[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTERSTATE WASTE CONTROL ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 551 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 551

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4779) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
     authorize local governments and Governors to restrict receipt 
     of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a 
     period not to exceed four hours (excluding time consumed by 
     recorded votes and proceedings incidental thereto). It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. Any amendment offered by the chairman of 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee may 
     amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereof to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, as we head into the 21st century, one of the biggest 
challenges our State and local communities face is the question of how 
we deal with--and how we dispose of--solid waste.
  It is one of the biggest health challenges we face.
  It is one of the biggest economic challenges we face.
  And it is one of the biggest environmental challenges we face.
  But one thing it is not: It is not a small problem.
  Not when you consider that every single year, America generates about 
200 million tons of solid waste--200 million tons.
  In case you are wondering, that works out to about 1,600 pounds of 
solid waste for every man, woman, and child in the United States today, 
1,600 pounds every single year.
  If you have ever wondered why people talk about the ``art of solid 
waste management,'' that is the reason why. It is because we have a 
ceaseless, relentless, large-volume supply of garbage, and a limited 
amount of space to put it all.
  That is why it is in all of our interests to deal with this problem.
  And fortunately, over the last 20 or 30 years, many State and local 
communities have accepted responsibility for dealing with this problem.
  Working together with the private sector and local residents, many 
State and local communities have come up with innovative action plans 
and strategies to deal with waste management, to educate the public, to 
encourage reducing, reusing, and recycling, and to reduce the amount of 
solid waste being dumped in our landfills today.
  And it is working. It has had an enormous effect. Anybody who has 
ever seen their street lined with green or blue recycling bins early in 
the morning knows that we are making progress.
  But today, many of our State and local communities that have accepted 
responsibility for dealing with this issue face a new problem. They are 
being forced--many of them against their will--to accept trash from 
places that have not taken responsibility for dealing with the problem.
  They are being forced to accept out-of-State waste--and in some cases 
out-of-country waste--from places that have not made the same priority 
of reducing, reusing, and recycling.
  Again, this is not a small problem.
  Of the 200 million tons of solid waste produced in this country in 
1992, 19 million tons--one-tenth of the total amount--crossed State 
lines.
  Some of this waste found its way to communities that were more than 
happy, for reasons having to do with job creation, tax revenues, or 
other benefits, to take it in.
  But most of this waste found its way, unwanted, uninvited, and often 
unlimited, into communities that had sacrificed year after year to 
reduce the flow of garbage into their own landfills, because they say 
the continuing burgeoning of their local landfill as a health threat 
and an environmental threat to the local community.
  If you are wondering why they cannot just say no, well there is a 
very simple reason.
  Because in 1992, the Supreme Court, in one of their lesser known but 
more damaging decisions to the quality of life in local communities, 
ruled that local communities had no control over the waste that was 
coming into their communities.
  The Supreme Court ruled that local communities had no say.
  If some local landfill owner wanted to make a profit by shipping in 
waste from a thousand miles away, the Supreme Court ruled that that was 
their right under the Commerce Clause--no matter how much the local 
community protested.
  In that 1992 decision, the Court then looked in our direction, and 
said it was up to us to restore the rights of local communities to have 
a say in this matter.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today.
  The bill before us will restore local control.
  It will give local communities and local governments the ability to 
decide whether or not to accept out-of-State trash into their 
communities, to control the garbage that is being trucked on their 
streets and dumped in their landfills.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: This is not a radical bill.
  It is a balanced, reasonable approach that has made a priority of 
considering all sides in this debate.
  Let me tell you what it does not do.
  It does not place an immediate, undue burden on local businesses.
  And above all, it does not prohibit communities from taking in waste 
if they want to.
  It simply says that local communities should be able to decide 
whether or not any new landfills should be allowed to accept waste in 
their community.
  It simply gives local communities a say in an issue that affects the 
health, the environment, an the quality of life of residents and 
businesses in their communities.
  And it does so in a responsible way, by phasing in this 
responsibility over a sufficient period of time to give affected 
States, businesses, and local communities time to adjust.
  Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of communities in America today 
are trying to take responsibility for improving the way they handle 
solid waste.
  States like Michigan and many others have made important strides 
toward making reducing, reusing, and recycling a priority. We have 
reduced our need for landfills. And we should not be forced to accept 
trash from places that have not.
  This is a fair bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This is a fair and 
open rule. And this is a responsible approach. Because it gives all 
parties time to adjust while restoring the rights of State and local 
communities to control the problems of solid waste.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 551 is a simple, open rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 4779, the State and Local Government Interstate 
Waste Control Act of 1994.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  The rule makes in order the Energy and Commerce Committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment.
  The rule limits to 4 hours the time for consideration of the bill for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The rule also provides that an amendment to be offered by 
Representative Dingell may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the bill.
  Mr. speaker, this is a simple, open rule--and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would mention at this time the outstanding job that 
has been done on this bill by my colleagues, particularly the gentleman 
from the State of Washington [Mr. Swift], who we will dearly miss in 
this next Congress, who has labored to put this together along with the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman of the committee, 
who has taken an active role in this issue and participated in crafting 
a bill we can live with.

                              {time}  1140

  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher], who has been a consistent, 
strong supporter of this legislation over the years and I had the 
pleasure to work with and who cares about our health and environment in 
a very special way; the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp], from my 
neighboring State, who has worked tirelessly on this issue, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], from my home State, has also 
labored, as well as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], an articulate spokesman on 
this issue, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor], my friend.
  All of these gentlemen deserve our gratitude for the work that they 
have put in, the hours they have put in on a difficult issue. It has 
taken us years to get here. I am glad we are here, and I praise their 
work and look forward to working with them to make this a reality and 
making this law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I join Mr. Bonior in supporting this open 
rule. It is not often that the Energy and Commerce Committee requests 
an open rule for legislation under their jurisdiction, and I am 
especially pleased to have an open rule for this particular bill. The 
State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act has been 
surrounded with controversy, and it is especially important to allow 
all Members the opportunity to offer amendments as this measure could 
have a severe impact on individual districts and States. Although the 
rule does impose a 4-hour time limitation for the consideration of 
amendments, I find this acceptable in view of the limited amount of 
time we have left before adjournment.
  I would like to commend Chairman Dingell, Carlos Moorhead, Al Swift, 
Mike Oxley, Rick Boucher, and everyone else who has worked so 
diligently over the past year and a half to put together this bill. It 
offers, in my opinion, an affirmative response to the various court 
decisions regarding whether States may impose restrictions on the 
importation of municipal solid waste.
  I urge adoption of this rule so we can proceed with the consideration 
of this important piece of legislation.

              OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Open rules       Restrictive rules
  Congress (years)   Total rules ---------------------------------------
                      granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).....          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).....          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).....          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).....          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).....          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)....          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)....          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).....          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).....           99      31         31       68         69 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported   
  from the Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration  
  of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive 
  points of order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged
  are also not counted.                                                 
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane    
  amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with  
  the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules  
  as a percent of total rules granted.                                  
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments     
  which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified
  closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing  
  for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the     
  Whole. The parenthetical percentages are restrictive rules as a       
  percent of total rules granted.                                       
                                                                        
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-   
  102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,'' Committee on Rules, 103d     
  Cong., through Sept. 27, 1994.                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 22, 1994).  
                                           Authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 542, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4008: NOAA Auth. Act....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 543, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4926: Natl. Treatment in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Banking.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 544, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 3171: Ag. Dept.           N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Reorganization.                                                                                              
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994...  MO        H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste    22 (D-15; R-7)..  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 552, Sept. 27, 1994...  O         H.R. 4683: Flow Control Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, as the 
gentleman did, to commend all the Members who have been so actively 
involved in this effort, particularly the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Swift] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] who will be 
leaving the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is indeed a great 
tribute to their dedication to a very important issue.
  There will probably be few things that we will do in the closing 
moments of this session that will have a more direct impact on the 
communities that all of us represent. I think the bottom line that 
Members will be hearing today, as we debate this issue and amend it and 
move it forward, is that communities across this country are literally 
sick and tired of dealing with garbage generated by other communities 
when they are struggling to deal effectively with their own.
  The legislation which we will pass today will put those communities 
for the first time in the driver's seat, by giving them the ability to 
decide up front how much out-of-State municipal waste they want to 
receive and requiring those facilities who wish to accept out-of-State 
waste to negotiate with host community agreements, explicitly 
authorizing those shipments.
  That is a real big step in the right direction. I encourage my 
colleagues to support the rule. I encourage them to support the 
legislation. And again, my congratulations to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Swift], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp], the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and others who have done such a 
magnificent job on this.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House acts to reverse several recent court 
decisions by addressing the ability of State and local governments to 
restrict the importation of out-of-State municipal solid waste [MSW].
  For too long, communities in the Midwest and other so-called 
importing States have had to bear the solid waste disposal burdens that 
exporting States have avoided dealing with. Although Oklahoma is not 
currently a major importer of municipal solid waste, cheaper land, and 
reasonable disposal costs make communities in my State frequent targets 
of imported waste proposals.
  The legislation before us puts those communities in the driver's seat 
by giving them the ability to decide up-front whether and how much out-
of-State municipal solid waste to receive, and by requiring facilities 
wishing to accept out-of-State waste to negotiate a host community 
agreement explicitly authorizing such shipments. The legislation also 
recognizes the important role that the State plays in overseeing solid 
waste management needs within its borders, and allows importing States 
to place a ``freeze'' on the total amount of out-of-State waste sent to 
the State for disposal. In particular, I want to commend my colleagues 
on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Sharp and 
Representative Boucher, and their staffs for the long hard work they 
have put into negotiating this legislation among waste companies, and 
State and local governments.
  Finally, I would like to note that a considerable amount of 
negotiating between the importing States of Indiana, Pennsylvania, and 
Ohio and the exporting States of New York and New Jersey occurred at 
the committee level. The bill reflects the results of these 
negotiations, Nevertheless, because compromise could not be reached, 
the House will be considering a number of amendments from both sides 
today. The bottom line here is that communities across this land are 
sick and tired of dealing with the garbage generated by other 
communities, when they're struggling to deal effectively with their 
own. As public policy makers, we should demand that those who generate 
garbage should take care of it as close to home as possible. And if 
exporting garbage to another State is necessary, it should only be done 
with the permission of the importing community and State. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill to strengthen controls over unwanted 
exports of interstate waste and pass H.R. 4779.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and commend the 
Committee on Rules for providing this open rule so that we can debate 
some of the last remaining issues that have to be decided by the House.
  This has been a long and difficult process that we are finally seeing 
bear some fruit. I want to particularly commend my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], for helping in this effort. I 
know he has a particular issue in his district and our committee, I 
think, was very sensitive to that. Along with, of course, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman, and particularly the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], chairman of the subcommittee 
that I am honored to be ranking member.
  He has in many cases threaded the needle on this legislation to get 
it where it is today, to be able to bring it to the floor in good shape 
where we have essentially compromised a lot of the potential problems 
that existed between the exporting States and the importing States.
  Essentially what this bill is, Mr. Speaker, is an empowerment bill. 
It empowers local governments and Governors to get a better handle on 
that flow of waste into their particular jurisdictions.
  I think that is a positive thing for the country.
  All of those who are involved on our side as well as the other side 
do deserve a great deal of commendation. I look forward to the debate 
and the amendments to get this bill forward and to get it to pass, 
hopefully before we adjourn sine die.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley], for his comments. I thank him for his good work on this 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Sharp], who we will miss dearly in this institution, who has been a 
strong advocate of working families and a clean environment, healthy 
environment. I thank him again for his work on this matter.
  (Mr. SHARP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support 
of the bill before us.
  It is the result of almost 4 years of negotiations and compromise 
between representatives from importing States, as my own, Indiana, and 
the exporting States, and with the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Swift], providing extremely skillful leadership through a lot of very 
difficult problems, we have the legislation before us today.
  I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior] who, while not a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, has been a vital player. And as someone who shared his point 
of view, I am extremely appreciative of his work that gets us here 
today.
  I might just briefly indicate to our colleagues that we hope the 
proceedings this afternoon will go more easily than perhaps was 
originally anticipated, because there have been some further 
negotiation between leaders of importing and exporting States. So that 
we hope to dramatically reduce the number of amendments that are 
offered here that our Members will have to choose from.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Swift]. I think that our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle know that if the gentleman from Washington is involved that 
issues are going to be handled in a professional and responsible 
fashion and also with good humor on top of it. We thank him for the 
good work.
  If I could, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, my State has had a unique 
problem with respect to out-of-State waste. Earlier this year the U.S. 
Supreme Court invalidated a special program that Oregon set up to try 
to recoup some of the costs associated with dealing with the problems 
of out-of-State waste.
  As a result of the Supreme Court decision, my State and others, in 
effect, would be a dumping ground for out-of-State waste. Fortunately, 
this legislation would correct it.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia. He worked 
tirelessly with us to come up with an alternative that would authorize 
States to impose surcharges of up to $2 per ton on imported waste. In 
my view, this is something that will encourage recycling. It will 
encourage sensible conservation practices. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Virginia for his help and again commend the gentleman 
from Washington and also add my thanks to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior] who has also spent years toiling on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend both the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
Swift, for moving forward on an issue that is considered highly 
controversial--the interstate shipment of garbage.
  For the typical consumer, garbage is something you put out at the 
curb and it's carted away. And, once out of sight, it's out of mind.
  But for the residents of waste-importing States and communities, 
garbage is not so easily ignored. Trash trucks and railcars roll into 
our States and dump refuse in our communities, which affects both 
property values and the quality of life.
  While garbage may be an issue that many would prefer to turn their 
noses up and away from, the impacts of interstate waste shipments on 
Oregon and other importing States are serious concerns that merit 
congressional action, and I am pleased that the Congress is moving 
forward on interstate waste legislation.
  The legislation before us today may not be perfect, but it is clearly 
better than the existing situation where waste is shipped and dumped 
throughout the country without any restriction whatsoever.
  Due to the efforts of Mr. Boucher and other members of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, H.R. 4779 goes to considerable lengths to protect 
the interests of local communities with facilities receiving out-of-
State waste. And, because of a number of improvements that I and other 
members made to the bill in committee, it also provides important roles 
to States, including the ability to charge compensatory fees to recoup 
the States' costs of managing imported waste.
  Several years ago, Oregon tried to recoup its costs arising from out-
of-State waste by imposing a surcharge based on the State's costs of 
managing this waste. Oregon hired outside consultants who calculated 
that it cost the State over $2 for each ton of imported waste.
  Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Oregon's 
surcharge. As a result of this decision, Oregon and other waste-
importing States will not only be the dumping ground for other States' 
garbage, but they also get stuck with the bill for managing the out-of-
State trash.
  Working with my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, I added an 
amendment to correct this unfair situation by authorizing States to 
impose surcharges of up to $2 per ton on imported waste. This amendment 
is critical to my State and it is important for other waste-importing 
States as well.
  I want to thank Mr. Boucher for working with me on a consensus 
amendment that recognizes the financial impact of interstate waste 
shipments on the importing States and provides an opportunity for those 
States to recover their costs through compensatory surcharges. I also 
want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Dingell, for his 
willingness to work with me on this and especially for your support of 
the Wyden-Boucher waste import fee amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my commendations to 
all the Members who have been mentioned on both sides of the aisle. 
This is an issue of extreme importance to my State of Pennsylvania. We 
are the No. 1 trash importer in the country. Yesterday we went to the 
Committee on Rules, and despite the fact that we thought we had worked 
out a bill that was pretty well compromised, we stood for an open rule, 
knowing full well that we would anticipate 22 amendments, and we were 
prepared to debate all 22 of the those amendments under the provisions 
of this open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report now that as of this morning, it 
appears that we have worked out agreements and will be able to expedite 
this process by agreeing to two or three amendments. We may have to 
debate one amendment. I think we can finally come to conclusion on this 
bill, and I stand in support of the rule.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 551 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 
4779.

                              {time}  1151


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
4779) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize local 
governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-State municipal 
solid waste, and for other purposes, with Mr. Price of North Carolina 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift].
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4779, the State 
and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1994, which was 
ordered reported on a voice vote, with bipartisan support, by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce on August 18 of this year.
  This legislation, which is the product of several years of intense 
negotiations, attempts to address one of the most controversial issues 
that has arisen in the debate over solid waste management. It is 
probably the closest thing to a good compromise on this issue that we 
could achieve. I commend my colleagues on the committee who have all 
worked so terribly hard on this legislation.
  The committee members have worked with exceptional diligence to bring 
this bill to the floor. It has not been an easy task. I would 
especially like to commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Dingell, 
for his hard work in keeping this legislation moving forward when it 
seemed that it might falter. As usual, he provided the critical 
leadership necessary to bring the bill to this point.
  Over the last 4 years, the committee has heard testimony from a large 
number of witnesses regarding this issue. Last Congress, our committee 
reported a RCRA reauthorization bill that contained a provision giving 
local governments the authority to control their own destinies 
in regard to the receipt of out-of-State trash. That section of the 
RCRA bill was the starting point for the legislation before us today. 
Two years after the RCRA legislation was reported out of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, we are back with another bill. Every provision of 
H.R. 4779 has been intensely negotiated among a wide range of parties. 
Agreement was not reached on everything, but the list of outstanding 
issues has narrowed considerably since we started work on this bill 
early in 1993.

  As I mentioned before, this legislation attempts to address one of 
the most controversial issues in solid waste management, a question 
that has been raging for the last several years. That question is: 
Should States and local government have the ability to restrict garbage 
coming into their jurisdictions for disposal?
  There are a number of persons who believe that a waste company should 
be able to build a facility and dispose of garbage wherever it wishes. 
There are others who, for a variety of reasons, including the NIMBY 
syndrome, believe that States should be able to completely halt all 
incoming waste flows. Let's face it, my colleagues: most people are not 
rational about garbage. It's dirty, it smells, and we don't want to 
deal with it. The urge to ship it somewhere else is natural. If we are 
to have any hope of having a rational solid waste management policy in 
this country, it is essential that we find the middle ground. This 
legislation attempts to do just that.
  Interstate transportation of waste is a major political issue in many 
States. A number of States and communities, most of them rural, feel 
that they are being used as dumping grounds for States and cities, that 
for a variety of reasons, are unwilling or unable to dispose of their 
trash at sites within their own borders. Further, States and local 
governments often view waste from outside their jurisdictions as a 
burden on their waste management systems, including existing landfill 
capacity. In other instances, State and local officials who have made 
unpopular and often painful siting decisions do not want to see their 
localities become dumping grounds for jurisdictions that fail to make 
those same difficult decisions. This is where the NIMBY syndrome comes 
in. These days, it is difficult enough for hard-pressed local officials 
to make the decision to site a waste management facility. To reward 
those who make these tough decisions by telling them that they will be 
unable to keep out-of-State trash out of their hard-won facility is 
unfair and is bad public policy to boot.
  In a series of decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal 
courts have held that, absent an express grant of authority from the 
Congress, States and local governments are powerless to halt the 
importation and disposal of out-of-State waste in private owned 
facilities located in their jurisdictions.
  The inability of local communities to control their own destinies in 
the face of mounting waste imports has spawned a national effort to 
give local governments a voice in the decision whether to accept out-
of-State waste. This legislation will ensure that landfills and 
incinerators are not importing out-of-State waste over the opposition 
of the affected community.
  The bill gives affected local governments the primary authority to 
decide whether or not to allow out-of-State waste in to their 
jurisdictions, while also giving Governors the authority to freeze 
waste imports at 1993 levels. This freeze authority will help Governors 
plan for solid waste management on a State-wide basis.
  H.R. 4779 as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not 
a perfect bill. Like much of the legislation we consider, it does not 
solve everyone's problems. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a good 
compromise that makes significant progress toward finding a rational, 
balanced solution to what we all know are emotionally and politically 
charged problems.
  Mr. Chairman, let me cite two Members who I think are particularly 
important in this. I introduced, 3 years ago, a proposal to solve this 
problem, and it had the unique virtue that virtually everybody on all 
sides of this issue hated it. It was clearly not a vehicle that was 
going to go anywhere.
  Enter the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher], who worked very hard 
in the last Congress to fashion what was then and is now the 
fundamental concept around which this bill is crafted. I think that he 
found something that virtually nobody else, in working this issue in 
Congress, had heretofore been able to discover. It is on this basis 
that he crafted this legislation that all of the compromises thereto 
have been based.
  Mr. Chairman, the other person is the chairman of the full committee, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who basically did the end 
game. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] played the opening, and 
the gentleman from Michigan played the end game. The result is that we 
have a good, workable, solid piece of legislation that we can commend 
to the Congress. I would urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Swift], the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Sharp], who is retiring, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Boucher], with whom I have worked closely on telecommunications 
legislation, and this is a long way from telecommunications, but it is 
extremely important, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], a freshman Member who has 
taken a strong interest in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an effort by our committee to find a consensus 
on where America disposes of its waste.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans now produce more than 200 million tons of 
household trash a year. Needless to say, as we became more and more of 
a throwaway society, municipal solid waste disposal became a major 
industry in our country. In fact, we are spending nearly $30 billion 
each year to dispose of our waste.
  While Americans do not agree on whether we should bury it, burn it, 
or recycle it, we do agree on the fact that we want our waste hauled 
away to where we don't ever see it again. The reality is that we don't 
want our own waste, or anyone else's waste, in our own backyard.
  Two dramatic examples of that attitude were the garbage barge which 
left Long Island in 1987 and the garbage train which left New York City 
in 1992 unsuccessfully searching for a place to unload.
  With landfill capacity dropping and disposal costs rising, 
particularly in the Northeast, large volumes of waste was shipped 
across State lines. A surge of out-of-State trash in the 1980's led 
residents of my home State of Ohio to fear that our State was becoming 
a dumping ground. Local communities urged State lawmakers to prevent 
their waste disposal capacity from being depleted by out-of-State waste 
and as a result, new laws were enacted limiting waste shipments or 
charging differential fees.
  However, when court decisions struck down laws banning or restricting 
waste imports, States were forced to reexamine their options for 
addressing waste disposal problems.
  Ohio continues to be concerned about its dwindling options for 
dealing with the increasing challenges associated with solid waste 
disposal. Because disposal costs in Ohio are less than one-third of 
those in East coast cities, Ohio still imports 1.8 million tons of out-
of-State waste, which represents more than 10 percent of the total 
amount of waste disposed in the State each year. In addition, well over 
1 million tons of construction and demolition debris comes into the 
State.
  We receive waste from over 20 States and Canada and we are facing the 
possibility of nearly doubling the amount of imported waste should a 
landfill in eastern Ohio take more Canadian waste as planned. This one 
facility expects to import another 1.5 million tons of trash from 
Canada, which is the equivalent of nearly 125 rail cars of garbage per 
day.
  Needless to say, my constituents continue to believe that too much 
out-of-State waste is dumped into landfills that they are counting on 
to meet their current needs, as well as the needs resulting from future 
economic growth. Midwestern States have paid the price for the 
irresponsibility of other States in dealing with their own trash.
  The 1976 RCRA amendments contained provisions encouraging States to 
adopt comprehensive solid waste management plans. However, the Supreme 
Court decisions which restrict States from limiting waste shipments are 
making it impossible for States like Ohio to manage its own garbage.
  Ohio has the space to manage its solid waste but this space is being 
filled by other States who have shown little capacity to act 
responsibly. In addition, out-of-State waste shipments are undermining 
Ohio's efforts to responsibly limit our own waste. Ohioans legitimately 
wonder why they should recycle in order to conserve disposal space for 
other States' waste.
  Mr. Chairman, solid waste has long been thought of as an unwanted 
material and now more than ever, my constituents would like more 
control over the amount of unwanted waste they receive.
  Over the past several years, Congress has considered various 
legislative remedies and has debated how to address the concerns of 
States like Ohio, as well as States like New York and New Jersey, which 
obviously need to become more self-sufficient in managing their own 
waste.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is a compromise representing a 
balance between the powers given to the States and those given to the 
local governments. This bill does not stop the movement of interstate 
waste, it merely gives States and local communities the opportunity to 
say ``yes'' or ``no'' to out-of-State waste. This authority will 
protect the ability of State and local governments to adequately plan 
for solid waste management.
  You may think this bill is a Midwest fix but keep in mind that 
without this bill, out-of-State waste will soon be everyone's problem.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend particularly the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, who is unfortunately leaving us after this session of the 
Congress but who has been really the fulcrum and the guiding force in 
working this compromise.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will 
give State and local governments more control over solid waste 
capacity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Sharp].
  (Mr. SHARP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, first I just want to say a word about our 
colleague the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] who is leaving. He 
has been an extraordinary Member of the House of Representatives and an 
extraordinary subcommittee chairman. The country is suffering a loss as 
are the people that he represents with his retirement from the House of 
Representatives. As citizens we probably gain from getting back this 
person among the normal human folk. He has done an outstanding job and 
this is just one more example of it on a very complex political and 
substantive issue that really cries out for some resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill before us, even 
though from my perspective and the perspective of the importing States, 
it is half to 60 percent of a loaf but it does improve the situation 
and the capacity for our local governments and our States that have 
responsibly planned for how to manage trash to regain some control over 
their situation.
  As has been outlined here by other speakers, there has been a history 
here where the Congress had reaffirmed with the States that it really 
was their responsibility to manage municipal waste, only to find out as 
they struggled to do so that they did not have full control over their 
local area because private negotiations and contracts could undermine 
public policy. The courts tended to strike down the public policy, 
leaving the States and localities without the authority to act, even 
though there was a need for them to act responsibly, and a number of 
them had. In particular, our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Greenwood], has been an extraordinary participant in this. In his 
own career previously at the State Senate level, he had helped to lead 
his State to take responsible actions to plan ahead on how to reduce 
waste, how to recycle, and how to manage that which is left over in 
landfills and other ways, only to find out that out-of-State 
importation of waste could undermine the tough political substantive 
decisions that that State was willing to take.
  We have a similar picture in my home State of Indiana. Our Governor 
Bayh and State and local officials have worked dramatically to develop 
a program of waste reduction, waste recycling, and waste management, 
only to discover that importation of out-of-State waste was filling up 
our landfills as we sought to reserve space for the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I really hope that our colleagues today will pass this 
legislation as will the U.S. Senate. I do want to indicate that the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] has been the staunch leader on 
this issue and as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] indicated, 
provided the fundamentals of the bill. Many of us had to push and pull 
and argue to try to get our points of view more strongly held in the 
bill. That is the natural way of the process, but he charged forth with 
the right principles and we owe him a great debt in this process. I do 
want to also indicate one of the toughest adversaries that those of us 
from the importing States had was the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Manton] who very skillfully and very thoroughly defended the rightful 
interests of those exporting States that are struggling to manage their 
waste.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4779, the State and Local 
Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1994, as reported by the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee. I believe it is a good bill. I 
believe it is a fair bill, and I believe it is a balanced bill. Most 
important, it is a compromise, a fragile compromise, achieved after 
over 2\1/2\ years of work, with all affected parties at the table.
  Mr. Chairman, many States and local communities, including my home 
State of Indiana, are being dumped on, and we are now powerless to stop 
it. If enacted, H.R. 4779 will give these States and local communities 
the opportunity to say ``no'' to out-of-State waste.
  We also give States the authority they need to do what Congress told 
them they had to under the Solid Waste Disposal Act--to responsibly 
plan for and manage their solid waste.
  In Indiana, we have worked hard to responsibly manage our solid 
waste. We have worked hard at the local level, in our State legislature 
and at the grassroots to appropriately manage our waste. We have a 
statewide goal of reducing the amount of waste we landfill by 34 
percent by 1996 and 50 percent by the year 2001. In order to achieve 
this goal we have recycling and source reduction programs, bans on 
yardwaste and tires going into landfills, yardwaste composting 
programs, and public education. Our citizens are modifying their 
behavior to make our waste reduction goals a reality.
  All of our 61 districts are making a concerted effort to reduce the 
portion of our waste going to landfills. Thus we are conserving 
landfill space. Our efforts and our citizens' commitment to the program 
is being undermined as our landfill space is being filled up by out-of-
State waste. Our citizens are unhappy that all of our planning and 
efforts are for naught in the face of this onslaught of out-of-State 
waste. We want to regain control of our destiny.
  I tell you this only in part to generate sympathy for our cause. I 
tell you this also to pique your self-interest. This is our problem 
today, but without this bill, it will be your problem tomorrow. Without 
this bill, a responsible State is a sucker.
  Take the case of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania in the 1980's bit the 
bullet, went through an extensive planning process, and required 
localities to site enough landfills to meet the State's capacity needs. 
New York did not do this. And lo and behold, Pennsylvania landfills are 
filling up with New York waste. This is not fair. This is not right.
  Some people argue that we want to stop the movement of interstate 
waste. That is not true. We merely want to give States and local 
communities the opportunity to say ``yes'' or ``no'' to out-of-State 
waste, and to preserve the ability of States and localities to plan for 
and manage the disposal of solid waste.
  Those communities who want the economic benefit that may be derived 
from hosting a landfill can do so. In fact this bill gives them 
leverage in negotiating with waste companies who are not now required 
to enter into agreements with host communities.
  Some people argue that trash should move around just like any other 
commodity, without any role for State and local communities. This is an 
indefensible position. Garbage is not like any other commodity. As 
economists like to say, it generates externalities, or social costs--it 
smells, it leaches into groundwater, it makes noise, it creates 
traffic, it lowers property values. States and local communities must 
have some say over where and how it is managed.
  Last year I introduced a bill, H.R. 2848, the Interstate 
Transportation of Municipal Waste Act of 1993. That bill, which was 
supported by the Governors of 22 States, was considerably stronger than 
H.R. 4779, the bill that has been reported from the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  The bill before us is half a loaf, but nonetheless an important 
improvement for States and communities seeking to manage waste.
  In the process of full committee consideration I listened to the 
views and concerns of exporting communities, and waste companies. Mr. 
Boucher and other concerned Members and I compromised. Mr. Manton 
successfully amended the bill at subcommittee and full committee mark-
up to allow New York more time to change its waste export practices. 
None of us got everything we wanted.
  I hope you will join me in supporting H.R. 4779.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4779, the State 
and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1994. This 
legislation is the product of over 4 years of debate in the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce. During this period, the committee has held 
extensive hearings and several markups on legislation addressing the 
interstate movement of municipal waste. In the last Congress, for 
example, it was part of the RCRA reauthorization legislation. And in 
this Congress, numerous stand-alone pieces of legislation were 
introduced and considered.
  After much informal discussion among members, the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Hazardous Materials reported out H.R. 4779 by voice 
vote on July 22, 1994. The Energy and Commerce Committee then reported 
out the bill, again by voice vote, on August 18, 1994. I am pleased to 
see we are now able to debate this legislation on the floor under an 
open rule.
  Mr. Chairman, while I think the House should have an opportunity to 
debate this fully as it will under the open rule that has been granted, 
given the level of strong interest among some delegating, I myself have 
reservations about the wisdom of Congress taking any action in this 
area. The Supreme Court has recently held that States may not interfere 
in the movement of municipal waste or the provision of waste management 
services. And I tend to think that, in general, the Supreme Court has 
it right. States should not be allowed to balkanize the national 
economy due to local fears.
  I think a recent editorial in the Journal of Commerce sums up my 
concerns quite well.

       Trash disposal is a business like any other, subject to the 
     laws of supply and demand. Garbage tends to flow to areas 
     that can handle it cheaply--generally regions with a dry 
     climate and sparse population. The trade benefits both sides: 
     receiving communities get tax revenue and other concessions 
     from landfill operators, and shipping communities get 
     relatively cheap trash disposal.

  The editorial concludes:

       The irony here is rich. While the rest of the world moves 
     toward open economies, Congress is busy building barriers to 
     obstruct domestic trade in trash. That violates the spirit, 
     at least, of the constitution's commerce clause, which aims 
     to protect nationwide commerce against balkanization by the 
     states.

  Perhaps it is easy for me to see the big picture since California is 
not really affected by this legislation. And I can sympathize with the 
Members who feel the need to circle the wagons and close their borders 
to waste from other States. But do not be surprised if this rush to 
limit interstate commerce comes back to haunt you when it is your State 
that is the exporter.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would note that there is no real health or 
safety issue involved in this legislation. With EPA's municipal 
landfill regulations in place, the Agency does not view the interstate 
movement of waste as having a pronounced environmental effect--either 
pro or con. Simply put, this is not really an environmental issue.
  It is, however, a powerful political issue, particularly in the areas 
that import waste. After over 4 years of debate, I believe it is time 
Congress acted. My hope is that we can solve the very legitimate 
political concerns of Members, and dispense with this issue without 
wreaking havoc on the national economy. I believe the bill reported out 
of Energy and Commerce generally accomplishes this goal, and I will 
judge any proposed amendments accordingly.

                              {time}  1210

  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate our ranking 
Republican member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], for his work on 
this bill. But I want to also bid a special thanks to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Swift], the chairman of the subcommittee for the 
remarkable job that he has done on many many bills over the years that 
he has been in Congress. The gentleman has been our friend, he has been 
a very great contributor to the work of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, and we will miss him very much as he leaves to do other 
things.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Manton], who has worked very hard on behalf of the concerns 
of his State and region and has been extremely helpful in the process.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for those kinds words 
and also my colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], for 
his kind words. I must point out the gentleman from Washington has been 
a very worthy adversary on this legislation, and we have conducted our 
debate I think in a civilized manner with comity on all sides.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation under consideration seeks to address a 
complex emotional and political problem, but I hope we do not overlook 
the significance of our actions here today.
  This legislation has the potential to impose untold economic harm on 
communities that export some of its municipal solid waste and on other 
communities that import waste as a means of economic development.
  Mr. Chairman, I have worked with my colleagues from States that 
import municipal solid waste in an effort to negotiate a compromise 
based on reason, comity and sound public policy. Unfortunately, while 
we have made progress, I believe we need to continue these negotiations 
as this measure moves forward.
  Mr. Chairman, all politics is indeed local, and I fully appreciate 
the pressures some of my colleagues are faced with on this issue. 
However, I do not believe Congress should be micro-managing where 
municipal solid waste goes for disposal. We should work to ensure that 
our solid waste disposal policy is designed to protect human health and 
the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, municipal solid waste currently crosses State lines for 
disposal for one reason, and one reason alone: the cost of doing 
business. This is not an environmental issue, it is an issue of 
economics. I do not think Congress should take actions which 
specifically seek to deny private businesses the right to protect their 
investments and maximize their profits--providing that their actions 
are in accordance with existing Federal, State and local law.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not lose sight of the fact that many 
communities openly welcome the development of waste disposal facilities 
in their jurisdictions for the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid 
waste. I believe the legislation as currently written may indeed limit 
this opportunity and deny these communities much needed economic 
benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that municipal solid waste is exported 
from my State of New York, but so is virtually every other State in the 
Union. The amount of municipal solid waste that is exported from New 
York, while relatively significant in volume, represents only a small 
fraction--some 19 percent--of the approximate 17 million tons of waste 
generated, recycled, treated and disposed of in the State each year. I 
might point out New York is a net importer of hazardous waste.
  Mr. Chairman, I will have more comments on the legislation during 
consideration of amendments.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], who has been a real leader on this entire 
issue.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I also would like to again commend Chairman Dingell and 
ranking member Moorhead and the chairmen of the subcommittees, the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], for their fine work. But I would be remiss if I did not point 
out the remarkable working relationship I have had with the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Sharp], who has been just a perfect gentleman and joy 
to work with on this issue. And I would also like to thank the staff on 
both sides of the aisle who are the real work horses who do the hard 
labor of putting the fine tuning on these negotiations.
  Mr. Chairman, the State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control 
Act is of vital importance to my State of Pennsylvania and to my 
congressional district.
  Until relatively recently, when we set our household trash on our 
sidewalks or at the end of our driveways, it was trucked to local 
dumps, and we did not think much about it.
  In the late seventies and early eighties, we in Pennsylvania did the 
right thing for the environment. We began to close down these dumps 
because they lacked adequate liners or collection systems to prevent 
leachate from polluting our ground water aquifers.
  We closed more than a thousand such antiquated facilities. The good 
news was that we protected our environment. The bad news was that we 
ran out of safe places to dispose of our garbage.
  By 1986 Pennsylvania was exporting 3 million tons of trash a year. In 
1988, as a member of the State Senate, I helped write the Municipal 
Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act. This new law 
required counties and local governments to make plans for the disposal 
of their waste, encouraged the permitting of disposal facilities that 
met environmental standards, and mandated local recycling so we can 
reduce our waste flow.
  The results have been dramatic. The good news this time was that 
Pennsylvania quickly developed state-of-the-art facilities to safely 
dispose of its trash. The bad news was that our neighbors in New 
Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Delaware started trucking their trash 
to these facilities in record volumes. We are now the No. 1 trash 
importing State in the country.
  Bucks County, with its two landfills and new incinerator, bears much 
of the brunt of these imports. In 1993, 900,000 tons of out-of-State 
trash was trucked into Falls Township and Tullytown Borough. This 
figure does not count trash from Philadelphia and other Pennsylvania 
counties.
  Why should we be concerned about all this out-of-State waste? We 
should be concerned because even the best available technology is not 
pollution-free. Because we accept so much out-of-State waste, our air 
and water are placed at risk beyond the levels proportionate to our 
population.
  The out-of-State waste hauled into my district puts the equivalent of 
40,000 tractor trailers per year onto our local highways. This 
legislation will enable us to reduce this volume by half.
  Mr. Chairman, our ability to pass stringent pollution control and 
waste reduction legislation in Congress requires a national 
constituency with a stake in the outcome. As long as entire regions can 
export their waste rather than properly dispose of it, they will not 
insist upon tough solid waste laws.
  If Pennsylvania's facilities become filled to capacity with out-of-
State trash, we will soon be scrambling to find places to dispose of 
our own waste again.
  The new Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act will allow 
Pennsylvania and four other major trash-importing States to cut in half 
the volume of out-of-State waste crossing their borders. We do not 
close our borders, we simply gain some control over the volume of 
imported wastes. And we allow communities who want to take more trash 
to do so as a local option.
  The key to responsible solid waste management is to give everyone a 
stake in it. This legislation does that in a way that is fair, 
balanced, and sensible. I urge the Members to support it.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my serious concern over 
provisions of the State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control 
Act.
  There is a certain irony that we are taking up this legislation, 
having just passed the conference report on transportation 
appropriations which represents our Government's investment in making 
it easier to move goods and people between the States. Yet here we are 
about to enact the first legislation to create protectionist barriers 
between States.
  Once this precedent against interstate commerce is set, we might 
begin to see bills that allow surcharges against the import of Idaho 
potatoes to New York in order to boost the State's major potato farms 
on Long Island. I hope my colleagues will see fit to postpone action on 
this legislation in order to craft a bill that effectively helps States 
reduce their waste exports without penalizing these localities that are 
forced by economics and geography to ship some portion of their 
municipal waste to other jurisdictions.
  For example, New York is striving to reduce the amount of exported 
municipal waste, particularly in New York City, where we have just 
implemented a citywide recycling program that is among the most 
ambitious in the Nation. But the fact is that New York exports 19 
percent of its municipal waste because it is economically reasonable to 
do so.
  But if we place restrictions on out-of-State municipal waste, no one 
would be surprised if within a single State some localities take the 
precedent being set here today and begin to ban waste imports from 
larger cities within the same State. In addition to the general 
precedent being set, there are specific provisions of the bill that are 
very worrisome. One of the most troubling aspects of this legislation 
is that it grants local governments the authority to break existing 
contracts between businesses and other States.
  The bill also gives local authorities the right to break agreements 
that they had entered into even after the enactment of the bill.
  I am concerned that in an effort to pass legislation that sounds 
politically popular we will wind up passing legislation that does more 
harm than good.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, the Interstate Waste Control Act before 
us today represents the end product of months of hard work and 
negotiation on how States will be allowed to restrict the flow of waste 
through their borders.
  I will only touch on one aspect of the bill before us: the needs 
determination provision. This language incorporates an amendment I 
offered during markup at the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Originally, this bill would have allowed the Governor of a State to 
veto local land use decisions through a grant of authority to deny 
otherwise legal waste permits. This provision had nothing to do with 
the regulation of interstate waste. However, it had everything to do 
with the restriction of property use and the limitation of local 
decisionmaking.
  The needs language in the present bill strikes a good balance between 
the two extremes in this debate. First, it grants to States the ability 
to consider local and regional needs for waste disposal capacity in the 
comprehensive solid waste management planning process. This is an 
entirely appropriate and needed consideration.
  Second, it grants to affected local governments the ability to 
determine their own local or regional need for a new landfill or 
incinerator or a major modification to such a facility. This should 
ensure that the final authority and decisionmaking in these matters 
rests exactly where it belongs--at the local government level.
  All the parties involved have worked in good faith to try to strike a 
healthy balance in this bill. While there are still many areas of 
disagreement on the issue on interstate waste transport, I believe that 
the measure before us today largely accomplishes that goal.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our good friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, this past St. Patrick's Day, 16 of the 21 
members of the Pennsylvania delegation introduced a strong bill to 
allow State and local governments to control waste imports. We hoped 
that with the luck of the Irish we would be able to get an interstate 
waste bill passed this Congress. I am very pleased today that an 
agreement has been worked out between the major parties and the major 
disputants on this very contentious issue, and urge my colleagues to 
strongly support the Energy and Commerce bill without any amendments to 
weaken it.
  Unfortunately, Pennsylvania has the dubious distinction of being the 
No. 1 importer of other peoples' garbage. The amount of waste imported 
into Pennsylvania continues to increase each year. In 1991, the amount 
of garbage imported was 3 million tons; in 1992 as shown on this graph, 
it was 3.8 million tons; and in 1993 it was close to 4 million tons. In 
my own district, we import over 100,000 tons of garbage a year or 432 
pounds per person. We are inundated with other peoples' garbage. At the 
same time, very little of Pennsylvania's waste is exported because the 
State requires communities to plan and dispose of their own trash, in a 
responsible fashion.
  Very simply, this is not fair. The landfill space planned for our own 
garbage is being used up, and the health and safety of our citizens is 
endangered with a proliferation of trash trucks on our highways. We 
cannot plan for our own disposal needs because we cannot now control 
our own destiny.
  H.R. 4779 is a compromise bill. As with any compromise no one is 
entirely satisfied, but it has broad support from key players. It takes 
into account both the needs of exporting States, importing States, 
local governments, and the waste industry. Local governments have 
indicated that local communities should have the right to say ``yes'' 
or ``no'' to out-of-State waste. The bill provides the affected local 
governments with this authority through host community agreements. At 
the same time, the bill provides States with the authority to plan for 
adequate future disposal capacity within their State.
  Mr. Chairman, our citizens in Pennsylvania are frustrated. We need to 
ensure that our Nation's waste is disposed of in a more equitable 
manner--and we need to give State and local governments the tools to 
achieve this goal. I commend the Energy and Commerce Committee members, 
Chairman Dingell, Congressman Moorhead, Congressman Sharp, Congressman 
Swift, Congressman Greenwood, and Congressman Oxley, on negotiating 
this vitally needed compromise legislation. I ask my colleagues to 
support it without any weakening amendments.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 4779. This bill gives State and local governments some control 
over the amount of out-of-State waste being deposited in their 
landfills. In short, this legislation is a step toward States taking 
responsibility for and controlling their own waste and environmental 
futures.
  The area I represent, northwest Indiana, has been a dumping ground 
for trash coming in from our neighboring State to the west. For example 
the Gary, Indiana Landfill collected 661,274 tons of out-of-State trash 
in 1992, ranking first out of 24 landfills in Indiana that accept 
imported garbage. All of the waste was from Illinois. In Porter County, 
the Wheeler landfill took in 390,656 tons of imported garbage, ranking 
it second in the State. That trash also came from Illinois. States such 
as Indiana cannot continue to let those outside our boundaries bury 
trash in our backyard. This bill recognizes that our current system is 
as unacceptable to the people I represent as it is unsustainable for 
the future.
  Indiana continues to properly plan for reducing solid waste within 
its borders and for the development of adequate in-State capacity for 
solid waste disposal. The State's planning efforts will be undermined 
if the State is not allowed to control the amount of waste it accepts 
from outside Indiana. Since 1990, Indiana has tried numerous actions to 
protect Indiana citizens from public health and welfare problems 
related to uncontrolled importation of solid waste. The majority of 
these initiatives were ruled unconstitutional by Federal courts based 
on interstate commerce protection.
  Court decisions all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court have 
presented a need for congressional action in the area of interstate 
waste regulation. State governments have pleaded with us to give them 
some measure of control over their own destinies and to make it 
possible for them to effectively plan for their future waste disposal 
needs. H.R. 4779 provides them with this control.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation 
and give State governments more control over the flow of waste into 
their States. It is a good first step.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor].
  (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, Archaeologist William Rathje writes that 
``man faced his garbage crisis when he became a sedentary animal--when, 
rather than move himself, he chose to move his garbage.''
  According to a recent poll, waste disposal is seen among local 
officials as an extremely serious or very serious local problem more 
often than any other issue except improving education.
  Yet to a large extent, State and local governments--especially in the 
Midwest--find their hands tied when trying to address the waste 
problem. This is because, despite all of the planning, management and 
foresight they can exercise as to their own waste, they are unable to 
limit out-of-State waste. Failures of the Federal Government under the 
interstate commerce clause to give States authority forces them to 
accept it.
  The 10th amendment says that powers not delegated to the United 
States ``are reserved to the States.'' I have always favored an 
approach that gives control over waste disposal to the States. After 
all, we are talking today about interstate waste shipments, and out-of-
State waste. H.R. 4779 is a political compromise and is a blend of two 
different bills, one that gives control to the States and another that 
gives control to the local governments.
  The bill allows local governments to create host community agreement 
with waste companies to site new landfills. Those host community 
agreements are impervious to State authority granted elsewhere in the 
bill, including the power of a State to phase down the amount of out-
of-State waste. This is a true compromise. There is no outright ban on 
out-of-State waste, and there is no authority for the States to impose 
such a ban. The bill encourages each State to be responsible for its 
own waste.
  I will be interested to see if anyone characterizes this bill as a 
``nimby'' bill-- a ``not in my backyard'' bill. This is really a 
``mimby-yeebee'' bill--a ``mine in my backyard, yours in your 
backyard'' bill. Again, we want States to be responsible for their own 
waste.
  The bill does not have everything I want in it, but it is a 
reasonable compromise. I have come prepared to offer amendments, but I 
think we have struck some agreements regarding amendments and will 
abide by them this is a pro-environment, and pro-responsibilities bill.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Phil Sharp, Al Swift, Rick 
Boucher, Mike Oxley, Jim Greenwood, and Chairman John Dingell for their 
hard work on this bill. We can be very proud that we are standing here 
on the floor debating this bill today.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I must say that I 
fully agree with the stated intention of the legislation--providing 
local communities with a say on whether or not they want to take out-
of-State trash. Local communities should have the right to decide 
whether or not they want to accept out-of-State trash.
  But that's not what this bill is all about. No, this bill is more 
environmental politics than environmental policy. It allows a few State 
Governors to make political statements at the expense of a few other 
States like New York and New Jersey. Unfortunately, the consequences of 
those political decisions are going to wreak havoc in my State of New 
York and I cannot support any legislation with so pernicious a result.
  Provisions in the bill will allow State Governors to override local 
decisions to accept out-of-State waste, even when the local communities 
have determined that it is in their best economic interest to accept 
it. It allows State governments to say ``we'll take your trash, Florida 
and Michigan--but not your trash, New York and Illinois,'' It allows 
States to deem some facilities unfit to take out-of-State trash when 
the same facility can take the same kind of trash from in-State 
sources. The bill is just not fair.
  This legislation is also an unnecessary infringement on private 
enterprise. Remember, many local communities across the country are 
willing to take out-of-State trash for one simple reason: It means 
jobs. The restructuring of our economy has forced many towns and 
counties to consider alternatives that yesterday seemed unnecessary but 
today mean survival, including competing for prison construction sites 
and waste disposal sites.
  Within 3 years, the city of New York is going to have to find a home 
for its commercial waste because provisions in the bill before us will 
probably close off most of the current disposal options. For the 
record. Mr. Chairman, New York City already handles all of its 
residential waste locally--no small feat for a city of 7 million people 
with few good disposal options. But it has done that through tough 
recycling programs and a commitment to reduce local waste.

  The program is not that New York has to find a local home for its 
trash--the problem is the incredibly short amount of time in which it 
has to do it under this legislation. Three years is what the bill gives 
us. Creating local waste disposal options will take at least twice that 
long. Siting landfills, obtaining permits, constructing incinerators--
all that takes time.
  The result of this bill will mean chaos in the interstate markets for 
garbage disposal. It will mean New Yorkers pay higher trash bills and 
it will mean communities that see waste disposal as a viable means of 
economic survival may have to look elsewhere.
  I would also like to warn my colleagues that this bill could come 
back to haunt you. Any State which in the future may need to export 
trash--even on a short term basis--may find their options severely 
limited if this bill becomes law.
  We could have had a bill that gave local communities control of their 
destinies and yet treated States that currently export trash with 
respect. It is regrettable that we do not.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member will vote for H.R. 4779, the Local 
Government Interstate Waste Control Act, with the desire that it will 
be improved during conference with the other body.
  This Member has long believed that Congress must make the necessary 
changes so that States are given the control over waste imports that 
they need and deserve. Although citizens and State and local 
governments have become increasingly concerned about the impact these 
waste shipments will have on future landfill capacity, they have 
learned that they are powerless to do anything about it. Clearly, 
something must be done to correct this problem and allow local 
governments to properly plan and control the various aspects of waste 
management.
  Many States are seeking to regulate and control the amount of solid 
waste which enters their borders. However, their efforts have been 
frustrated by the courts which have consistently and properly ruled 
that under existing conditions, States, without congressional action, 
cannot prohibit or place restrictions on these shipments without 
violating the U.S. Constitution's interstate commerce clause.
  The U.S. Supreme Court, though, has made it clear that State actions 
which are clearly authorized by Congress can overcome this legal 
hurdle. The Constitution specifically allows the Congress to pass 
legislation to regulate interstate commerce. As a result, this Member 
believes it is important for Congress to take action which would give 
States the authority to control the importation of waste.
  This Member testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce's 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials in 1991 on this 
issue and earlier this year wrote to the committee to express his views 
on the subject.
  This Member would like to express strong support for granting the 
Governor of each State new authorities to restrict the importation of 
waste. Because waste transport companies often target small, rural 
communities when choosing disposal sites for out-of-State waste, this 
Member believes it is imperative that States as well as local 
communities have an adequate role in addressing interstate waste 
problems. As the result of attractive financial incentives, communities 
often receive garbage due mainly to economic considerations rather than 
on the basis of responsible statewide and national solid waste 
management goals.
  This Member would also like to express opposition to the 
granfathering of current agreements which would allow these existing 
flows to continue in perpetuity. Such an approach would lock States and 
communities into the unacceptable situation which has brought this 
issue to the attention of Congress. These States and local governments 
must be given the opportunity to reclaim control over waste entering 
their States.
  This Member is pleased that this issue is finally being addressed on 
the floor. Although there are positive signs that recycling and other 
means of waste reduction are gaining wider acceptance across the 
country, the fact is that the problem of what to do with the waste that 
is placed in landfills must be addressed. This trash has to go 
somewhere and increasingly it is ending up in Nebraska and other 
Midwestern and Western States. Landfill space is rapidly becoming a 
precious commodity, and by continuing to allow States to export solid 
waste without any regulations or restrictions, we are following a 
policy which does nothing to encourage waste reduction or recycling. By 
allowing this practice to continue, the message is sent that as long as 
a State, locality, or private business can locate landfill space 
somewhere else, it can continue to generate enormous amounts of trash. 
It also penalizes those States which have adequately prepared for 
future solid waste disposal.
  While some States may find it in their best interests to continue 
mutually beneficial solid waste disposal arrangements with other 
States, these important decisions should be made by the States when 
their communities and rural areas are affected. States are in the best 
position to plan and control the various aspects of waste management.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member supports moving this issue forward with the 
hope that the legislation will be improved during the conference.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to this 
bill. But first, I would like to commend my colleagues, the gentlemen 
from New York, Mr. Manton, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. 
Towns, who have dedicated their time and effort to reach a compromise 
on this difficult issue. In my opinion, this debate centers around 
public perception and politics and is devoid of good, sensible public 
policy.
  As the representative of the world's largest landfill, let me say 
that this legislation will be devastating to my district and the entire 
city and State of New York. Fresh Kills landfill alone handles all of 
New York City's residential waste and is nearing capacity. 
Environmental concerns are being cast aside for the sake of a political 
statement. And this is not the case only in New York. The details of 
this bill will create chaos in interstate markets for garbage disposal 
and that will ultimately negatively impact each and every State in the 
union.
  While attempting to address the needs of importing States, this 
legislation succeeds at tying the hands of those that export. This 
legislation goes so far as to abrogate contracts by allowing local 
governments to prevent execution of renewal options even if they are 
called for in the terms of the contract. Now communities who have 
negotiated in good faith will be forced to look elsewhere and find 
alternative disposal arrangements. Ironically, this bill makes this 
practice extremely difficult.
  Under the terms of the authority in this legislation, a Governor 
could order a facility to begin reducing the amount of imports it takes 
from one state even when it takes the same amount or increases the 
amount it takes from other States. In addition, this legislation does 
not include a system for verifying whether a State's 1993 import level 
was sufficient for it to qualify for the rachet.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the precedent that H.R. 4779 will 
set. Rest assured, this bill appears to be a direct threat to New York 
and New Jersey, but your State and district may be next. Any State 
which in the future may wish to export waste--even on a short-term 
basis--may be precluded from doing so if this misguided bill becomes 
law.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just feel that it is necessary to lay out again--in 
the wake of some of the good people who oppose the legislation, simply 
point out--this is not a winner-take-all bill. This is not the bill 
that those who wanted to prevent any importation into their State would 
in their ideal world have asked for. It is not the bill, in fact, that 
has been put forward for several years both in this body and in the 
other body. This is a compromise, and, as we listen to those who raise 
legitimate concerns from their regional perspective with this bill, I 
think it is just important to keep in mind that this is not a bill that 
seeks to stiff any interest, but rather this is a bill that tries to 
work out a difficult compromise on the public policy issues between the 
exporting States and importing States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Cooper].
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Swift] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, my State of Tennessee is a beautiful, largely rural 
State that happens to be geographically central to two-thirds of the 
population of our country. We are within a 1-day's truck drive of two-
thirds of the population of the United States. That has given our State 
a tremendous advantage in terms of recruiting industry and recruiting 
jobs, but it has also made us a tempting target for out-of-State waste 
haulers. It is well known now that the Supreme Court has taken away our 
traditional right as a State, as communities, and as the people of 
Tennessee, to say no to out-of-State garbage. It is high time that we 
pass this bill, H.R. 4779, to make sure that we restore those 
traditional rights of our State, of our communities and of our people 
to say, ``Don't dump on Tennessee.''
  Mr. Chairman, Tennesseans are responsible people. They know we have 
to take care of our own garbage. But they also know that we have no 
obligation to take care of everyone else's garbage. This bill is a fair 
compromise to make sure that we restore the right to say no to our own 
people.
  I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] for his hard work 
in crafting this bill. I look forward to the passage of this bill.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4779, the 
Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act. The State of Indiana is 
currently forced to accept increasing amounts of municipal waste from 
different regions of the country. In response to these increased 
amounts of imported waste, Indiana landfills are expanding. For 
example, last year in Buffalo, IN, the Liberty landfill increased by 
approximately 100 acres in response to the growing levels of trash 
coming across Indiana borders. In 1991 Indiana landfills contained 
approximately 1.5 million tons of out-of-State waste, while in 1992 
this figure rose to approximately 1.8 million tons. The total amount of 
waste generated outside of Indiana and hauled into landfills during 
these years accounted for approximately \1/5\ of all landfill waste.
  Figures provided by the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management show that in 1980 Indiana had 150 small landfill sites, by 
1993 the total number had dropped markedly to 54. Indiana's landfill 
capacity is not infinite.
  Hoosiers recognize the need to address landfill capacity and solid 
waste management. The Indiana General Assembly passed legislation to 
create task forces designed to investigate ways to reduce waste 
materials flowing into Indiana landfills. This legislation also formed 
solid waste management districts across the State in an effort to 
attempt to control solid waste disposal. This responsible approach to 
waste management includes specific State waste reduction goals and 
other targeted efforts which continue at the State and local level 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to see the meritorious actions taken by 
concerned Hoosiers negated as we are forced to sit and watch waste 
haulers cross Indiana borders and dump tons of trash in our landfills.
  I support the approach to waste management agreements as included in 
this legislation. Governors and local governments should have the right 
to greater discretion over the amount of solid waste dumped in 
landfills. Local communities in Indiana's Fifth District are taking a 
responsible approach to an overall reduction of waste in landfills. 
White County Recycling Center in Reynolds, IN has seen an increase in 
their recycling business due to community involvement and education 
programs. I believe other States should do the same.
  H.R. 4779 is a necessary measure to stem the exponential growth of 
waste being imported into the State of Indiana, while providing the 
States with greater jurisdiction over landfill deposits. I, therefore, 
urge my colleagues to grant Governors and local communities greater 
jurisdiction over municipal waste within State boundaries by supporting 
H.R. 4779.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton] who has been a real leader in our committee on 
this very important issue.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, as one of the original two co-authors of 
this bill, I obviously favor its immediate passage.
  This is critically important legislation to thousands of American 
communities, especially small towns and rural areas. This is not a 
wholesale assault on the Constitution's Commerce Clause and it is not 
an attempt to make America's cities drown in their own wastes.
  It is a prudent, measured proposal to give American States and 
communities the limited right to set terms and conditions on the inflow 
of waste from other States.
  You will hear some unique phrases on this floor during the debate on 
H.R. 4779. You will hear about host community agreements, ratchets and 
caps, and about alternative definitions of municipal solid waste. This 
is lawmaking and definitions are half the battle in any legislative 
exercise, but the key thing in this case is the overall intent of the 
legislation.
  When the Supreme Court struck down Michigan's program for regulating 
out of State waste in 1992, it left people and affected local 
governments in lightly populated areas, like the district I represent, 
with the feeling that they had no role in a decisionmaking process with 
enormous tangible effects on their homes, neighborhoods, and 
communities. Who wants to watch giant trucks taking waste through his 
or her town, especially when the waste comes from communities where 
they have seemingly lacked the political will to solve their own waste 
problems?
  As soon as legislation to modify the Court's decision was discussed, 
two camps formed. One camp insisted that the Court's decision was 
consistent with the venerable Commerce Clause and termed efforts to 
alter it as tinkering with the Constitution. The other camp could have 
supported the erection of myriad Berlin Walls at State boundaries, 
blocking the flow of municipal solid waste among the states.
  Months and months of negotiations ensued involving all interested 
parties and this bill, along with the chairman's amendment, is the 
result. It is a fair, well-crafted, and balanced bill that avoids the 
extremes at both ends.
  Mr. Chairman, we have made great progress in dealing with solid waste 
in this country. Last year's implementation of the subtitle D landfill 
regulations means that waste in the future will be disposed of in well-
designed, responsibly managed landfills with adequate lining, cover and 
systems for controlling leachate and methane gas. Source reduction and 
recycling are restraining the volume of waste.
  These are important steps forward, but they will ultimately mean 
little if some communities simply dump their waste willy-nilly in 
someone else's backyard. Out of sight, out of mind.
  This legislation encourages all American communities to deal 
responsibly with the waste they generate.
  It will not close the door to interstate shipments. Modern landfills 
can cost $750,000 per acre and few lightly populated areas can afford 
such facilities without revenues from out-of-state waste. Many will 
want to attract out-of-state waste.
  This legislation merely strengthens the hand of affected local 
governments in dealing with out-of-state interests. It gives them back 
a measure of control over their destinies, a measure of control they 
lost when the Supreme Court handed down its 1992 decision, and I urge 
its immediate passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my deep thanks to the staff on 
the Committee who gave their talent and time to help write a good bill. 
They are:
  Roger Goodman, Keith Cole, Dick Frandsen, Judy Borger, Jim Matthews, 
Troy Timmons, and Jennifer Hamann.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more speaker.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Boucher], the author of the legislation.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Swift] for yielding this time to me, and also commend him for the 
excellent leadership he has provided in bringing this very thoughtful 
measure to the floor today.
  Each year 15 million tons of municipal solid waste are transported 
across State borders for disposal. In all too many instances, that 
garbage is dumped in privately owned landfills sited over the 
opposition of local residents and over the opposition of the local 
government of the host community.
  Under a series of Supreme Court decisions, neither States nor their 
localities may erect barriers to the flow of out-of-State waste into 
private landfills unless Congress specifically authorizes those 
barriers.
  In response to a course of complaints from citizens, from local 
governments, and from State officials of the importing States, H.R. 
4779, before the committee today, proposes a thoughtful set of rules 
under which some limitations can be imposed on the flow of garbage from 
out-of-State.
  The premise of the bill is that the local government of the host 
community should have the power under Federal law to approve or 
disapprove of the importation of waste into privately owned local 
landfills. The measure assures that in the future out-of-State waste 
may not be deposited in those landfills unless the local government of 
the community in which the landfill is located has given its consent to 
that importation through the execution of a host community agreement.
  Existing investment in private landfills will be protected, as will 
the ability of exporting communities to utilize out-of-State facilities 
for the duration of contracts which they have entered into governing 
the flow of waste, the collection of waste, and the removal of it from 
their communities.
  The legislation is the product of more than 3 years of work by a 
large number of Members and their staffs, the committee staff, and the 
interested external community, including the National Association of 
Counties, a number of individual States and local governments, and 
representatives of industry. The measure carefully balances the often 
competing needs of these affected parties.
  Mr. Chairman, I particularly again want to commend the outstanding 
chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Swift], for the superb work he has done on a host of measures, and 
particularly on this legislation. The gentleman exhibited great 
patience as we resolved the many initial differences that were inherent 
in this debate.
  I also want to thank for their many contributions, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton], my principal cosponsor from whom the committee 
just heard, and also the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], both of 
whom have greatly aided our effort to bring the measure to the floor 
today.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp], the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton], and a number of others, have 
made significant contributions to the measure as well.
  The bill is a major step towards resolution of a particularly 
troublesome practice. It will assure that in the future waste that is 
shipped across State lines only goes where it is wanted. No longer will 
it be forced on unwilling communities. It is a thoughtful and balanced 
measure, and I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to urge that it be approved.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation 
which respects and enforces the rights of local government. H.R. 4779, 
The State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1994 
gives local communities the authority to regulate the amount of 
imported out-of-State waste. This bill will require landfill operators 
to acquire authorization from local authorities to import out-of-State 
municipal waste. There are too many communities in our country who have 
absolutely no control over waste from other States. This is not right.
  In my own district we have seen the impact of out-of-State waste on 
small communities. Today, New York City is dumping its sludge on the 
people of Sierra Blanca, TX. Recent Federal court decisions have left 
local governments powerless to regulate the importation of out-of-State 
municipal waste. States should attempt to manage their own waste 
problems and local communities should at least have some say in 
interstate waste contracts. This legislation helps bring accountability 
and responsibility to waste disposal. States like New York must learn 
to solve their own waste problems and stop exporting trash. This bill 
gives communities the power to exercise their democratic rights to say 
``yes'' or ``no'' to out-of-State waste. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for this legislation.
  Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. 
Swift, for putting together this thoughtful piece of legislation, and 
Mr. Boucher, the sponsor of H.R. 4779. I also wish to acknowledge Mr. 
Oxley for his thoughtful contributions to this bill. In addition, I 
commend Chairman Dingell, whose leadership proved to be the linchpin in 
ensuring the consideration of this bill on the floor.
  Finally, I express my appreciation for the work of Mr. Sharp, a 
Member whose diligence, aptitude, and resilience have enabled him to 
thoughtfully reshape many of our Nation's energy policies during his 
years of service in the House. He will be missed by those of this 
Chamber, but especially by fellow Hoosiers.
  Mr. Chairman, on balance, I believe H.R. 4779, as reported, to be a 
fair piece of legislation that will be critical to alleviating the 
pressures that some States are experiencing with regard to imports of 
solid waste. Without this legislation, States like my home State of 
Indiana, which work hard to effectively manage their solid waste, will 
continue to be undermined. States like Indiana have been hard at work 
to responsibly manage their solid waste, and to reduce landfilled 
waste. However, the current legal framework paradoxically leaves 
Indiana helpless against generators of waste from other States who 
continue to fill up their landfill resources.
  This bill give the States the option of saying ``no'' to waste sent 
from out of State for disposal. For instance, if a State or local 
community finds that a proposed new waste disposal facility, or 
expansion of an existing facility, does not fit within the affected 
community's disposal capacity projections, then that community or State 
can deny the facility proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, as you may know, many local communities have 
established solid waste management districts, which are charged with 
assessing their locality's future solid waste capacity needs. These 
assessments are then forwarded to State authorities for inclusion in a 
comprehensive solid waste management plan. Indiana has such a plan. 
However, due to a number of court decisions over the years, these 
management plans have been useless when States attempt to use them to 
effectively manage their solid waste, or reduce landfilled waste.
  This legislation will empower States and localities to use these 
solid waste management plans as a means of refusing out-of-State waste 
if this waste proves to be inconsistent with the local needs 
assessment.
  Indiana recently enacted a law which has provisions similar to those 
contained in H.R. 4779. This law is designed to provide consistency 
between the needs of local communities and the needs of the State in 
general, and to be integrated with States' solid waste management 
district's plans for future disposal capacity. I believe H.R. 4779 will 
provide the same coherence, and I urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Interstate 
Waste Control Act, a bill which will give Pennsylvania and other States 
the authority to take back control of their borders and regulate the 
flow of interstate waste. The enactment of this bill will bring some 
measure of rationality and balance to the waste management business. I 
believe it effectively balances the rights of communities, along with 
their health and welfare concerns, with the needs of commerce.
  For the last 8 years, I have been working on the passage of 
interstate waste legislation, an issue which is of great concern to me 
and my constituents. As an original sponsor of the Pennsylvania 
delegation's Interstate Waste Control Act, it gives me great pleasure 
to stand in support of this bill which contains many provisions drafted 
into my original bill. As a member of the working group which crafted 
this critical legislation, I am pleased to report that this bill is the 
fruit of a bipartisan agreement which has been diligently designed and 
represents over 2 years of hard but fair negotiations.
  I want to commend the Pennsylvania delegation and the Governor of our 
great Commonwealth for working together on this critical issue. Passage 
of this vital legislation will empower the Governors to freeze all out-
of-State imports at 1993 levels and ratchet down import levels by 50 
percent over 5 years. Currently, Pennsylvania receives over 4 million 
tons of imported waste a year making it the No. 1 importing State in 
the Nation. The dumping of this waste brings health hazards and heavy 
truck traffic to the host communities accompanied with a burdensome 
reduction in the quality of life. Hopefully, full congressional 
approval of this measure will help to reverse this trend by helping 
neighboring States to become responsible for the disposal of their own 
waste within their borders.
  As out-of-State imports increase over time, our local capacity to 
handle in-State waste is being consumed. Clearly, it is every State's 
prerogative to save this disposal capacity for its own citizens. In 
spite of many Governors' actions to restrain the importation of waste, 
the courts have overruled their actions as a unilateral violation of 
the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. The courts have ruled 
that only through congressional action can the Governors' limits on 
imported waste be validated. Consequently, it is appropriate that we 
exercise our constitutionally granted authority to help bring some 
measure of rationality to the waste management business. I am pleased 
to inform my colleagues that no State limitation in this bill is deemed 
to violate the interstate commerce clause.
  Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my colleagues to support passage of the 
Interstate Waste Control Act, a bipartisan and equitable solution to 
the Nation's interstate waste crisis.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill H.R. 4779. 
Essentially, it is aimed directly at my State, New York, because we are 
the major waste exporting State. Yet almost every State exports some 
waste, and--like New York--also import wastes from other States. That 
is the nature of waste flow today, and the geographic and economic 
forces that govern it. Almost every major metropolitan area will be 
hurt by this bill.
  The irony of this bill is that it affords no additional environmental 
protection to the communities who do not want waste. They get 
consideration only if a facility wants to bring in out-of-State waste, 
from in-State wastes they get no protection. Indeed, the bill makes 
clear that permit violations, which represent some environmental 
danger, jeopardize the out-of-State flow, but not the in-State flow. 
Garbage is garbage, and our Federal laws should be about protecting 
health and the environment, not imposing burdens to ignite political 
battles.
  I am happy to see the principle of local control and local consent in 
this bill. It makes a fine start for when Congress takes up 
reauthorization of our solid waste disposal statute. I am concerned to 
see it here subordinated to the whims of State enforcement, where 
protection may be vary from community to community, and the opening 
this leaves for discrimination.
  Geography has made New York one of the key players in the development 
of interstate commerce. We were involved in one of the early landmark 
Supreme Court cases. Today, the city hosts many jobs which are held by 
residents of neighboring States. The geography of the city has always 
meant that the city and State boundaries do not represent its logical 
limits. New York may be the largest city facing this problem, but 
geography will also make this bill detrimental to Chicago, 
Philadelphia, Seattle, and many other cities.
  I do not want out wastes to travel where they are not wanted by local 
communities, nor to facilities that are not environmentally safe. But 
what I observe here is an effort to make some garbage seem more 
threatening than others, without enhancing the safety of anyone's 
environment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill shall be considered under the 5-
minute rule by sections and each section shall be considered as read.
  The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
for a period not to exceed 4 hours, excluding time consumed by recorded 
votes and proceedings incidental thereto.
  Any amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce or his designee may amend portions of the bill not yet read 
for amendment.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4779

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Government 
     Interstate Waste Control Act of 1994''.

  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Molinari].
  I have decided, after discussions with the proponents of the bill, 
not to offer our amendment. I will, however, at the appropriate time 
offer a minor en bloc amendment, which I believe has been agreed to by 
all parties.
  However, I want to take this opportunity to outline for my colleagues 
some of the problems with H.R. 4779 as reported and discuss how my 
substitute would have addressed these shortcomings.
  First, and foremost, I support the concept that local communities 
should have the final say in whether or not they accept out-of-State 
municipal solid waste for disposal. But, I believe the bill will 
preempt local decision making in certain regards and grants too much, 
authority to the States.
  I believe the bill also addresses the problems associated with the 
interstate transportation of waste in a manner which will create chaos 
in the markets for the disposal of municipal solid waste and will 
ultimately work to the detriment of every State in the Nation.
  This is particularly true for the relatively short ``grandfather'' of 
spot market waste. The 3 years envisioned by the bill simply does not 
provide enough time for exporting communities to identify and develop 
alternative disposal options. While it is true that some States may 
extend this period out to 6 years through the exercise of a 
``ratchet,'' the percentage reductions in the amount of waste allowed 
to be exported are too great and established too quickly.
  I continue to have substantial concerns over the so-called needs 
provision of the bill. It is my interpretation of the legislation that 
a local government could change its mind after it had executed a valid, 
host community agreement, by asking their Governor to deny a permit for 
a facility expansion. Similarly, we believe a Governor would be able to 
deny a facility expansion, not based on environmental concerns, but on 
the premise that the additional space was not needed under the State's 
solid waste management plan.
  In both cases, we could see the invalidation of host community 
agreements or legally binding contracts.
  Another concern, which I understand will not be dealt with today, is 
the issue of construction and demolition debris. This material is 
currently included in the definition of municipal solid waste under the 
bill. This provision will make it very difficult for the construction 
industry to identify disposal capacity, and likely interfering with the 
economic recovery this is now experiencing.
  Mr. Chairman, the Manton-Molinari substitute amendment would have 
addressed these and other concerns we have with the bill. Basically, 
the substitute proposed to:
  Ensure that contracts would be absolutely protected under the terms 
of the bill.
  Provide a longer grace period or grandfather for spot market waste 
and modify the proposed percentage reductions or ratchets.
  Establish the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the repository 
and verifier of the information establishing beleaguered State status 
as defined in the legislation.
  Modify the provisions for denying a permit to a facility which sought 
to accept out-of-State municipal solid waste.
  Delete construction and demolition debris from the definition of 
municipal solid waste.
  Eliminate the double standard inherent in the bill that would allow a 
non-complying facility to ban the receipt of out-of-State waste while 
it remains open to the receipt of in-State waste.
  Limit the application of surcharge fees on the receipt of out-of-
State municipal solid waste.
  Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of comity and the belief that all parties 
are acting in good faith, I have decided not to offer my substitute. I 
believe these very real concerns will continue to be discussed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL 
                   SOLID WASTE.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 
     4010 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4011. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF 
                   MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       ``(a) Restriction on Receipt of Out-Of-State Waste.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Authorization.--A landfill or incinerator in a State 
     may not receive for disposal or incineration any out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste unless the owner or operator of such 
     landfill or incinerator obtains explicit authorization (as 
     part of a host community agreement) from the affected local 
     government to receive the waste.
       ``(B) Requirements for authorization.--An authorization 
     granted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) be granted by formal action at a meeting;
       ``(ii) be recorded in writing in the official record of the 
     meeting; and
       ``(iii) remain in effect according to its terms.
       ``(C) Discretionary terms and conditions.--An authorization 
     granted pursuant to subparagraph (A) may specify terms and 
     conditions, including an amount of out-of-State waste that an 
     owner or operator may receive and the duration of the 
     authorization.
       ``(D) Notification.--Promptly, but not later than 90 days 
     after an authorization is granted, the affected local 
     government shall notify the Governor, contiguous local 
     governments, and any contiguous Indian tribes of an 
     authorization granted under this subsection.
       ``(2) Information.--Prior to seeking an authorization to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste pursuant to this 
     subsection, the owner or operator of the facility seeking 
     such authorization shall provide (and make readily available 
     to the Governor, each contiguous local government and Indian 
     tribe, and any other interested person for inspection and 
     copying) the following information:
       ``(A) A brief description of the facility, including, with 
     respect to both the facility and any planned expansion of the 
     facility, the size, ultimate waste capacity, and the 
     anticipated monthly and yearly quantities of (expressed in 
     terms of volume) waste to be handled.
       ``(B) A map of the facility site indicating location in 
     relation to the local road system and topography and 
     hydrogeological features. The map shall indicate any buffer 
     zones to be acquired by the owner or operator as well as all 
     facility units.
       ``(C) A description of the then current environmental 
     characteristics of the site, a description of ground water 
     use in the area (including identification of private wells 
     and public drinking water sources), and a discussion of 
     alterations that may be necessitated by, or occur as a result 
     of, the facility.
       ``(D) A description of environmental controls typically 
     required to be used on the site (pursuant to permit 
     requirements), including run on or run off management (or 
     both), air pollution control devices, source separation 
     procedures (if any), methane monitoring and control, landfill 
     covers, liners or leachate collection systems, and monitoring 
     programs. In addition, the description shall include a 
     description of any waste residuals generated by the facility, 
     including leachate or ash, and the planned management of the 
     residuals.
       ``(E) A description of site access controls to be employed, 
     and roadway improvements to be made, by the owner or 
     operator, and an estimate of the timing and extent of 
     increased local truck traffic.
       ``(F) A list of all required Federal, State, and local 
     permits.
       ``(G) Estimates of the personnel requirements of the 
     facility, including information regarding the probable skill 
     and education levels required for jobs at the facility. To 
     the extent practicable, the information shall distinguish 
     between employment statistics for preoperational and 
     postoperational levels.
       ``(H) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to any violations of 
     environmental laws (including regulations) by the owner, the 
     operator, and any subsidiary of the owner or operator, the 
     disposition of enforcement proceedings taken with respect to 
     the violations, and corrective action and rehabilitation 
     measures taken as a result of the proceedings.
       ``(I) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to gifts and contributions 
     made by the owner or operator.
       ``(J) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to compliance by the owner or 
     operator with the State solid waste management plan.
       ``(3) Notification.--Prior to taking formal action with 
     respect to granting authorization to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste pursuant to this subsection, an 
     affected local government shall--
       ``(A) notify the Governor, contiguous local governments, 
     and any contiguous Indian tribes;
       ``(B) publish notice of the action in a newspaper of 
     general circulation at least 30 days before holding a hearing 
     and again at least 15 days before holding the hearing, except 
     where State law provides for an alternate form of public 
     notification; and
       ``(C) provide an opportunity for public comment in 
     accordance with State law, including at least 1 public 
     hearing.
       ``(b) Authorization Not Required for Certain Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--A landfill or incinerator may receive 
     for disposal or incineration out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste in the absence of an authorization under subsection (a) 
     if each of the following requirements are met:
       ``(A) The owner or operator shall provide either of the 
     following to the Governor of the State in which the landfill 
     or incinerator is located and to the affected local 
     government:
       ``(i) Information establishing that, before the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the owner or operator of the 
     landfill or incinerator has entered into a host community 
     agreement or received a State permit, specifically 
     authorizing the owner or operator to accept, at the landfill 
     or incinerator, out-of-State municipal solid waste. This 
     clause shall be effective only if the owner or operator 
     complies with all of the terms and conditions of the host 
     community agreement or permit and, in the case of a permit, 
     notifies the affected local government of the permit, as soon 
     as practicable but not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(ii) Information establishing that during 1993, the 
     landfill or incinerator received shipments of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste. Such information shall be in such 
     documented form as will result in criminal penalties under 
     State law in case of false or misleading information. Such 
     information shall include information about the date of 
     shipment, place of origin of the waste, and the type of 
     waste.
       ``(B) In the case of a landfill or incinerator in operation 
     on the date of the enactment of this section, the landfill or 
     incinerator must be in compliance as of such date with 
     applicable Federal and State environmental laws (including 
     regulations), including, in the case of landfills, applicable 
     laws and regulations relating to design and location 
     standards, leachate collection, ground water monitoring, and 
     financial assurance for closure and post-closure care and 
     corrective action.
       ``(2) Amount received under paragraph (1)(A)(ii).--
       ``(A) States not exercising ratchet authority under 
     (c)(5).--
       ``(i) Facilities covered.--This subparagraph shall cover 
     only landfills and incinerators in States which do not 
     establish a limit on out-of-State municipal solid waste under 
     subsection (c)(5).
       ``(ii) Waste under contract.--For any landfill or 
     incinerator covered by this subparagraph and authorized to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii), if out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     was received at such landfill or incinerator during 1993 
     under a contract, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall apply to the 
     amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste specified in the 
     contract for the longer of the following periods:

       ``(I) The life of the contract.
       ``(II) The period ending 3 years after the enactment of 
     this section.

     For purposes of subclause (I), the term `life of the 
     contract' shall not include any renewal, novation, or other 
     extension thereof (as determined under State law).
       ``(iii) Spot waste.--For a landfill or incinerator covered 
     by this subparagraph and authorized to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(ii), if 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste was received at such 
     landfill or incinerator during 1993 in the absence of a 
     contract, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall apply to the receipt of 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste for a period ending 3 
     years after the enactment of this section.
       ``(iv) Contract and spot waste.--For any landfill or 
     incinerator covered by this subparagraph and authorized to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii), if out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     was received at such landfill or incinerator during 1993 both 
     under a contract and otherwise, clause (ii) shall apply with 
     respect to the waste received under the contract and clause 
     (iii) shall apply to the other municipal solid waste received 
     at the landfill or incinerator.
       ``(B) States exercising ratchet authority under (c)(5).--
       ``(i) Facilities covered.--This subparagraph shall cover 
     only landfills and incinerators in States which establish a 
     limit on out-of-State municipal solid waste under subsection 
     (c)(5).
       ``(ii) Waste under contract.--For any landfill or 
     incinerator covered by this subparagraph and authorized to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii), if out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     was received at such landfill or incinerator during 1993 
     under a contract, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall apply to the 
     amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste specified in the 
     contract for the longer of the following periods:

       ``(I) The life of the contract.
       ``(II) The period ending January 1, 2000.

     For purposes of subclause (I), the term `life of the 
     contract' shall not include any renewal, novation, or other 
     extension thereof (as determined under State law).
       ``(iii) Spot waste.--For a landfill or incinerator covered 
     by this subparagraph and authorized to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(ii), if 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste was received at such 
     landfill or incinerator during 1993 in the absence of a 
     contract, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall apply to the receipt of 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste for a period ending 
     January 1, 2000.
       ``(iv) Contract and spot waste.--For any landfill or 
     incinerator covered by this subparagraph and authorized to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii), if out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     was received at such landfill or incinerator during 1993 both 
     under a contract and otherwise, clause (ii) shall apply with 
     respect to the waste received under the contract and clause 
     (iii) shall apply to the other municipal solid waste received 
     at the landfill or incinerator.
       ``(3) Availability of documentation.--The owner or operator 
     of a landfill or incinerator which is exempt under paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection from the requirements of subsection 
     (a) shall provide to the State and affected local government, 
     and make available for inspection by the public in the 
     affected local community, a copy of the host community 
     agreement or other documentation required under paragraph 
     (1). The owner or operator may omit any proprietary 
     information contained in the contracts, but shall ensure that 
     at least the following information is apparent: the volume of 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste to be received, the source 
     of the waste, and the duration of the contract.
       ``(4) Denied or revoked permits.--A landfill or incinerator 
     may not receive for disposal or incineration out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste in the absence of a host community 
     agreement if the operating permit or license for the landfill 
     or incinerator (or renewal thereof) was denied or revoked by 
     the appropriate State agency before the date of enactment of 
     this section unless such permit or license (or renewal) has 
     been reinstated as of such date of enactment.
       ``(5) Waste within bi-state metropolitan statistical 
     areas.--The owner or operator of a landfill or incinerator in 
     a State may receive out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     without obtaining authorization under subsection (a) from the 
     affected local government if the out-of-State waste is 
     generated within, and the landfill or incinerator is located 
     within, the same bi-State level A metropolitan statistical 
     area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and 
     as listed by the Office of Management and Budget as of the 
     date of enactment of this section) which contains two 
     contiguous major cities each of which is in a different 
     State.
       ``(c) Authority of State To Restrict Out-of-State Municipal 
     Solid Waste.--
       ``(1) Limitations on amount of waste received.--
       ``(A) Limit for all facilities in the state.--A State may 
     limit the amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received annually for disposal at each landfill or 
     incinerator in the State to the limitation amount described 
     in paragraph (2), except as provided in this subsection. No 
     such limit may conflict--
       ``(i) with provisions of a permit specifically authorizing 
     the owner or operator to accept, at the facility, out-of-
     State municipal solid waste, or
       ``(ii) with a host community agreement entered into between 
     the owner or operator of any such landfill or incinerator and 
     the affected local government.
       ``(B) Conflict.--A limit referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be treated as conflicting with a permit or host 
     community agreement if--
       ``(i) the permit or host community agreement establishes a 
     higher limit, or
       ``(ii) the permit or host community agreement does not 
     establish any limit,

     on the amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste which may 
     be received annually at the facility.
       ``(C) Limit for particular facilities.--At the request of 
     an affected local government that has not executed a host 
     community agreement, the State may limit the amount of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste received annually for disposal 
     at the landfill or incinerator concerned to the limitation 
     amount described in paragraph (2). No such limit may conflict 
     with provisions of a permit specifically authorizing the 
     owner or operator to accept, at the facility, out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste.
       ``(D) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be interpreted or construed to have any effect on any 
     State law relating to contracts.
       ``(2) Limitation amount.--For any landfill or incinerator 
     that commenced receiving documented out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste before the date of enactment of this section, the 
     limitation amount referred to in paragraph (1) for any year 
     shall be equal to the amount of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste received for disposal at the landfill or incinerator 
     concerned during calendar year 1993. The documentation 
     referred to in this subparagraph shall be such as would 
     result in criminal penalties in case of false or misleading 
     information. Such documentation shall include the amount of 
     waste received, place of origin, including the identity of 
     the generator, date of shipment, and type of waste.
       ``(3) Other limitation amount.--(A) Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the limitation amount referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be zero for a landfill or incinerator 
     authorized to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     solely by reason of receipt in calendar year 1993 of 
     municipal solid waste that was not received under contract or 
     otherwise authorized under this section.
       ``(B) The limitation amount of zero referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be applicable to receipt of any 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste by the landfill or 
     incinerator if the owner or operator, on the date of 
     enactment of this section, owned the land on which the 
     facility that received such waste is located.
       ``(4) No discrimination.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (5), in establishing a limitation under this subsection, a 
     State shall act in a consistent manner that does not 
     discriminate against any shipments of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste on the basis of State of origin.
       ``(5) Additional limit for municipal waste.--(A) Any State 
     (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as an `importing 
     State') that imported more than 750,000 tons of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste in 1993 may establish a limit under 
     this paragraph on the amount of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste received pursuant to the authority of subsection 
     (b)(1)(A)(ii) for disposal at landfills and incinerators in 
     the importing State. A limit under this paragraph shall be in 
     addition to, or in lieu of, any other limit imposed under 
     this subsection. A limit under this paragraph may be imposed 
     only if each of the following requirements are met:
       ``(i) The limit shall not conflict (within the meaning of 
     paragraph (1)(B)) with any permit or host community agreement 
     authorizing the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste.
       ``(ii) The importing State shall notify the Governor of the 
     exporting State or States of the proposed limit at least 12 
     months before imposition of the limit.
       ``(iii) The importing State shall notify the Governor of 
     the exporting State or States of the proposed limit at least 
     90 days before enforcement of the limit.
       ``(iv) The percentage reduction in the amount of out-of-
     State municipal solid waste which is received at each 
     facility in the importing State at which a limit may be 
     established under this paragraph shall be uniform for all 
     such facilities.
       ``(B) The limit established under this paragraph shall be a 
     percentage of the amount of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste generated in the exporting State during calendar year 
     1993 and received at facilities in the importing State in 
     which a limit is established under this paragraph. For any 
     calendar year after 1994, the percentage shall be as 
     specified in the following table:
                                                             Applicable
``Calendar year:                                            Percentage:
  1996.........................................................85  ....

  1997.........................................................75  ....

  1998.........................................................65  ....

  1999.........................................................55  ....

  after 1999..................................................50.  ....

       ``(d) Needs Determination.--Any comprehensive solid waste 
     management plan approved under Federal or State law and any 
     implementation of such plan through the State permitting 
     process may take into account local and regional needs for 
     solid waste disposal capacity. An affected local government 
     may make a determination that there is no local or regional 
     need for a new landfill or incinerator or major modification 
     to an existing facility in the area under the jurisdiction of 
     the affected local government. Such determination shall be 
     based on a finding that the proposed facility does not have a 
     host community agreement or is inconsistent with the capacity 
     needs established in the comprehensive solid waste management 
     plan adopted by the affected local government pursuant to 
     State law. No comprehensive solid waste management plan may 
     expressly prohibit the importation of municipal solid waste 
     from out of State.
       ``(e) Implementation and Enforcement.--Any State may adopt 
     such laws and regulations, not inconsistent with this 
     section, as are necessary to implement and enforce this 
     section, including provisions for penalties.
       ``(f) Effect on Interstate Commerce.--No State limitation 
     established as provided in subsection (c), no State planning 
     and permitting process referred to in subsection (d), and no 
     State law or regulation referred to in subsection (e) shall 
     be considered to impose an undue burden on interstate 
     commerce or to otherwise impair, restrain, or discriminate 
     against interstate commerce.
       ``(g) Annual State Report.--Each year the owner or operator 
     of each landfill or incinerator receiving out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste shall submit to the Governor of the 
     State in which the landfill or incinerator is located 
     information specifying the amount of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received for disposal during the preceding year. 
     Each year each such State shall publish and make available to 
     the public, a report containing information on the amount of 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal in 
     the State during the preceding year.
       ``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Affected local government.--(A) For any landfill or 
     incinerator, the term `affected local government' shall 
     mean--
       ``(i) the public body authorized by State law to plan for 
     the management of municipal solid waste, a majority of the 
     members of which are elected officials, for the area in which 
     the landfill or incinerator is located or proposed to be 
     located, or
       ``(ii) if there is no such body created by State law, the 
     elected officials of the city, town, township, borough, 
     county, or parish exercising primary responsibility for the 
     use of land on which the facility is located or proposed to 
     be located,

     except that for purposes of host community agreements entered 
     into before the date of enactment of this section, the term 
     shall mean either the public body described in subparagraph 
     (A) or the elected officials of the city, town, township, 
     borough, county, or parish exercising primary responsibility 
     for the use of land on which the facility is located or 
     proposed to be located.
       ``(B) Two or more Governors of adjoining States may use the 
     authority provided in section 1005(b) to enter into an 
     agreement under which contiguous units of local government 
     located in each of the adjoining States may act jointly as 
     the affected local government for purposes of providing 
     authorization under subsection (a) for municipal solid waste 
     generated in one of such counties and received for disposal 
     or incineration in another.
       ``(2) Host community agreement.--The term `host community 
     agreement' means a written, legally binding agreement, 
     lawfully entered into between an owner or operator of a 
     landfill or incinerator and an affected local government that 
     specifically authorizes the landfill or incinerator to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       ``(3) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid 
     waste' means all waste materials discarded for disposal by 
     households, including single and multifamily residences, and 
     hotels and motels. The term also includes waste materials 
     generated by commercial, institutional, and industrial 
     sources, to the extent such wastes are essentially the same 
     as waste normally generated by households or were collected 
     and disposed of with other municipal solid waste as part of 
     normal municipal solid waste collection services, and 
     regardless of when generated, would be considered 
     conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste under 
     section 3001(d). Examples of municipal solid waste include 
     food and yard waste, paper, clothing, appliances, consumer 
     product packaging, disposable diapers, office supplies, 
     cosmetics, glass and metal food containers, elementary or 
     secondary school science laboratory waste, and household 
     hazardous waste. Such term shall include debris resulting 
     from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition of 
     structures other than debris that is not otherwise commingled 
     with other municipal solid waste and has been determined by 
     the generator, to be contaminated. For purposes of 
     determining whether any such debris is contaminated, the 
     generator shall conduct representative sampling and analysis 
     of such debris, the results of which shall be submitted to 
     the affected local government for record keeping purposes 
     only, unless not required by the affected local government. 
     Any such debris that has been determined to be contaminated 
     shall be disposed of in a landfill that meets, at a minimum, 
     the requirements of this subtitle. The term does not include 
     any of the following:
       ``(A) Any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous 
     waste under section 3001.
       ``(B) Any solid waste, including contaminated soil and 
     debris, resulting from--
       ``(i) a response action taken under section 104 or 106 of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9604 or 9606),
       ``(ii) a response action taken under a State law with 
     authorities comparable to the authorities of section 104 or 
     106, or
       ``(iii) a corrective action taken under this Act.
       ``(C) Recyclable materials that have been separated, at the 
     source of the waste, from waste otherwise destined for 
     disposal or that have been managed separately from waste 
     destined for disposal.
       ``(D) Materials and products returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer or an agent of the 
     manufacturer for credit, evaluation, and possible reuse.
       ``(E) Any solid waste that is--
       ``(i) generated by an industrial facility; and
       ``(ii) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, 
     or disposal to a facility that is owned or operated by the 
     generator of the waste, or is located on property owned by 
     the generator of a company with which the generator is 
     affiliated.
       ``(F) Any medical waste that is segregated from or not 
     mixed with solid waste.
       ``(G) Sewage sludge and residuals from any sewage treatment 
     plant, including any sewage treatment plant required to be 
     constructed in the State of Massachusetts pursuant to any 
     court order issued against the Massachusetts Water Resources 
     Authority.
       ``(H) Combustion ash generated by resource recovery 
     facilities or municipal incinerators, or waste from 
     manufacturing or processing (including pollution control) 
     operations not essentially the same as waste normally 
     generated by households.
       ``(4) Out-of-state municipal solid waste.--The term `out-
     of-State municipal solid waste', means, with respect to any 
     State, municipal solid waste generated outside of the State. 
     The term includes municipal solid waste generated outside of 
     the United States.
       ``(5) Specific authorization.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `specifically authorizes' refers to an 
     explicit authorization, contained in a host community 
     agreement or permit, to import waste from outside the State. 
     Such authorization may include a reference to a fixed radius 
     surrounding the landfill or incinerator which includes an 
     area outside the State or a reference to `any place of 
     origin', reference to specific places outside the State, or 
     use of such phrases as `regardless of origin' or `outside the 
     State'. The language for such authorization may vary as long 
     as it clearly and affirmatively states the approval or 
     consent of the affected local government or State for receipt 
     of municipal solid waste from sources or locations outside 
     the State from which the owner or operator of a landfill or 
     incinerator proposes to import it. The authorization shall 
     not include general references to the receipt of waste 
     outside the jurisdiction of the affected local government.
       ``(i) Cost Recovery Surcharge.--
       ``(1) Authority.--A State may impose and collect a cost 
     recovery surcharge on the combustion or disposal in a 
     landfill or incinerator of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     in such State.
       ``(2) Limitation.--During the period beginning on the date 
     of the enactment of this section and ending on December 31, 
     1996, a State may not impose or collect a cost recovery 
     surcharge from a facility on any out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste that meets both of the following conditions:
       ``(A) The waste is being received at the facility under one 
     or more contracts entered into before the date of the 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(B) The amount of waste being received in a calendar year 
     under the contract or contracts does not exceed the amount of 
     waste received at the facility during calendar year 1993.
       ``(3) Amount of surcharge.--The amount of the cost recovery 
     surcharge may be no greater than the amount necessary to 
     recover those costs determined in conformance with paragraph 
     (5) and in no event may exceed $2 per ton of waste.
       ``(4) Use of surcharge collected.--All cost recovery 
     surcharges collected by a State shall be used to fund those 
     solid waste management programs administered by the State or 
     its political subdivisions that incur costs for which the 
     surcharge is collected.
       ``(5) Conditions.--(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and 
     (C), a State may impose and collect a cost recovery surcharge 
     on the combustion or disposal within the State of out-of-
     State municipal solid waste if--
       ``(i) the State demonstrates a cost to the State arising 
     from the combustion or disposal within the State of a volume 
     of municipal solid waste from a source outside the State;
       ``(ii) the surcharge is based on those costs to the State 
     demonstrated under subparagraph (A) that, if not paid for 
     through the surcharge, would otherwise have to be paid or 
     subsidized by the State; and
       ``(iii) the surcharge is compensatory and is not 
     discriminatory.
       ``(B) In no event shall a cost recovery surcharge be 
     imposed by a State to the extent that the cost for which 
     recovery is sought is otherwise recovered by any other fee or 
     tax assessed against the generation, transportation, 
     treatment, combustion, or disposal of solid waste.
       ``(C) The grant of a subsidy by a State with respect to 
     entities disposing of waste generated within the State does 
     not constitute discrimination for purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(iii).
       ``(6) Burden of proof.--In any proceeding in which a State 
     invokes this subsection to justify a cost recovery surcharge 
     on the combustion or disposal within the State of out-of-
     State municipal solid waste, the State shall bear the burden 
     of establishing that the cost recovery surcharge satisfies 
     the conditions set forth in paragraph (5).''.
       (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 4010 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 4011. Interstate transportation and disposal of municipal solid 
              waste.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to Section 2?


                    amendment offered by mr. manton

  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], and the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Manton: Page 21, insert the 
     following after the period on line 20: ``No host community 
     agreement that is entered into by the elected officials 
     described in clause (ii) may be overturned by an act of a 
     public body described in clause (i) if such body is created 
     by State law after the execution of such host community 
     agreement.''.
       On page 17, beginning on line 10, strike ``Except as 
     provided in paragraph (5), in'' and insert ``In''.

  Mr. MANTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, quite simply, this amendment seeks to 
ensure States will not be discriminated against under the bill. The 
second provision of the amendment will clarify the definition of 
affected local government. I believe this amendment significant 
improves the bill, and I believe it is acceptable to all parties.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1300

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to section 2?


                    amendment offered by mr. zimmer

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Zimmer: Page 9, line 24, strike 
     ``3 years'' and insert ``6 years''.
       Page 10, line 2, strike ``not include any renewal, 
     novation, or other extension thereof (as determined under 
     State law).'' and insert ``be determined under State law.''.
       Page 11, line 25, strike ``not include any renewal 
     novation, or other extension thereof (as determined under 
     State law).'' and insert ``be determined under State law.''.
       Page 23, line 5, strike ``Such term shall include debris 
     resulting from construction'' and all that follows down 
     through ``the requirements of this subtitle.'' in lines 18 
     and 19.

  Mr. ZIMMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I have offered this amendment on behalf of 
myself and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], because we 
believe that the bill as passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
would create a solid waste crisis for New Jersey.
  New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation and is 
in a unique situation because it has been an importer of garbage though 
much of its history.
  Until the 1970's, the State of New Jersey was a major net importer of 
waste, primarily from New York and from Philadelphia. And, in the case 
of New Jersey versus Philadelphia. The U.S. Supreme Court determined 
that New Jersey's efforts to ban out-of-State waste violated the 
commerce clause of the Constitution.
  Landfill space that our State had relied on for long-term disposal 
capacity was filled by other States' waste. New Jersey began developing 
a solid waste plan in the 1970's, and we were the first State in the 
Nation to begin to do so. That plan calls for self-sufficiency in the 
year 2000, and we are on track.
  New Jersey has reduced its solid waste exports by 50 percent since 
1987, and we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars doing so. But 
we need more time. We need til the end of the decade to accomplish 
this.
  It is important to understand this background because New Jersey is 
not in disagreement with the ultimate goals of the legislation. New 
Jersey has done more extensive planning then any other State to 
accomplish the goals of the bill, and it should not be punished by this 
legislation.
  We have a number of problems with this bill. It would ban the 
interstate transport of waste unless the host community agrees to 
accept the waste shipments. This idea, called a presumptive ban, is a 
bad idea because it would make it extremely difficult for Governors of 
two or more States to work together to resolve mutual problems relating 
to solid waste disposal.
  The bill contains a provision that protects contracted waste for 3 
years or the life of the contract, whichever is longer, but the 
language is unduly burdensome and really punishes the State of New 
Jersey, because in order to minimize progress in achieving self-
sufficiency, New Jersey has allowed counties to enter into only short-
term contracts.
  New Jersey would be penalized under this bill for doing the right 
thing, because it would not get the benefit of the full term of the 
extension.
  Also the bill includes construction and demolition debris in the 
definition of municipal solid waste. This category is exceedingly 
difficult to define and track and includes everything from the remains 
of a demolished building or road to leftover wood, pipe, or even tree 
stumps. This category of debris is often mixed with other categories of 
waste, and it is often handled by private agreements that do not 
involve the local government, unlike municipal solid waste which is 
much more often considered to be a local government responsibility.
  New Jersey has had remarkable success in recycling construction and 
demolition debris, reducing the need for disposal by a categorywide 
average of more than 50 percent.
  I recognize that two States are receiving large amounts of this kind 
of waste from Canada. However, I do not believe that the language 
included in the legislation has been though out well enough, and it 
would place an unnecessary burden on New Jersey to accommodate an 
additional waste burden before needed facilities can be developed in 
our State.
  My amendment would correct New Jersey's problems with the contract 
provisions in the bill and eliminate the provision relating to 
construction and demolition debris. However, I do not intend to ask for 
a vote on this amendment. I will withdraw it, because it is my 
understanding that an agreement has been reached on the contract 
portion of the legislation. That agreement will be reflected in an 
amendment to be submitted by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone] and myself shortly.
  I believe that all of New Jersey's major problems must be addressed 
before I can support this legislation. However, I will withdraw this 
amendment in favor of the amendment just described that will deal 
exclusively with the contracts issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2?


                    amendment offered by mr. pallone

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone: Page 9, line 24, strike 
     ``3 years'' and insert ``6 years''.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer]. The amendment 
would allow facilities receiving out-of-State waste under existing 
contracts to continue to do so for the life of the current contract or 
for six years after enactment.
  New Jersey's current contracts to export waste should be protected 
until the end of the decade, pursuant to this amendment. New Jersey now 
has several contracts due to expire and an inability to renew under the 
House approach in this bill would impair New Jersey's ability to obtain 
self-sufficiency.
  A great deal of the solid waste which New Jersey exports for disposal 
is being done under disposal contracts which were entered into in good 
faith according to the laws and regulations in effect at the time they 
were entered into. Since New Jersey has been trying to encourage 
counties to develop the means to dispose of waste within the State, as 
my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], mentioned, 
most of our contracts are due to expire in the next 2 years. These 
contracts must be protected at least through the year 2000, if we are 
going to achieve self-sufficiency within our State.
  To change the ground rules at this point in time and declare these 
contracts void would, in my opinion, be extremely unfair and would go 
against all the planning which we have done in New Jersey, which, as 
Members know, has tried and is really moving in the direction of self-
sufficiency.
  Proponents of the bill have said that they do not want communities to 
receive in perpetuity waste that they never agreed to accept in the 
first place. This amendment keeps to that concept, in my opinion, Mr. 
Chairman, but merely allows 3 additional years for exporters to 
eliminate flows.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and wish 
to associate myself with his remarks. I believe this amendment will 
improve the bill and I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's 
amendment. This amendment would extend the protections for shipments 
under contract from the current 3 years to 6 years. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to say that we support 
the amendment on this side. We urge its adoption.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Zimmer-Pallone 
amendment to the solid waste legislation before us today. This 
amendment will ensure that facilities currently receiving out-of-State 
waste under existing contracts can continue doing so for up to 6 years 
after this bill's date of enactment.
  Disposal Capacity in New Jersey has been overtaken by out-of-State 
waste. We have reduced our own solid waste disposal.
  We have been consistent in our own planning with goals of this bill.
  Mr. Zimmer has correctly outlined the provisions in the bill that 
would penalize New Jersey for having ``done the right thing.''
  The bipartisan amendment deserves our strong support for current 
contracts.
  This change is vital for States like New Jersey, because the original 
bills' language would have protected these contracts for only 3 years, 
which the Commissioner of our State's Department of Environmental 
Protection [DEP] believes could ``precipitate a solid waste crisis'' if 
this measure were enacted as currently drafted.
  Consequently, the Zimmer-Pallone amendment allows New Jersey to 
continue implementing its long-term plan to become self-sufficient with 
respect to solid waste by the year 2000.
  In addition, adopting this amendment will avoid the dangerous 
scenario of many local governments in New Jersey not having the means 
to dispose of their solid waste after their existing, short-term 
contracts expire, while they wait for new in-State solid waste disposal 
facilities to come on line and statewide recycling and source reduction 
efforts to fully phase-in in the near term.
  It's ironic that H.R. 4779, as reported by the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, seeks to penalize States that export solid waste. In the 
early 1970's, New Jersey was one of the first States that sought to ban 
the importation of solid waste only to have the Supreme Court rule that 
Congress must give State and local governments this authority--the 
Court held that States cannot ban out-of-State imported waste on their 
own.
  Once the courts denied the State the ability to ban the importation 
of solid waste, New Jersey embarked on a long-term solid waste self-
sufficiency plan. Environmentally unsound landfills were closed, which 
reduced our own State's capacity.
  When less instate capacity, New Jersey began exporting surplus solid 
waste to States in the Midwest, while it also began the long process of 
bringing on-line new, environmentally safe instate capacity, reducing 
solid waste sources, and instituting an aggressive recycling campaign.
  Well, here we are 20 years later, and absent some significant changes 
this bill will penalize New Jersey, and wreck havoc on the State's good 
faith effort to become self-sufficient regarding solid waste in the 
next 6 years.
  Most of the solid waste that New Jersey currently exports to other 
States is being handled under contracts that local governments in our 
State and in other States have entered into in good faith and in 
accordance with all relevant rules and regulations. The bill's original 
language that fails to protect these agreements for more than 3 years 
must be changed, and that's exactly why the Zimmer-Pallone amendment 
must be adopted.
  While the adoption of this amendment would represent an important 
improvement for States like New Jersey, I remain very seriously 
concerned about the damage that this overall package, as currently 
crafted, would do to the State of New Jersey.
  DEP Commissioner Robert Shinn has written a letter to the entire New 
Jersey delegation detailing the State's objections to H.R. 4779. At the 
same time, the State has expressed its view that the Senate version of 
this bill, S. 2345, is far more preferable.
  I hope that when the conference committee meets to write the final 
version of this important legislation that the interests of States that 
export solid waste, like New Jersey, can be accommodated instead of 
being ignored. As such, I hope that as much of the Senate bill as 
possible can be incorporated into the final conference committee 
report.
  Simply put, this issue is too important to become a victim of petty 
politics between importing and exporting States. New Jersey is well on 
its way to becoming self-sufficient very shortly.
  I hope that any solid waste disposal legislation that we enact this 
year allows our State to continue its efforts to achieve this 
noteworthy goal without undue roadblocks or interference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1310


              amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Page 10, line 
     2, strike ``not include any renewal, novation, or other 
     extension thereof (as determined under State law).'' and 
     insert ``be determined under State law.''.
       Page 11, line 25, strike ``not include any renewal, 
     novation, or other extension thereof (as determined under 
     State law).'' and insert ``be determined under State law.''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity 
to speak today on the State and Local Government Interstate Waste 
Control Act of 1994 (H.R. 4779). The amendment I am offering to protect 
existing interstate contracts is absolutely crucial to my home State of 
New Jersey, as well as neighboring New York and other States which 
export some amount of their municipal solid waste for disposal.
  During the 1970's and the early 1980's, several States--particularly 
New Jersey, New York, and others in the Northeast--suffered from a 
solid waste management crisis. Costs for disposal skyrocketed and 
taxpayers paid through the nose for basic trash removal and disposal. 
Environmental protection standards--where they even existed--were 
neglected. Taxpayers are still paying for this in the form of the 
numerous Superfund sites and other sites of environmental degradation 
which spot the Nation.
  At that time, Mr. Chairman, New Jersey was the No. 1 importer of 
municipal solid waste from other States. New Jersey is now the No. 2 
exporter of municipal solid waste, second only to New York.
  Over the past two decades, New Jersey has undertaken an ambitious and 
comprehensive strategy to meet the basic waste disposal needs of its 
residents and protect the delicate environment of the Garden State. As 
a part of this plan, the State has recognized the need to become self-
sufficient in its solid waste management and to end its dependence on 
other States--such as Pennsylvania and some Midwestern States--for 
disposal.
  New Jersey has made a concerted good faith effort to reduce its 
exports of municipal solid waste. In fact, since 1989, the State has 
exported a decreasing volume of waste each year. The New Jersey 
Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] estimates that the State 
can achieve self-sufficiency by the year 2000--but only if we are 
permitted to continue to pursue the point-by-point strategy the State 
painstakingly plotted and has methodically carried out. As written, the 
presumptive ban of H.R. 4779 denies us the time and flexibility needed 
to achieve this.
  Under existing State law, each of the 21 New Jersey counties and the 
Hackensack Meadowlands Commission are designated as solid waste 
management districts and charged with developing an integrated solid 
waste management plan for waste within their boundaries. The integrated 
plans include not only collection and disposal of waste, but also 
required baseline standards for recycling and educational programs to 
promote personal responsibility for litter and trash creation. Each 
district's plan must be approved by the State.
  The Department of Environmental Protection carefully links the 22 
individual plans to meet the guidelines for an integrated State solid 
waste management plan. For example, the State encourages counties to 
share transfer stations, waste-to-energy facilities, landfills, 
composting facilities, and recycling facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, the State has taken an increasingly hard line approach 
to approving contracts which involve the export of waste to other 
States. Traditionally, New Jersey counties had entered into long-term 
contracts for out-of-State waste disposal. In recent years, however, 
the DEP, has conditioned approval on reduced terms of the contract to 
keep in line with the December 31, 1999, goal of self-sufficiency.
  For example, last year, a New Jersey county submitted to the State a 
10-year contract for out-of-State disposal, which would have ended in 
2003. The DEP approved the contract for an initial time period of 2 
years and required the county to adhere to a series of milestones 
leading to full in-State disposal in the long term. As the required 
milestones are met by the county, the DEP would authorize a 3-year 
renewal on the initial 2-year contract. This example is consistent with 
the course of action the State has taken with several of its major 
exporting counties.
  My amendment is necessary to allow the DEP to continue this type of 
manipulation of solid waste management by the counties toward full in-
State disposal. The simple change in wording of my amendment ensures 
that the additional 3 years referenced in the above example could not 
be considered outside of the life of the contract by an importing 
State's legislature and therefore unprotected.
  For many of the major importing States, advocacy of a ban on 
interstate waste transport has become a politically charged issue. It 
is easy to say that ``Pennsylvania should not accept any New Jersey 
waste;'' but it is not so easy to plot a responsible strategy for where 
that waste should then go. New Jersey has both recognized the need to 
stop exporting waste and created a strategy to reach self-sufficiency 
by the year 2000.
  Unamended, H.R. 4779 ties the hands of those States already caught 
between a rock and a hard place--like New Jersey--and could easily 
precipitate a second solid waste crisis in the Northeast and elsewhere. 
We all recognize the realities of this issue--everyone creates trash, 
no one wants it in his hometown, and unquestionably no one wants to be 
responsible for putting it in someone else's hometown; but it has to go 
somewhere. New Jersey is working to deal with this matter in a way 
reduces the potential for environmental disaster in the future and 
avoids increasing the already heavy burden on taxpayers. Passing H.R. 
4779 ignores this good faith effort and the successes which it has 
already achieved. With this kind of carrot, who needs a stick?
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I intend to withdraw this 
amendment as part of a good faith agreement reached by New Jersey and 
the leading importing States. It is only through the withdrawal of my 
amendment and the other amendments offered by several of my New Jersey 
colleagues that the Pallone-Zimmer amendment to protect existing 
contracts for up to 6 years after enactment of this legislation was 
able to have just been approved by a voice vote. Both New Jersey and 
New York have been steadfast in negotiating with the leading importing 
States over this legislation and generally over this issue, and it is 
through this sort of 11th hour negotiating that these States have come 
to this agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn 
as part of that agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, myself, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Greenwood], and several of us from the importing States have announced 
a number of amendments we would like to have offered. Because we have 
been able to negotiate with our colleagues from the exporting States 
and they have withheld on some of their amendments, we are simply 
wanting to indicate to our colleagues that we are going to withhold on 
our amendments, recognizing that we think that our interests and their 
interests are better served through negotiation, rather than a fight 
over some of the details here among our entire colleagues.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to echo the words of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Sharp], who indicates we had been prepared to offer a 
series of amendments to strengthen this bill. There were a total of 
more than 20 amendments that we would have dealt with today. By virtue 
of the every good faith agreements that were made this morning, we have 
decided to withdraw our strengthening amendments in exchange for those, 
for the withdrawal of those amendments which would have weakened this 
legislation.
  We think it is now in good shape for final passage.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to note that what has just gone on 
here is legislation as it should be conducted; people of legitimately 
differing views, with legitimacy to either side's particular point of 
view, working things out civilly so that we can come up with a 
compromise that pleases no one ultimately, but which everybody can live 
with. It happens more frequently than the body ever gets credit for, 
but I think it is important to note that the very lack of fire and 
flamboyant rhetoric and what have you should not obscure the fact that 
what has transpired here today is the amicable resolving of intensely 
important issues to portions of this country, and it is at times like 
this that I am most proud to be a Member of this body.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering today, H.R. 4779, 
the State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act, attempts 
to deal with the problem of the interstate shipment of solid waste by 
authorizing State and local governments to restrict or prohibit 
municipal solid waste from entering their State.
  This has been a contentious issue for a number of years and past 
attempts to solve it have failed. Unfortunately, I believe that this 
bill before us is on the same road to failure.
  As currently written, H.R. 4779 places a very great burden on New 
York State. The time tables and ratchet provision in subsection (c) are 
unreasonable and will not allow New York the 3 to 7 years needed to 
fully develop in-State disposal capacity.
  In addition, the bill language does not sufficiently protect waste 
disposal contracts and may still allow the abrogation of some 
contracts.
  To help improve H.R. 4779, Mr. Schumer and I offered two amendments 
in Rules Committee. However, only one of the amendments, to prohibit 
discriminatory use of the ratchet, will be offered today.
  This amendment would make it clear that a beleaguered State may not 
impose an import ratchet in a discriminatory manner. Either all 
imported waste would be subjected to the ratchet or no waste would be 
so affected. It is only fair that a State may not pick and choose which 
waste to restrict based solely on its State of origin.
  I understand this amendment will be offered en bloc with an amendment 
by Mr. Manton clarifying the definition of affected local government 
and I would urge all of my colleagues to support this very, very modest 
en bloc amendment.
  In conclusion, however, H.R. 4779 remains a politically motivated 
bill designed to obstruct interstate commerce and punish those States 
who need to export solid waste until sufficient in-State waste disposal 
capacity is created.
  I intend to oppose this legislation today and I would urge all 
Members who support free and open commerce and who support the 
environmentally sound management of solid waste to vote ``no'' on final 
passage.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment on 
behalf of myself and my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Franks.
  Mr. Chairman, as a result of an understanding that has been agreed to 
by the State of New Jersey and the managers of the bill, I will not 
offer this amendment. But first I would like to speak about the 
management of our Nation's solid waste--an issue that is critically 
important to the State of New Jersey.
  New Jersey is currently a net exporter of solid waste. In part, this 
is because our State is geographically small, but at the same time 
heavily populated and urbanized. However, in large measure, we are an 
exporter because we have long been forced to accept waste from other 
States which has filled our disposal sites. In 1972, in Philadelphia 
versus New Jersey my State lost a case in which it tried to establish 
its right to control the importation of waste that was quickly filling 
our disposal space. So, we understand and are committed to the 
principle that communities should not be forced to take unwanted waste 
from other communities in perpetuity.
  New Jersey has been a leader in efforts to achieve self-sufficiency 
with respect to solid waste. In fact, our State is committed to 
achieving self-sufficiency by the year 2000. Since 1989, there has been 
a steady reduction in solid waste exports from New Jersey.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4779 contains a number of provisions that could 
seriously damage New Jersey's attempts to attain self-sufficiency. 
Among other things the bill sets a new definition for municipal solid 
waste which includes construction and demolition debris or C&D. This, 
to my knowledge, is the first time that C&D has been included in the 
definition of municipal solid waste. In fact, EPA treats C&D as a 
category separate and distinct from municipal solid waste. Local 
governments has traditionally assumed responsibility for managing 
municipal solid waste, While C&D has often been handled privately--
hauled away from specific, temporary sites by private companies hired 
to handle waste from those sites.
  The amendment that Mr. Franks and I had intended to offer would have 
remedied at least this part of the bill by striking construction and 
demolition debris from the definition of municipal solid waste.
  By including C&D in the definition of municipal solid waste, H.R. 
4779 will severely impact New Jersey's current waste management 
efforts. The State has gone to great lengths to reduce its waste 
exports and has had some of its best recycling successes in the area of 
C&D waste. For example, we are currently recycling some 91 percent of 
waste concrete, asphalt, and masonry, and about 99 percent of heavy 
iron wastes.
  While the State is developing plans to reduce its C&D exports even 
further, our plans could be severely disrupted if we are suddenly 
forced to absorb this new waste category. It could prevent us from 
achieving the self-sufficiency we desire by the year 2000.
  While I am pleased that my colleagues have reached some agreement 
with the managers on one outstanding issue pertaining to contracts, I 
am not at all satisfied with the content of this legislation. I 
certainly hope that we can correct many of this bill's problems in 
conference with the Senate. However, the severe impact that this 
legislation--in its current form--could have on my State and its 
efforts to reduce and recycle waste cannot be underestimated. 
Therefore, I intend to vote against this bill. I hope that my 
colleagues will be mindful of New Jersey's plight and join with our 
delegation to defeat this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no further amendments, the 
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
DeFazio] having assumed the chair, Mr. Sawyer, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4779) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize local 
governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-State municipal 
solid waste, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 551, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 368, 
nays 55, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 443]

                               YEAS--368

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--55

     Ackerman
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Boehlert
     Coleman
     Crane
     Engel
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fish
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilman
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Houghton
     Hughes
     Hyde
     King
     Klein
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     Menendez
     Molinari
     Nadler
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Gallo
     Inhofe
     Lewis (FL)
     Lloyd
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Pelosi
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1338

  Messrs. EWING, OWENS, HYDE, SERRANO, and ROYCE changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________