businesses, isn't it only fair that we 
give them the benefits of competition to control their waste disposal 
costs in the future rather than saddling them with a regime that could 
increase their costs?
  Second, flow control is counter to the liability scheme we have 
developed under Superfund. This law confers on waste generators, 
transporters and disposers liability for their role at Superfund sites. 
As a result, waste generators and transporters now must take steps to 
avoid sending waste to sites that either are or could be on the 
national priorities list. It would seem to make little sense to 
maintain such a liability scheme while giving local governments the 
power to direct waste to the site of their choice, perhaps against the 
wishes of waste generators concerned that such a site could make them a 
potentially responsible party under Superfund. So long as the liability 
system under the Superfund places responsibility on waste generators to 
follow the safest disposal practices possible, flow control will render 
waste generators unable to fully control their liability.
  Flow control can be used to mask the full cost of waste management 
services in a community by lumping together the separate costs for 
recycling, household hazardous waste collection, and other waste 
management-related services in addition to disposal. Waste reduction is 
most likely to take place when consumers receive clear signals from the 
marketplace about what the actual cost is for waste collection and 
disposal. When, as under flow control, the prices for a number of 
separate waste management practices are jumbled together, consumers 
receive totally nuclear price signals and therefore have little 
understanding about the extent to which waste reduction will benefit 
them. Waste reduction and recycling goals are actually impeded by flow 
control.
  Scrap recyclers, paper recyclers, and others in the recycling 
business feel that flow controlling recyclables might actually reduce--
not increase--recycling. The best way to advance recycling is to 
encourage utilization of postconsumer recyclables in new products and 
packaging and to eliminate impediments to the movement of recyclables 
to locations at which there is the greatest demand for them.
  Finally, perhaps my biggest concern is that the strongest proponents 
of flow control are companies, local governments, and others with a 
stake in securing financing for large municipal waste-to-energy 
combustion facilities. My opposition to waste combustion is widely 
known. In fact, Congressman Ed Towns and I have introduced H.R. 2488, 
legislation which would impose a temporary moratorium on waste 
incinerators in this country and establish tough conditions for new 
construction or expansion. There is no question that with flow control 
there will be more waste incinerators built. Without it, there will be 
fewer. My colleagues who have cosponsored H.R. 2488 or who oppose 
excessive waste-to-energy combustion should think carefully about 
supporting flow control. The Sierra Club has endorsed H.R. 4643 for the 
same reasons.
  Notwithstanding my opposition to flow control, I am sympathetic to 
the situation facing local governments today that have invested 
substantial sums of money in facilities dependent on flow control. For 
Congress to take no action is to leave these communities in the lurch, 
unsure whether their flow control laws are enforceable and therefore 
unsure whether billions of dollars in municipal bonds can be paid off.
  Contrary to the claims of flow control proponents, there are many 
States today that do not have flow control authority but that do have 
quite sophisticated solid waste management systems. These States are as 
committed to waste reductions, recycling, and composting--rather than 
incineration and landfiling--as States that have flow control. I am 
uncomfortable with Congress dictating solid waste policies for State 
and local governments and I do not believe that Congress should 
micromanage the local solid waste management business.
  If you want to assure that local governments are held harmless from 
the effects of the Supreme Court's Carbone decision and also are 
committed to the virtues of the competitive market in the future, this 
legislation deserves your support. I urge my colleagues to add their 
names to the growing chorus for real flow control reform by 
cosponsoring H.R. 4643.

                          ____________________