[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FLOW CONTROL ACT OF 1994
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 552 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 552
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. 4683) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
provide congressional authorization of State control over
transportation of 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 on 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. 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. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 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 thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Skaggs). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
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. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 552 is an open rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 4683, the Flow Control Act of 1994.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 552 is a totally open rule providing
that any germane amendment may be offered to the bill when it is
considered for amendment. The rule provides that it shall be in order
to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on energy and Commerce now printed in the bill as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule, and
the substitute shall be considered as read.
The rule further provides that, at the conclusion of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted and that any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
Finally, the rule provides that the previous question shall be
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4683 provides the specific congressional
authorization needed to assure States and localities of their ability
to control the flow of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials
within their boundaries. States rely upon the assurance of an adequate
waste stream to repay the bond obligations incurred to finance new or
expanded waste management facilities.
A recent Supreme Court decision has raised some question about the
ability of States and localities to exercise their flow control
authorities. Specifically, the Court struck down a New York State
control ordinance on the grounds that it interfered with interstate
commerce. It is clear that, without some congressional directive, many
State and local governments which now depend upon flow control to repay
their indebtedness will face significant uncertainties.
H.R. 4683 addresses the problem raised by the Carbone decision, and
provides the tools necessary for the States and localities to carry out
their responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to support this open and
fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Moakley, and I join him in supporting this open rule.
We witnessed a rare occasion, perhaps even a first, when the Energy
and Commerce Committee appeared before the Rules Committee earlier this
week and requested an open rule for two bills under its jurisdiction. I
applaud the committee for a job well done, and I ask unanimous consent
to insert extraneous materials into the Record following my statement.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4683 is commonly known as the flow control bill.
Flow control refers to State and local laws that confer power on local
governments to manage municipal solid waste disposal. This bill
complements the interstate waste bill we considered earlier. It
addresses a Supreme Court ruling by clarifying the rights of State and
local governments to exercise their flow control authority.
I understand that some Members have very strong opposing views on
many provisions of this legislation, and this open rule allows all
members the opportunity to offer amendments which address their
particular concerns.
I urge adoption of this rule so we can proceed with the business at
hand.
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. 28, 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....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).
Reorganization.
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994... MO H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste 22 (D-15; R-7).. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).
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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, 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.
{time} 1700
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Skaggs). Pursuant to House Resolution
552 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 4683.
{time} 1700
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. 4683) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide
congressional authorization of State control over transportation of
municipal solid waste, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Unsoeld 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. Madam 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. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4683, the Flow
Control Act of 1994, which was ordered reported by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce by a voice vote with bipartisan support. We have
been working for months to bring this important legislation to the
floor, and I commend the Members both on and off the committee who have
worked so hard on this legislation.
Madam Chairman, flow control authority is that authority of a local
government that allows it to direct that all municipal solid waste
generated within its borders be delivered to one or more specified
waste management facilities. It is often utilized to provide assurances
that an adequate waste stream to guarantee revenue to pay bonds issued
to finance municipal solid waste management facilities is available.
Since RCRA became law in 1976, many States have adopted comprehensive
waste management plans. The nature of these plans and the increasing
complexity and costliness of waste management facilities have had
significant effects at the local level, where responsibility for
municipal solid waste management has traditionally rested.
Further, Madam Chairman, because the Federal Government does not
share the cost of waste management programs at the local or State
level, States and local governments have adopted various means,
including flow control, to finance MSW management services and
facilities. For example, when a local government builds waste
management facilities, it will often use flow control to provide
insurance that an adequate waste stream is there to guarantee revenue
to repay bonds issued to finance municipal solid waste management
facilities or systems.
Madam Chairman, we hear a great deal of debate on this floor
regarding unfunded mandates. This is a similar situation. By failing to
pass this bill, and thus failing to restore local governments'
authority to use flow control to manage their municipal solid waste, we
will be leaving local governments with the responsibility to manage
their wastes, but we at the Federal level will have denied them a
critical tool that they need to do it. It is nothing less than an
unfunded mandate in reverse.
According to the EPA, 35 State laws authorizing their political
subdivisions to use flow control exist today. Eight other States have
indirectly authorized the use of flow control. In these States,
billions, billions of dollars have been invested in municipal solid
waste management facilities or integrated systems.
The ability of State and local governments to repay this debt, these
billions of dollars, is predicated on the ability of them to control
the flow of the waste stream. Local governments argue that without flow
control, they will be unable to build new facilities to meet the
stricter environmental requirements, and they may default on bonds
issued for existing and proposed facilities.
Madam Chairman, in 1994, May 16 of this year, the Supreme Court
struck down Clarkston, NY's flow control ordinance on the grounds that
it discriminated against interstate commerce, and thereby precipitated
this entire nationwide crisis. As a result of that, many State and
local governments that relied on flow control now face significant
financial uncertainties.
The issues in the flow control debate are complex and controversial,
and affect many different parties. I believe that because local
governments are traditionally given the responsibility for municipal
solid waste management, we should be at the Federal level very careful
how we restrict the tools they have to carry out those
responsibilities.
Unless the Federal Government wants to take over the responsibility
for dealing with and handling solid waste, unless it wants to do that,
then it seems that it must do what it can to ensure that local
government has access to the tools to carry out that responsibility.
During preparation of this legislation for the subcommittee's
consideration, a great deal of time and effort was spent by both
parties on both sides of this debate in an effort to narrow the
differences. I have to commend everybody involved, Madam Chairman,
because those differences were narrowed to a very significant degree.
However, it became apparent that there are two principal approaches
to addressing the concerns raised by the Clarkston case. In our
committee we considered each of these approaches as two separate
amendments to the base text. No other amendments were offered. The full
committee adopted the one offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Pallone], and his amendment is now embodied in the bill we bring before
the Members today.
Madam Chairman, it is critical, and I think most of us agree, that we
do something to protect the roughly $14 billion in outstanding
municipal bonds that are now at risk because of the court's decision.
Whether or not to give local governments more flexibility than they
have since the Supreme Court decision is the primary issue of our
debate today.
Madam Speaker, this is a philosophical and jurisdictional dispute
between those who would believe that local governments need to have
recourse to the tools to carry out the solid waste management
requirements that have traditionally been their responsibility and, on
the other hand, those who really wish to radically change that
traditional model and let the marketplace handle it, with all of the
resulting uncertainties.
Today, Madam Chairman, we are presented with this choice: One, there
will be an amendment offered providing limited protection for local
governments from the Supreme Court decision, with a return in the
relatively near future to the current situation, with flow control not
being available as a viable waste management policy; or, sticking with
the basic text, which preserves the bill reported by the committee, it
provides that local governments have the flexibility to manage their
solid waste into the future, but with limits placed on their ability to
use flow control as a management tool.
In neither case, Madam Chairman, would recyclable materials be
subject to flow control, unless the recyclables are voluntarily
surrendered by the generator or owner.
I support the committee-reported bill. I believe it is a better
approach to solving the flow control dilemma. I also note that the
proponents of both proposals have made significant changes in their
proposals in order to make them more reasonable, and I commend them for
their efforts. It is unfortunate that we were unable to come any closer
to agreement.
Madam Chairman, I believe this is the optimal way to proceed, because
it will give both sides the opportunity to have a free-flowing open
debate on both approaches simultaneously. Again, this is exactly what
happened to the committee. I have been working with both sides to try
to set up that scenario.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to listen to that debate. I
think it can be very informative.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, for more than two decades local
governments exercised flow control authority primarily to finance
municipal solid waste incinerators. However, in recent years flow
control has been used as a tool to address solid waste management
problems. Facilities subject to flow control now include not just
incinerators but landfills, materials recovery facilities, transfer
stations, and composting facilities.
When Congress adopted the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, it
recognized that municipal solid waste creates problems for local
governments. Nonetheless, Congress believed that collection and
disposal of garbage should remain the responsibility of State and local
governments. To carry out that responsibility, many States have allowed
local governments to use flow control authority to achieve the goal of
reducing reliance on landfills and minimizing limited landfill disposal
facilities.
In Ohio, solid waste districts have had flow control authority since
1988. In fact, until last year State law required localities to use
flow control. As a result, many solid waste districts made large
financial investments in recycling programs, waste material processing
centers, composting facilities, and hazardous waste collection
programs.
Ohio has found flow control to be an effective mechanism for
protecting human health and the environment, for developing waste
management capacity, and for encouraging waste reduction and recycling.
In fact, my constituents believe flow control is an essential tool for
local government to perform integrated waste management.
Last May the Supreme Court ruled that the flow control laws which has
worked so effectively for my constituents in Ohio are unconstitutional
in the absence of clear congressional authorization.
{time} 1710
This legislation is clear congressional authorization. The decision
has forced Congress to reexamine local governments' responsibility for
solid waste management and more importantly what authority local
governments need to carry out that responsibility. Reasonable arguments
have been made by those who support authorizing the use of flow control
and by those who oppose it. Because the Carbone decision has resulted
in many State and local governments facing financial uncertainty, there
is general agreement that at a minimum Congress should act to protect
the financial viability of existing solid waste management facilities.
In addition, I believe that communities who have relied on flow
control to safely manage municipal solid waste need certainty. Ever
increasing volumes of waste combined with ever increasing Federal
environmental legislation has made it more difficult for localities to
plan for and pay for disposal of municipal solid waste. Flow control
ordinances have been a key component of many solid waste management and
financing plans. To help local governments face the challenge of safely
disposing of waste and avoid disruptions in their integrated waste
management plans. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4683 without
amendment. This bill is not perfect but it certainly represents a
compromise between local government and the private sector. It will
provide the necessary protection without adverse effects on small
businesses and consumers or for the environment.
Madam Chairman, at this time I say to the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Swift], the chairman of the subcommittee, it has been a pleasure
in working with him in crafting this compromise legislation. All of us
know the difficulty of dealing with this issue and the number of
components that it undertook and all of the various groups that were
interested in this legislation. Having been through all of that and
worked our way through the legislative process, not unlike what we
accomplished just yesterday with the interstate waste bill, this I
think is an example of how our committee can work effectively for the
benefit of the environment and for our constituents and I am proud to
have been part of that particular facility.
Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] for
the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to engage the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of
the subcommittee, in a colloquy.
Mr. SWIFT. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to
join the gentlewoman in a colloquy.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam Chairman, the bill before us today is designed in
part to allow the qualified political subdivisions that have already
adopted flow control ordinances to continue to exercise flow control
authority over municipal solid waste generated within their
jurisdictions. In many cases, these municipalities must retain flow
control authority in order to meet their financial and contractual
obligations with designated disposal facilities.
Some municipalities find themselves in related but somewhat unique
circumstances, however. They signed long-term contracts with waste
disposal facilities which require them to either deliver a minimum
quantity of waste to a designed disposal facility, or to pay for that
minimum quantity of solid waste even if the minimum quantity is not
delivered. In Maine, 160 municipalities have signed these so-called
put-or-pay contracts with one particular disposal facility. They signed
these contracts prior to 1994 with the understanding that they would be
able to enact flow control ordnances if necessary to meet their
obligations under the contracts. Unfortunately, many of these towns had
not formally enacted flow control ordinances at the time of the Carbone
decision, and as a result of that decision, they now face the prospect
of having to meet expensive contractual obligations without having the
regulatory authority to guarantee delivery of the required amount of
waste.
Was the intent of the committee, in writing and reporting H.R. 4683,
to preserve flow control authority for qualified political subdivisions
whose previous commitments and investments on solid waste were
predicated on a need for flow control authority?
Mr. SWIFT. Yes, among other things, the Committee's purpose in
reporting the legislation was to allow qualified political subdivisions
that had entered legally binding agreements such as put-or-pay
contracts to exercise flow control authority after May 15, 1994.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam Chairman, let me state further that the language of
H.R. 4683, particularly subsection (a)(2), would appear to preserve
flow control authority over municipal solid waste for qualified
political subdivisions that have signed put-or-pay contracts, and begun
delivering waste to a designed facility, but that have not yet enacted
a flow control ordinance.
Is it your understanding that the committee, in writing and reporting
H.R. 4683, intended to preserve the ability of qualified political
subdivisions that signed put-or-pay contracts prior to May 15, 1994,
and that have begun delivering waste to facilities designated in the
contracts, to exercise flow control authority over municipal solid
waste generated within their borders, even if those municipalities had
not formally enacted flow control ordinances before that date?
Mr. SWIFT. Yes, the committee intends to preserve flow control
authority over municipal solid waste for qualified political
subdivisions that had signed put-or-pay contracts or other legally
binding agreements. The fact that a flow control ordinance had not been
enacted by May 14, 1994, does not disqualify municipalities from the
protections provided by subsection (a)(2), as long as the municipality
had signed the put-or-pay contract with a designed disposal facility
and had begun delivering waste before that date.
We recognize that these qualified political subdivisions signed the
contracts under the assumption that they had the authority to direct
their waste pursuant to the contract, and that their decision to sign
such contracts might have been very different had they known that flow
control authority would not be available to them. It would be unfair to
change the rules for these cities and towns now after they have already
signed expensive contracts for which their citizens are liable. We
believe that H.R. 4683 as written, particularly subsection (a)(2),
addresses this problem and allows municipalities in this situation to
exercise flow control authority in the future for municipal solid waste
generated within their boundaries.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, chairman of the
subcommittee, for his clarifying this very important point of this
legislation to communities in Maine and other communities across this
country.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SWIFT. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], who is author of the primary amendment. I
want to commend the gentleman for how he has worked with the committee.
This has been a difficult situation and everybody connected with it has
behaved in an extraordinarily civil and useful way which has made the
legislative process work the way it is supposed to.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairman, let me say I must return the
compliment to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. They truly worked in a spirit of
trying to work this issue out. Regrettably, we were not able to.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4683, the Flow
Control Act of 1994.
At the appropriate point, I plan to introduce an amendment offered by
myself, Mr. Fields of Texas, and the more than 20 bipartisan cosponsors
of the bill, H.R. 4643, upon which it is based.
I will offer this amendment out of concern that the bill approved by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and sent to the floor today goes
much further than necessary to correct problems that might result from
the recent Supreme Court flow control decision. The Court held that
local flow control laws violate the commerce clause of the
Constitution.
This decision has caused a panic in local governments across the
country. Local solid waste management officials are worried that their
previously existing waste agreements are now invalid.
While I feel that these concerns have merit, I believe that we are
going too far in alleviating the problem. As currently drafted, H.R.
4683 is equivalent of trying to save a drowning man in the shallow end
of the pool by jumping into the deep end without a life preserver.
Yes, we need to provide relief to those municipalities dependent on
flow control for their waste disposal.
No, we do not need to go beyond simple ``grandfather'' authority to
grant broad new powers in the future.
The bipartisan amendment I plan to introduce will grandfather
existing flow control arrangements to protect those facilities
financially dependent on flow control, and allow local governments
which have shown significant movement toward designation to continue
flow controlling waste for a limited time.
For those Members who have followed this issue, it should be no
surprise that organizations such as the National Federation of
Independent Businesses, the National Association of Manufacturers, the
Sierra Club, the National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and the Environmental Industries Association oppose flow
control entirely.
But, for most Members this may come as a shock. We have heard that
the language in the committee-passed bill is supported by everyone and
that there is no controversy about its passage. That assertion is
simply not true.
In fact, the bill my amendment is based on was originally conceived
as a compromise position between the organizations solidly opposed to
flow control and those in favor of broad flow control authority.
Our true compromise amendment really reflects the halfway point
between the two very contentious sides of this debate.
Unfortunately, flow control has been an incredibly complicated issue
that has not caught the attention of our constituents and therefore has
not been at the forefront of our attention.
However, I can assure my colleagues that H.R. 4683 is a bill in
trouble. As we head for the home stretch of the legislative session, I
do not think that we should blindly go forward on legislation that is
the source of as much controversy as this legislation.
From the Sierra Club, NY Public Interest Research Group, and Clean
Water Action we have heard that flow control impedes recycling efforts
and promotes the spread of dioxin-spewing incinerators throughout the
country. On environmental grounds alone we should oppose the current
language.
From the National Taxpayers Union, the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, and Citizens for a Sound Economy we have heard that ``flow
control would establish protected government monopolies that have no
incentive to increase the quality of their services. Waste management
prices would be set by political forces, without regard for market
pressures. There is little doubt that under this scenario, consumers of
waste management services would pay more.''
From the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the
National Association of Manufacturers we have heard that flow control
hurts small business because the monopolization of the marketplace
under flow control deprives small businesses from securing the most
inexpensive or most environmentally preferable method of waste
disposal.
From Browning Ferris Industries, Laidlaw Inc., Chambers Development
Corp., Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Corp. we have heard that flow
control would impose Superfund liability on waste generators by
stripping them of the ability to send waste to the protective facility
of their choice or the most environmentally appropriate location.
Madam Chairman, the Richardson-Fields amendment addresses all of
these areas by providing careful, rational, responsible relief to those
facilities that truly need it.
I do not believe it makes sense for Congress to consider any more
far-reaching policy than that without the benefit of a thorough debate
on the Resource Conservation Recovery Act which will not happen until
next year at the earliest.
As the second session of the 103d Congress comes to a close, now is
not the time to act hastily on emotional appeals which will result in
higher prices for waste management services and higher taxes for our
constituents.
Now is the time to solve the problems of the Nation quickly and
efficiently and go home.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Richardson-Fields
amendment and opposing the overreaching and monopolistic provisions of
the current bill.
{time} 1720
Again, Madam Chairman, let me say that Chairman Swift, the committee,
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], have made an honest effort to
work with us. We came close, but regrettably not close enough so that
there will be unanimity on the bill. So the choice will be on an
approach that we think is market oriented and we think is
environmentally sound, the approach which Chairman Swift and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], have, which is an honest effort, but
we do not think it goes far enough.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Moorhead], the ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
I rise in support of H.R. 4683, the Flow Control Act of 1994.
Disposal of waste has become a major problem in the United States.
We need limited and responsible flow control legislation this
Congress. Flow control is the ability of local governments to direct
the flow of municipal waste in a given jurisdiction to a specific
facility. This authority allows for more stable financial planning for
municipal facilities. However, such authority can also restrict free
market competition for waste management services. That is why I believe
flow control legislation should be focused on the immediate problem.
The recent Supreme Court decision in Carbone versus Clarkstown has
placed a number of communities which rely on flow control in a
difficult situation. Accordingly, I support enactment of some flow
control legislation this Congress to help communities that relied on
flow control when planning for existing facilities.
Two competing compromise bills were presented on this issue in the
Energy and Commerce Committee: H.R. 4683 and the Richardson-Fields
substitute. The Richardson-Fields approach is more consistent with my
belief that free market competition will, on balance, provide the most
economical and efficient national policy. Accordingly, I plan to vote
for the Richardson-Fields amendment.
However, I believe both H.R. 4683 and the Richardson-Fields
substitute are responsible compromises. I plan to support either on
final passage.
Mr. SWIFT. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who has also been invaluable
in helping to develop the compromise that resulted in this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Swift] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for all
of their work on this legislation.
Madam Chairman, the Committee-passed legislation provides equity to
local communities where there has been reliance and tax dollars
expended. For more than two decades local governments financed waste
disposal facilities and environmental projects, such as composting and
recycling plants and waste reduction programs under flow control laws
and ordinances.
The Committee-passed legislation does not endorse incineration or any
particular type of waste management. Rather, the committee bill is
narrowly drawn to protect the investment of public funds while assuring
that competition is preserved in the free market should a local
community decide to exercise other options for its waste management.
On May 15, the Supreme Court barred such flow control without an
express affirmation from the Congress. It is critical for the Congress
to act before this session ends to help these communities who have
relied on flow control to finance disposal facilities.
The Energy and Commerce Committee bill strikes an appropriate balance
between public and private sector concerns and has the broadest
political support of any proposal. Here are four reasons why this bill
should be enacted:
It strikes a fair balance: It protects only those communities that
have already relied on flow control or have made significant recent
financial commitments in the process of implementing flow control. It
also bars flow control over commercial waste in the future.
It preserves competition and is pro-small business: No new flow
control is permitted without meeting strict competitive standards
spelled out in the legislation. Many small businesses support our
proposal because it levels the playing field.
It is pro-environment and pro-recycling: Without the revenue bond
financing available because of flow control, recycling and composting
facilities will not be built by communities without tax increases or
reliance on general revenue bonds. Also, our proposal permits flow
control over recyclable materials only if they are voluntarily
relinquished.
It is pro-consumer: Despite statements by some flow control
opponents, waste disposal costs in flow controlled systems are not
higher than in non-flow-controlled ones and, in many instances, are
significantly lower.
It is pro-labor: The American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees recognizes the value of flow control as an
important tool for waste management, and they, with dozens of other
local government organizations, have endorsed the bill.
Madam Chairman, what we are talking about today is simply an issue of
equity: equity for the hundreds of counties and municipalities that
have already built recycling facilities, landfills or waste-to-energy
facilities using flow control, and equity for the many communities that
have expended significant amounts of public dollars to build integrated
waste management systems. Without this legislation, Congress will be
turning its back on both of these groups of local governments, the
result of which will be potential default on billions of dollars of
bonds which are supporting these systems.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. McMillan], a member of the committee.
Mr. McMILLAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Pallone-
McMillan-Lambert compromise, which is the true compromise of this
committee which passed overwhelmingly. Flow control, I recognize, is
not easy for anyone to understand. But if you live in a community in
this country that has a coordinated waste management plan, then you
know exactly what we are talking about, and many of them are in very
difficult straits because of a court ruling that reversed the orderly
development of flow control in this country.
Increased knowledge of the environment has given us a greater
understanding of the consequences of waste disposal. Because of the
importance of protecting the natural resources, Congress passed
environmental laws designed to protect groundwater supplies and other
natural elements. The Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly known as RCRA,
was passed to insure safe disposal of solid waste.
One of the side effects of the passage of RCRA was the reduction in
the number of landfills and an increase in the cost of waste disposal
facility construction and permitting. Furthermore, RCRA increased
awareness of solid waste issues in State legislatures. This awareness,
in conjunction with other reasons, led many legislatures to pass State
waste management laws and recycling requirements to reduce flow. It is
these State laws which contain the flow control provisions that have
stimulated the legal battle and congressional concern.
Municipal solid waste residential flow control is a necessary tool
for communities to insure the proper handling of solid waste.
Municipalities have historically been held responsible for proper
and effective residential waste disposal in order to protect health,
aesthetics and safety in the community.
Flow control authority was established for communities by States to
insure several things. State legislatures wanted to insure proper waste
management practices were being performed, including waste reduction,
recycling, composting, waste to energy--incineration--and landfilling.
This coordinated waste management structure was and is seen throughout
States and local government as an effective and environmentally
friendly way to manage waste.
Opponents of flow control will argue that flow control may result in
high waste disposal fees. There is a simple and good explanation for
this. Along with flow control ordinances, a community generally enacts
a coordinated waste management plan which is environmentally preferable
to the option of simple landfilling. It is the environmentally friendly
waste management plan that gives the impression of higher costs
associated with flow control. Flow control enables the municipality to
get the best deal for its taxpayers and absorb environmental costs.
Opponents of flow control would have you believe that flow control
authority is anticompetitive. This is not the case. In fact, many
communities which exercise flow control authority do so through private
companies which have competitively bid for selection. Furthermore, this
legislation requires competitive bidding be a part of the process in
the implementation of any flow control authority which is not now
required. Therefore, it will engender more, not less, competition.
The fundamental responsibility of waste disposal lies within the
local community and on their elected officials. These officials must
decide what waste disposal methods are in the long-term interest of the
community. Officials must be able to insure safe disposal as well as
waste reduction options which can be viable for the long-term. Flow
control must be one tool which can be utilized to achieve health and
environmental goals consistent with a community's needs.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
{time} 1730
Madam Chairman, this is a must bill for communities that are trying
to do a comprehensive, environmentally effective job. I urge my
colleagues to pass this bill as turned out by the committee.
Mr. SWIFT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Arkansas [Ms. Lambert].
Ms. LAMBERT. Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R.
4683, a bill to assist local communities in managing the disposal of
their solid waste.
Many may ask, what is flow control? Many of us have learned from our
local communities, flow control is an important tool locals use to
manage the disposal of the huge amount of trash that we produce daily.
Flow control grants communities the authority to direct that waste
generated within waste management districts be disposed in the
district.
Unfortunately this tool has been taken away by the Supreme Court in
the Carbone decision that came down in mid-May. This decision held that
communities who implement flow control violate the interstate commerce
clause of the Constitution because flow control impedes the flow of
interstate commerce. Along the lines of Philadelphia versus New Jersey,
which was the original case that determined that solid waste was a
commercial commodity, flow control was struck down as unconstitutional.
Since the Carbone decision, communities have not known where to turn.
Many communities invested large sums of money in new disposal
facilities to meet requirements which need the waste stream to generate
the revenue to pay off their debt. However, without flow control, these
communities will not be able to do this.
Mr. Swift, Mr. Pallone, Mr. McMillan, Mr. Minge, and I have been
working with the local communities and they in turn have forged a
compromise with waste management, Ogden, the recycling industry and the
public financing authorities to address flow control after the Carbone
decision. I believe it is a good compromise, good policy and the only
approach with such a broad base of support.
H.R. 4683 reflects this agreement. It grandfathers current facilities
and the amount of waste they currently flow control. In addition, if
grandfathers management plans for waste disposal. The Richardson/Fields
approach would only grandfather current facilities until the end of
their lives. However, this limited fix would not help communities that
have instituted integrated management plans for the disposal of solid
waste. Many communities have in place various methods of waste
disposal, including recycling, composting, landfilling and
incineration. My concern with Mr. Richardson's simple grandfather is
that if one of the disposal components within the entire waste disposal
system, such as the composting facility, becomes either obsolete or
worn out, communities will be unable to flow control to the new
facility which would treat the same amount as the old facility thus
breaking down the whole integrated waste management plan.
Mr. Richardson's proposal also would not grandfather those
communities that have invested large financial and personal resources
and are in the process of implementing flow control. For example, in my
district, one of the waste management districts decided to implement
flow control in January of this year. From January through to the
Supreme Court decision in May, they passed a regulation and followed up
with ordinances from each major city and county. However, they were
unable to secure all of the ordinances before May 16, the date of the
Supreme Court decision declaring these type of arrangements
unconstitutional. Now this community has secured financing to purchase
a landfill through the issuance of a revenue bond and devoted much time
and money--however, they would receive no relief and be out of luck
under the Richardson amendment. H.R. 4683 would cover this type of
situation and grandfather communities who have devoted significant
financial and technical resources to the development of their flow
control activities.
In addition, the simple grandfather offered by Mr. Richardson and Mr.
Fields would not cover the expansion of existing facilities that need
more space. H.R. 4683 would.
Local communities, in many cases, have taken the initiative to
finance innovative methods to handle trash. They have installed
recycling facilities, composting facilities, household hazardous waste
pickup and disposal facilities in addition to the more traditional
method of landfilling and incineration. These communities should have
the ability to continue their work.
Local communities have always had the ultimate responsibility of
disposing our trash. We don't appreciate the hard work they do or the
headaches they endure to make sure that every Monday morning the trash
is removed. All we do, in many areas, is put our trash bins out on the
curb, and we expect that the waste is removed and disposed of in an
environmentally sound way.
These local communities should have the tools available to them to
control the movement of the waste so that when they plan in the future,
in an environmentally responsive way, both for disposal techniques and
future capacity, that they have some certainty that they can carry out
their plans.
H.R. 4683 would not include the prospective flow control of
commercial waste, but it would include the prospective flow control of
residential waste under 2 very important stipulations: As long as there
is a competitive bid process and as long as there is the presorting of
recyclables before the disposal of the waste.
This is a good bill and good policy, and I urge you to vote ``yes''
on H.R. 4683 and ``no'' on the Richardson amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
upstate New York [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. I thank my friend for yielding this time to me and also
for his leadership, along with that of Mr. Swift, Mr. Pallone, and Ms.
Lambert, on this bill. I rise in strong support of committee bill H.R.
4683.
I would also like to identify myself with the comments of the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Oxley] on this bill.
Flow control is smart; unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not agree
with that. But they did leave us the opportunity to intervene
statutorily, and this is our chance.
We have a good bill before us. I urge my colleagues to support the
committee bill and oppose the Richardson-Fields amendment. Flow control
is pro-environment. It allows a municipality to charge a higher fee so
that it can do the recycling and the other aspects of waste removal
which are required. Is it not better that every community in America
handle its trash locally than to send it all over the country by truck
or train or by whatever transportation vehicle there is? It is better
to take care of it locally. It is better than a landfill. There are
toxics, certainly, that are emitted from the smoke stack but the
technology has improved dramatically. It is far safer in the long term
than the time bomb of a landfill which will allow toxic wastes to go
into our water supply and pollute the land and the air. It is also
wasteful to ship.
I would like to read just a portion of a letter I received from our
county legislature:
Our Onondaga County solid waste system includes several
components, including recycling, yard waste composting,
household hazardous waste collection, waste-to-energy
production and finally landfilling. Our recycling program has
received national recognition and awards for recycling
approximately one-third of our waste stream. Our community
has borrowed more than $175 million for the construction of a
waste-to-energy facility that will greatly reduce the volume
of waste. Additionally, our community will also benefit from
the sale to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation of electricity
produced at the Rock Cut Road Waste-to-Energy Facility.
Madam Chairman and my colleagues, this legislation is good
legislation. It will help all of our communities to deal with their own
problems rather then send their waste around the country somewhere
else.
Mr. SWIFT. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Kreidler], a member of the committee.
Mr. KREIDLER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Madam Chairman, some say that this bill is bad for the environment--
that it will hurt recycling and encourage incineration.
I am now and always have been a strong supporter of recycling. I am
from a State that strongly supports recycling.
That is why I am also a supporter of this bill.
It will help local communities develop stable and comprehensive
recycling programs.
It will give recycling companies like Weyerhaeuser the certainty they
need to make investments in recycling technologies.
If this bill would harm recycling efforts, why is it supported by
those who make a living by recycling, including the Institute of Scrap
Recycling, Weyerhaeuser, and the American Forest and Paper Association?
If this bill would encourage incineration, why is it opposed by large
waste management companies, many of whom construct, own, and operate
incinerators?
I urge my colleagues to recognize this argument for what it is--a red
herring--and to support the bill.
{time} 1740
Mr. OXLEY. Madam chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Smith] who has been an active participant on this issue
since its inception, and I salute his leadershop on this important
issue.
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for those kind words, and I thank he and the
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], for
this good work on this. Although I am not a member of the subcommittee,
the chairman and the ranking member have been very, very kind in
extending their hand to me to be a part of the process, and I am very
grateful for that and say, ``Thank you, Chairman Swift.''
Madam Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4683, the
Waste Flow Control Act, a bill to help remedy the solid waste
management crisis created by the Supreme Court's May 16 decision in
Carbone versus Clarkstown, New York. In the Carbone case, Madam
Chairman, the High Court seemingly pulled the plug on each and every
flow control ordinance in the land. Flow control, the ability of
governments to direct the garbage to its ultimate disposal, was, as the
court said, not authorized by Congress and thus ruled that such an
ordinance was an excessive burden on interstate commerce. The court,
however, invited Congress to take action and to authorize flow control
as a means of garbage management and as a means to finance long-term,
environmentally sound, integrated waste management programs.
Madam Chairman, H.R. 4683 answers the Court's invitation and
grandfathers those laws, and ordinances, and solid waste management
plans adopted prior to May 15 so that local governments can continue to
regulate the transportation management or disposal of their trash. The
bill, which is a produce of hours, weeks, of labor, of negotiations and
a bipartisan consensus building protects the investments of time,
money, energy and resources made by State and local governments in
order to procure safe, clean, and financially efficient garbage
disposal. Additionally the bill provides for a strong free market and
public involvement through a new competitive bidding and designation
process.
Madam Chairman, flow control is the linchpin of waste management
self-sufficiency for my State of New Jersey and for many, many other
States. Flow control enables communities to determine their waste
tonnage, their cost projections, their financing needs, and their
disposal methods and capacities. To date New Jersey communities have
assumed a $1.6 billion debt in bond obligations in order to move
forward with high tech recycling, waste to energy and composting
facilities. If we do not protect waste flow control authority, this
debt and the $10 billion debt incurred through projects around the
country will be shifted to the taxpayer while future technologically
sophisticated projects are likely to be scapped.
Madam Chairman, over the past several months I have worked very hard
with a dedicated group of people representing diverse interests to
develop a consensus approach to flow control policies and protecting
taxpayers. This coalition, with more than 300 members, includes
recycling groups, the Public Securities Association, State and local
governments such as the National Association of Counties, the League of
Cities, the Conference of Mayors and many others all working together
in a cooperative way to find solutions.
This agreement did not come easy. I would like to especially point
out that in my own State Mercer County Executive Bob Prunetti did an
outstanding job in leading the county executives around the country and
in making sure that this job was done, and I also would like to single
out David Brooman who drafted major portions of this bill, and he is
the unsung hero in this long journey to waste flow control enactment.
Mr. SWIFT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I thank and commend the distinguished
chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], and my colleague,
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], for their leadership in
this legislation.
New Jersey has the most developed system of planning and regional
self-sufficiency in the Nation. This hard won achievement was in
response to the victimization of the people of the state by racketeers.
Hiding behind the facade of private sector businesses, these mobsters
monopolized the private handling of waste hauling, engaged in the
illegal dumping and mixing of toxic waste with municipal trash. I will,
under leave to include extraneous matter, include a related Wall Street
article in my statement.
In the Carbone decision, the Supreme Court struck down the authority
of state and local government to direct the flow of interstate waste.
Under this decision, waste haulers cannot be directed by States or
localities to specific facilities for waste disposal. The Carbone case
was largely paid for by organized crime.
New Jersey has paid approximately $1.6 billion for waste disposal
self sufficiency. This money has funded transfer stations, resource
recovery facilities, recycling and incineration centers. Without flow
control, these facilities will be unable to meet bonding obligations.
Failing to pass flow control legislation will require local taxpayers
to pay huge tax increases to pay off defaulted bonds. This legislation
prevents needless increase in local taxes.
Flow control is not a question of free markets. Let me quote the New
Jersey attorney general in her brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The purpose of New Jersey's system was to take control of
an industry facing capacity and corruption crises in the
1970's and '80s and to insure that every piece of solid waste
in this State had an environmentally sound destination [and
was properly handled] at a just and reasonable rate.
Essentially we note that New Jersey has tried the free market
in the solid waste industry and it has failed. The free
market in this state resulted in the disposal crises and in
industry-wide indictments for anticompetitive conduct.
In August, the New Jersey attorney general indicted the individuals
who were major contributors to the Carbone case. In a 31 count
indictment including fraud, racketeering and theft, the conspirators
were accused of having ``masterminded a sophisticated, multimillion
dollar shell game.--through sham recycling and other unregulated
companies.--they have maintained their place in the solid waste
industry'' after having been fined $4 million and banned from that
industry in the 1980's.
Waste disposal is a $26 billion industry. Do not give a huge subsidy
to organized crime. Support the flow control legislation.
Fighting City Hall: In a Tussle Over Trash, 2 Haulers Could Win Ruling
Costly to Towns
(By Jeff Bailey)
Hillsdale, NJ.--Municipal sanitation chiefs across the
country face a frightening prospect: a Supreme Court decision
expected soon that could strip away their control over trash,
threatening billions of dollars of public investment in dumps
and incinerators. The legal challenge doesn't come from a
national waste-control company but from two local garbage
haulers who are hoping for sweet revenge.
For 15 years, state and local officials have tried to run
Salvatore and Carmine Franco out of the garbage business in
part because, they allege, the Francos have Mafia ties. New
Jersey wants to bar the two brothers' grown children, too.
And authorities in the state are preparing a sweeping
criminal case, hoping to seize much of the family's wealth
and send the elder Franco to jail.
The Supreme Court case runs along a separate legal path and
can't stop the anticipated indictments, but it does give the
Francos a chance to get even. It also underscores the
increasingly rancorous battles between municipalities and
haulers for control of the $25 billion-a-year trash industry.
At stake are many municipal budgets, more than $10 billion in
bonds issued to finance waste facilities and, ultimately, the
garbage fees paid by millions of households and businesses.
``The satisfaction I'm going to get,'' Sal Franco, the more
diplomatic of the brothers, says of the possibility of a high
court decision in his favor, ``is that I kicked their a p---
.'' The surprising story stretches from three unsolved
murders to a trash-strewn expressway to the halls of
Congress.
A municipal role in trash initially made sense. Many places
had been gouged by private haulers found to have engaged in
collusive price-fixing and bid-rigging schemes during the
1970s and 1980s. Public officials were further alarmed by the
tendency of some privately operated dumps to turn into toxic
sewers.
But many cities and counties may have gone too far. They
invested heavily in dumps, incinerators and garbage-transfer
stations and then legislated ``flow control,'' which allows
them to commandeer all the trash within their borders and
direct it to a favored disposal site. Once wielding monopoly
power, many municipalities jacked up their dumping fees to
pay for other services, such as recycling, cleaning up old
dumps and salaries for sanitation officials. Haulers fumed.
Then, although officials had predicted a shortage of dump
space, a glut developed. And market forces began eroding
public control. Haulers cheated on flow control, sneaking
trash off to cheaper private outlets. And some, like the
Francos, sued.
Their case, C&A Carbone Inc. (named for some partners)
versus Clarkstown, N.Y., involves a transfer station just
over the New Jersey border into New York, where trucks were
unloaded and waste was repacked into big rigs for trips to
dumps in Pennsylvania and beyond. Authorities in New Jersey
and New York, suspecting that the Francos were diverting
trash from municipalities in both states in violation of
flow-control laws, mounted an impressive investigation:
helicopter surveillance, troopers pulling over big rigs on
interstate highways and an armed raid by more than 30 law-
enforcement officials in June 1991 to seize records.
Officials may now wish they hadn't bothered. Many experts
expect the Supreme Court to rule for the Francos, holding
that flow control illegally interferes with interstate
commerce. If so, municipal sites could get too little trash
and disposal prices could plunge in some areas. That could
trigger a price war among haulers, to the benefit of
businesses and consumers.
Most vulnerable is the Francos' home turf; New Jersey has
nearly $2 billion invested in public trash facilities. Some
counties charge $100 a ton and more to dump, while $50-a-ton
disposal abounds across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania.
Fearing defeat, local-government groups already are lobbying
Congress to preserve some sort of flow control and protect
public-sector investments and bondholders.
The Francos, acknowledged as talented entrepreneurs even by
some government critics, would probably prosper in no-holds-
barred competition. With additional transfer stations here in
Bergen County, N.J., and in Philadelphia, and a sizable
hauling operation, the family business has annual revenue of
$50 million to $100 million. It is one of the largest haulers
in New Jersey, a state with a fragmented market that WMX
Technologies Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries Inc., which
operate nationally, have yet to dominate.
Entering the New Jersey hauling business in 1963, the
Francos showed an early flair for organization. In 1976,
Carmine Franco became president of a haulers' group, the
Trade Waste Association, that law-enforcement officials have
frequently alleged brought to New Jersey a New York City-
style price-fixing system. What set that scheme in motion,
the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities concluded after
hearings, was Mr. Franco's bold move in setting July 1, 1977,
as the cutoff date for competition; customers swiped from
other haulers before then could be kept but, after that date,
a hauler's accounts couldn't be touched.
After official meetings of the trade group, Carmine Franco
would adjourn to a restaurant to settle grievances among
haulers. Sal Franco says his brother's edicts weren't
binding, that haulers were ``free to tell Carmine * * * `I'm
not giving the customer back.'''
Subduing competitive instincts proved difficult. Alfred
DiNardi, a New Jersey hauler who took customers from rivals,
was shot to death in a New York City parking garage in June
1976. Gabriel San Felice, another hauler who bid on and took
a rival's account, was shot dead in May 1978 while dropping a
load of garbage at a dump. And Crescent Roselle, a hauler who
had lost business to both victims, was himself murdered in
December 1980 outside his office. All three killings
remain unsolved.
Another hauler, Eugene Sorgine, underbid the Francos in the
1970s on a job to operate a dump. He later sold his business
to them. About the same time, a fire broke out at his house.
No one has been charged. ``So his house burns,'' Sal Franco
says, denying any involvement. ``We get blamed for it. Three
guys get killed. Police tried like hell to attribute that to
us.''
During a daylong interview while touring the trash
facilities of Bergen County and Clarkstown in his Mercedes
sedan, the 55-year-old Mr. Franco says he and his brother
aren't Mafia-connected, though he acknowledges they know a
few mobsters socially.
Tino Fiumara, identified by law-enforcement officials as a
Genovese crimefamily soldier, ``was a friend of ours,'' Sal
Franco says. Mr. Fiumara was released in early February after
14 years in prison on racketeering and extortion convictions.
Sal Franco says he has also socialized with Salvatore
Avellino, the Long Island trash chief for the Lucchese crime
family. Mr. Avellino pleaded guilty in mid-February to
racketeering charges that include extortion and conspiracy in
the murder of two haulers who defied Mafia price fixing.
Carmine Franco himself, now 58, pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor in the 1983 Trade Waste Association price-fixing
case, in which New Jersey charges against organized-crime
figures, including Mr. Fiumara, were dropped. The judge who
in 1983 sentenced Mr. Franco to 180 days, served on work
release, said evidence of his mob ties ``is almost solely by
way of innuendo, hearsay and triple hearsay.''
While the Francos have never been accused of a violent
crime or extortion, the mob tag--asserted by New Jersey and
other states' law-enforcement officials and widely
publicized--has stuck. ``The newspapers do a hell of a job,''
Sal Franco says. ``My customers don't want to leave--they're
afraid. Even our lawyers think, well maybe.''
After Carmine Franco's guilty plea, the Francos and New
Jersey officials settled into trench warfare. The state
bumped a $4,000 fine up to $2.2 million, though a state
appellate court reversed that. The state litigated until 1987
and finally succeeded in ousting Carmine Franco from the New
Jersey trash business. (He now runs the Philadelphia
operation.)
Along the way, the Francos frustrated public officials'
broader goal of controlling trash and thus established
themselves as a defiant presence. In the late 1980s, Bergen
County, for instance, built the nation's biggest transfer
station, about four times the size of a football field and
capable of handling all the county's trash. That ignored,
however, the fact that private transfer stations, including
one owned by the Francos, already had ample capacity. The
county tried using flow control to force trash into its
facility, but, in a test of wills with haulers, lost.
One morning, Sal Franco drops by the county plant and finds
it quiet. A trickle of no more than 400 tons of trash a day
arrives at the facility, though it is designed for up to
3,750 tons daily. Albert Adcock, security chief for the
county utilities authority, welcomes Mr. Franco, and the two
men commiserate over the recent demise of a favorite
Hackensack saloon.
Nature calls, Mr. Adcock offers his washroom to Mr. Franco,
and alone with a reporter, volunteers: ``All that stuff you
hear about Sal, it's bull s---.'' In the background, a
bulldozer slowly pushes a trash pile around the plant
floor.
In contrast, the Francos' Sal-Car transfer plant in
Hillsdale is a model of efficiency, with trucks lined up to
empty trash onto a tiny tipping floor where a giant compactor
immediately reloads the waste into big rigs.
Indeed, state and local officials charge that the site has
been too busy, exceeding its daily permitted limit and, in
effect, spreading to adjoining Franco property that lacks a
proper permit. The state has also gone after the Francos for
having too many hauling permits, which makes it difficult to
put them out of business; if one hauling permit were revoked,
state officials complain, the Francos could shift customers
to another hauler.
Sal Franco was banned from the industry in New Jersey
administrative proceedings involving multiple hauling
permits, and the state later charged him with contempt for
allegedly continuing to run the business. The state has also
sought to bar six grown sons and daughters of Carmine and Sal
Franco who, according to the Francos, now run the business.
Nearly all these disputes, in which the state seeks
millions of dollars in penalties, have been appealed by the
Francos from administrative proceedings to state courts. The
Francos deny wrongdoing.
Steven J. Madonna, the state environmental prosecutor who
has overseen much of the civil litigation, says he wants the
Francos out of the trash business. ``We're working toward
ending their involvement,'' he says. Of their alleged
business ties with the mob, Mr. Madonna says, ``I don't think
anybody cannot take into account that reality.'' He mentions
murder, violence and arson. ``I'm not making a leap that that
is the Francos. But it would be unreasonable to disregard
that.''
In recent months, meanwhile, Sal and Carmine Franco and
some of their grown sons have received so-called target
letters from the state attorney general saying they could
soon be indicted on criminal charges. A state official
confirms that an indictment is expected soon, but won't
discuss the charges. Sal Franco says the charges would
include theft for diverting trash from Bergen County's flow-
control system and contempt for his staying in the business.
He expects the state to seek prison terms for him and Carmine
and financial penalties as high as $20 million. ``They're
going to come up with a big one. I guarantee you.''
The increasing nastiness with New Jersey officials followed
the Francos to their New York state operation, where Sal is
an owner but Carmine never was (through he helped in the
business). Clarkstown also has flow control, requiring
haulers to dump at a town transfer station for $81 a ton. The
Francos were doing business nearby at $70. Clarkstown, losing
volume, went looking for the reason.
The town's police staked out the Francos' business, first
trying to hide beside the Deer Head Inn, a tavern up the
road. ``We thought it was a speed trap,'' says the bar's
owner, Ken Brennan, who sent a bartender out to ask the
police if they wanted anything. Police switched to helicopter
flyovers. ``Real cloak-and-dagger stuff,'' Sal Franco says.
The break in the case come in March 1991, when an Indiana
trucker, Carl E. Drake, loaded up with trash at the Franco
site, got lost and turned into the Palisades Interstate
Parkway, which bars trucks. His trailer rammed the first
bridge it came to, spilling the trash.
On the bridge overhead, Carmine Franco was soon spotted
trying to direct a hurried cleanup, according to Paul
D'Alessandro, a Clarkstown detective. Troopers and police
started pawing through the mess and say they found what they
were looking for, Clarkstown trash, by looking at addresses
on the junk mail.
The Francos say that the trash was from elsewhere and that
local stuff must have got mixed in when police impounded the
load and took it back to the Clarkstown transfer station for
a closer look.
In the following weeks, police pulled over and checked the
loads of more truckers leaving the Franco operation. Then, in
June 1991, police, prosecutors and environmental regulators
from New York and New Jersey, guns drawn, descended on the
site. ``They opened the door and pointed their guns into the
office,'' says Linda Franco, Sal's daughter, who was working
there at the tme. She was frightened. For that, Mr. Franco
says Clarkstown can expect an especially spirited competitive
effort from the Francos should the Supreme Court toss out
flow control. ``I'll never forgive what they did to my
daughter,'' he adds.
The Francos haven't fought this battle entirely on their
own. More than 100 New Jersey and New York haulers paid
$1,000 apiece last fall to attend a legal-defense fund-raiser
in Manhattan. And the Franco case has become a darling of the
free-enterprise set. Friend-of-the-court arguments poured in
from, among others, Detroit's Big Three auto makers, the
National Association of Manufacturers and the Chemical
Manufacturers Association; big business also doesn't like to
be told where and at what price to dump its trash. ``Hell no,
we won't flow,'' says Bruce Parker, a Washington lawyer for a
haulers' group.
On the other side, municipal governments weighed in,
warning about bond defaults and environmental risks if
haulers prevail. ``We're talking disaster,'' says H. Lanier
Hickman, head of a municipal trash officials' group.
After oral arguments before the Supreme Court last
December, Detective D'Alessandro walked up to Sal Franco and
asked, ``Who would've thought it would wind up here?'' The
hauler replied: ``You underestimated the Francos.''
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, first of all I rise in support of H.R.
4683. Let me congratulate and thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and also acknowledge the leadership of
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Ms. Lambert] on
this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4683 allows for the control and management of
municipal solid waste. The bill reinstates local government authority
to manage the flow of municipal solid waste.
Mr. Chairman, for two decades local governments have exercised
authority over the flow of municipal waste within their jurisdiction.
It was this authority which has allowed municipalities to build the
facilities required to address the solid waste needs of their
residents.
Without the ability to control the flow of municipal waste, local and
State governments would be unable to finance the needed waste
management infrastructure, including environmentally sound technologies
such as recycling and composting. Unfortunately, this spring that
control was put in jeopardy by the Supreme Court.
Flow control is a key mechanism for implementing local government
decisions regarding integrated municipal solid waste management. Once
the decision has been made to develop new waste management
infrastructure, flow control is a means, first, to effectuate that
decision regarding the best method for managing MSW, and, second,
securing the community's financial support. Without flow control, many
communities would not be able to develop environmentally advanced MSW
management systems. This reflects the fundamental fact, recognized in a
lengthy study by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment, that if
left to the normal operation of the economic forces of the marketplace,
MSW will flow to the lowest cost, short-term alternative. I must
emphasize short term. If we want local government to develop long-term
environmentally sound MSW management systems at stable prices for our
constituents then they must have flow control authority. It is that
simple.
I should also emphasize that environmentally sound MSW management and
public health protection are the predicate for exercising flow control
authority under State laws. Moreover, the use of flow control offers
additional environmental benefits. One example is a significantly
increased commitment to recycling. Flow control authority allows local
government to provide very costly recycling, yard waste collection,
household hazardous waste collection, and other types of programs
without imposing any direct charge on their residents for those
services. That powerful incentive for recycling would not be possible
without flow control authority.
I must also note that H.R. 4683 represents a very exhaustive
compromise effort that included all sectors of the waste industry,
local government, recycling industries, and others. The process that
led to this legislation was extraordinarily inclusive.
In particular I want to emphatically reject a myth that some have
offered to oppose flow control--specifically the false claim that flow
control is anticompetitive. The private waste industry is highly
concentrated, and becoming even more so. That concentration has been
coupled by explosive growth in the industry and outstanding
profitability. I would simply refer you to the recent annual reports
filed with the SEC by major waste management companies. Their profits
are soaring. And as emphasized by these reports, growth has been the
dominant feature of their business. All of this has occurred in direct
parallel with increasing use of flow control by local government. Don't
get me wrong, I have no problem with increasing profitability. But in
the face of these facts, the assertion that flow control is
anticompetitive doesn't hold any water.
In addition, flow control is not a debate between public versus
private facilities. Local governments that rely on flow control
repeatedly use a competitive process to procure waste management
services from private companies. And flow control allows those
communities to obtain environmentally sound waste management capacity
for the long term at stable prices.
Finally, yesterday we approved H.R. 4779, which will restrict the
ability of States to export municipal solid waste and require exporting
States to become more self-sufficient. Flow control is the essential
complement for restrictions on interstate transportation of MSW. Flow
control provides local government with the tools for self-sufficiency.
On May 15, 1994, the Supreme Court ruled in C&A Carbone versus Town
of Clarkstown that local governments do not possess the ability to
control the flow of waste unless Congress grants it to them. H.R. 4683
does just that. It will grant our governments the authority they have
relied on for decades to address their municipal waste needs.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot deny our towns, cities, and counties the
tools they need to govern. We must pass H.R. 4683, and I encourage all
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge] who has been a consistent worker on this issue
since the first day he walked onto the floor in this Congress.
(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1750
Mr. MINGE. Madam Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks made by other Members of this Chamber. I certainly agree with
their insights, their comments, their analysis, of the problem we face.
I would just like to briefly outline a slightly different approach to
what we are trying to address in this legislation today.
We had a lot of discussion in Congress in the last few months about
unfunded mandates, and we have had a lot of discussion about the impact
that this has on local units of government. In fact, the Federal
Government and States have placed an unfunded mandate in many respects
upon local units of government, and that mandate is that solid waste,
or trash, must be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with the
environmental laws that have been passed in this city and in State
capitals around the country.
Local communities have responded to this mandate. They have
constructed state-of-the-art facilities. They have constructed
landfills. They have gone to great expense. They have bonded to cover
the financing costs. And what they have found is that once they
constructed these facilities and tried to make sure that they were
financially self-supporting, they were involved in litigation. That
litigation, tragically, resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court determining
that trash is a commodity and, when it moves in interstate commerce,
only Congress can regulate its flow. Consequently, we are here this
afternoon.
The other tragic aspect of the litigation is that these local units
of government that have acted responsibly to meet an unfunded mandate,
have had the power, the tools that they need, to meet this mandate,
stripped away.
This legislation goes a long way toward redressing this tragic
result. One thing that we still have to address is what do we do with
the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of local units of government that are
still in the process of trying to determine how to effectively and
economically deal with their trash problems, and what can we do in the
future to ensure that they have the tools available to them to meet
this mandate in a responsible fashion.
I know that this added concern is one that is shared by many Members
of this institution, and hopefully in the months to come, we will find
a way to resolve that as well.
But in the meantime I would like to join with the other Members here
in indicating my support of H.R. 4683, and urging all Members to
support this important legislation.
Madam Chairman, on May 16, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
local flow control laws were unconstitutional. This stripped local
governments of the tools they need to meet environmental standards
handed down by the Federal Government. In her concurring opinion,
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made clear that it was within
Congress' power to authorize and make available local autonomy over
waste flow control. All Congress has to do is act and that would
promote the continued use of innovative and environmentally sound solid
waste management.
Afer 1\1/2\ years of negotiations, H.R. 4683 represents a compromise
agreement reached by local governments, some of the waste management
industry, public finance groups, and others impacted by court decisions
against waste flow control.
Flow control simply means that local governments can designate an
environmentally safe facility for trash disposal. When the Federal
Government mandated that States meet minimum environmental standards
for garbage disposal, some of our localities adopted flow control
ordinances in order to comply with these unfunded Federal mandates. In
trying to meet these mandates, some communities borrowed millions of
dollars to build environmentally sound disposal facilities with the
assurance that they could designate that site as the community site for
garbage disposal.
In my own district, two counties issued $7.9 million in revenue bonds
to construct a state-of-the-art composting facility. To ensure that
waste generated within the counties would be disposed of at the new
facility and to protect the integrity of those outstanding bonds, the
counties implemented the flow control ordinances. But a waste hauler--
which owns a landfill in Iowa--challenged flow control, and now, the
counties' municipal solid waste is being hauled over the border and
dumped into the clay-lined landfill.
With the recent Supreme Court decision and local ordinances
overturned, responsible solid waste management has been handicapped and
the integrity of some $18 billion nationwide in outstanding municipal
bonds has been undermined.
This compromise would allow: First, flow control over residential
waste and second, flow control over commercial waste only in those
communities which have already designated a facility for commercial
waste--or that had committed to designate.
Flow control is an option for our localities--not a requirement. In
Minnesota we encourage private enterprise as the preferred waste
managers. Flow control is only our final tool to ensure that RCRA
mandated standards are met.
Support this legislation and restore local government choice. They
know better than we what is best for them.
Support this legislation and unite the hands of local government in
their efforts to manage their waste stream in a way that's sound
economically and environmentally.
Support this legislation and promote recycling and the environment.
Without flow control, environmentally sound disposal methods will
likely be replaced with the cheapest disposal option--large regional
landfills.
And finally, support this legislation and give our localities the
tools they need to protect our environment--and in turn--protect our
children and our communities.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our good friend the
gentleman from upstate New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, forget about every negative argument
you have heard about flow control. Quite simply, they just do not flow.
As the House considers H.R. 4683, let us look at the facts.
Fact No. 1: A reversal of flow control policy represents a classic
unfunded mandate. The Federal Government requires that municipal solid
waste be disposed of in a particular manner, and then it strips States
and local communities of the means to meet these requirements,
including jurisdictions that have invested millions of dollars and made
long-range commitments to properly dispose of solid waste in an
environmentally sound manner.
Fact No. 2: The bill is not bad for the environment. In fact, failure
to pass this bill may jeopardize current successful environmental
programs already implemented by many local communities.
Fact No. 3: Flow control authority is not anticompetitive. Under H.R.
4683, flow control arrangements would have to meet strict competitive
standards before flow control authority would be granted.
Fact No. 4: Flow control policy represents a successful partnership
between the private sector and local governments. Flow control systems
often result in lower costs for the consumer due to high volume
business and increased negotiating leverage.
These are the facts, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 4683 is responsible
legislation, and we are doing it in a responsible manner. We are doing
the House proud, because this is a bipartisan measure. Republicans and
Democrats, the gentleman from Washington, Chairman Swift, the gentleman
from Ohio, ranking minority member Oxley, working hand in glove,
consulting every step of the way, to fashion a bill that deals with a
serious national problem in a very responsible way.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this worthy
legislation.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
congratulate him and his ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Oxley] for their work on this.
Mr. Chairman, solid waste and dealing with solid waste and the
problems of solid waste are I think one of the leading environmental
problems in the country. It is an issue that is intrinsically local in
its nature. It is simply impossible for us to superimpose an overall
solution on the Nation. This is something that involves education, and
it involves a myriad of different efforts at the local level.
In fact, that effort has begun. It is amazingly successful in many of
our communities. As I have seen States convey to the counties certain
responsibility in Minnesota, they have entered into agreements and
attempted successfully to deal with solid waste, recycling, and trying
to provide the impetus to the market.
In order to do that, they have what they call tipping fees they
charge when there is solid waste put in a solid waste facility, a
landfill, or put into a process for recycling. Most of them necessitate
a subsidy because the market does not sustain them, but we know
environmentally it is much better to recycle the aluminum, to use the
various products that can be recycled.
Unfortunately, this particular system is about to have the rug pulled
out from under them. They cannot do that unless they have the tools.
The rug is being pulled out by someone in Iowa or Wisconsin, saying you
can come dump this in my landfill and pay a much lower tipping fee. Of
course, at the point of the customer, where the customer is paying,
they can dramatically reduce the price, undercutting those dealing with
this in an environmentally sound manner.
I know there has been some very creative thinking here in terms of
how to avoid this problem. So they have appealed through the courts
under the interstate commerce laws, as is appropriate. The end result,
of course, is you are going to have anarchy.
If we want this issue dealt with, you have to put the tools in the
hands of the local and State governments so they can do it. We are not
going to do it in Congress. You are not going to avoid the dreaded
incinerator, which apparently is one of the criticisms here, that there
is someone who bonded an incinerator. They bonded incinerators for some
waste, and when they cannot recycle it, they burn it.
Vote with the committee, and against the amendments which weaken the
tools given to local governments.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my old friend and
colleague just north of my district, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Gillmor].
(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill and to oppose
the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Richardson].
I was president of the Ohio Senate in 1988 when our State passed one
of the most comprehensive, forward-thinking solid waste disposal laws
in the country. We did what Congress wanted us to do: We planned for
our disposal needs well into the future, set up local solid waste
districts, and required management plans. We gave local waste districts
the power to designate where their waste would go. That is called flow
control.
Some of the waste districts quickly designated facilities to which
their waste would go. Some bought land to guarantee future disposal
space. Some decided they would wait because their disposal needs would
not change for a few years. That is, they wouldn't need to build a new
facility for several years thus make an obligation of public funds, buy
land, site the facility, go through permitting, and so on.
We have counties across our State in varying stages of solid waste
planning and management, and varying amounts of effort and investment
that would be lost without flow control. It is the same thing all
across the country--cities and counties find themselves in different
positions. The Richardson amendment would leave a lot of them
financially exposed. For example, it wouldn't protect a community that
has perhaps spent years and significant of money siting a facility but
has not yet ``committed to its construction.'' The committee-passed
bill would protect a much broader range of situations.
If we pass the Richardson amendment, we risk creating a disparity
between two communities that are at exactly the same point in their
waste planning process, except that one merely hasn't formally signed a
construction contract. The solid waste management process involves a
great deal more than simply signing a contract, and the committee-
passed bill recognizes this. Let us stick with the bill as it is.
{time} 1800
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Sawyer].
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4683, legislation
that I believe is crucial to the promotion of responsible solid waste
management.
During my tenure as mayor of Akron, OH, in the early to mid-eighties,
Akron's flow control ordinance was challenged by private haulers as
being unconstitutional. At every legal step, including two appeals to
the Supreme Court, I fought successfully to retain Akron's law. As
mayor, I understood how vital flow control authority is to responsible
waste management planning. Local governments have the responsibility to
pick up and dispose of all of the trash generated within their borders.
We simply cannot allow them to lose the principal tool they have to
finance the construction and operation of the facilities they need to
meet this obligation.
The people of Ohio recently passed a broad waste management law which
requires local governments to band together to ensure that they have
adequate disposal capacity for decades to come. Without flow control
authority, many of these collaborative agreements will be in jeopardy.
This type of responsible planning is crucial to the future of
innovative and integrated recycling programs and waste management
techniques.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Swift for his willingness to
work with me to clarify that the counties I represent will be able to
pursue their long-range management plans. As usual, the gentleman from
Washington has listened to diverse interest and has worked to craft
consensus legislation that moves this Nation forward. Again, I thank
him for his assistance on this bill and for his years of brilliant
service to this House.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4683. I want
to thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], and the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], for bringing this bill to the floor. I
also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who has
been a strong advocate of protecting the interests of local governments
across the Nation.
The Supreme Court decision in the case of C&A Carbone, Inc. versus
Town of Clarkstown has significant implications for municipalities and
taxpayers across the country. The case invalidated the use of flow
control to manage solid waste generated within the borders of a
community. The implications are far reaching because according to the
Congressional Research Service [CRS], 41 States exercise flow control
either through statute or other means. Many States have used flow
control to ensure that municipal solid waste [MSW] is disposed of in
accordance with several Federal laws and regulations.
Flow control authority is especially important to communities across
my State of Connecticut. Many small towns in eastern Connecticut have
contracts with solid waste disposal facilities which require them to
deliver a minumum amount of waste or face financial penalties, also
known as ``put or pay'' requirements. Towns entered into these
agreements because they believed that flow control ordinances,
authorized under State law, would allow them to meet their contractual
obligations. Without flow control, residents in communities such as
Norwich, Vernon, Gordon, Tolland, Westbrook and many others will be
forced to pay higher taxes to pay penalties for failing to deliver the
minimum volume of waste. To make matters worse, the majority of solid
waste disposal facilities in my State have been financed with State
revenue bonds. Disposal authorities require a minimum amount of waste
to operate at levels sufficient to generate revenue to repay these
bonds. If facilities can not make these payments, the bond holders
could be forced to make the payments. According to Connecticut's
attorney general, the State and its taxpayers could ultimately be
responsible for $520 million worth of bonds. This would be disastrous
for our State which is only beginning to fully recover from the
recession.
H.R. 4683 will provide relief to these communities. It grandfathers
existing flow control ordinances, statutes, and agreements. It also
allows communities to flow control certain recyclable material provided
that the material is voluntarily relinquished. This is especially
important because flow controlling common household recyclables in
urban areas helps to subsidize recycling efforts in rural communities.
The bill makes it clear that such authority does not place an undue
burden on interstate commerce.
Contrary to what some opponents of the bill argue, this is a
balanced approach. For MSW generated by entities other than households,
a community must have a flow control ordinance in place or have
identified one or more solid waste disposal methods before May 15,
1994, in order to exercise flow control in the future. In addition, it
limits flow control authority only to those materials addressed in the
ordinance. In order to use flow control over household MSW or
recyclables, a community must demonstrate that flow control is
necessary to meet its solid waste management needs and establish a
competitive process for designating a disposal facility for recyclable
material. This is not anticompetitive. In addition, the bill terminates
flow control authorization if a community does not actually designate a
disposal facility within 5 years of enactment of this bill. If flow
control is essential to a community, it should act in a reasonable
amount of time to exercise that authority or lose it. Finally, the bill
specifically prohibits States from requiring owners of recyclables to
give up those products.
Madam Chairman, I want take a moment to comment on the charge that
flow control damages the environment. I am not aware of a single case
where this argument has been proven conclusively. In fact, the vast
majority of communities use flow control to direct waste to state-of-
the-art disposal facilities. In my State, waste goes to transfer
stations, landfills, and other facilities which meet strict State,
Federal, and local standards designed to project the air, water, and
public health. Charges that flow control damages the environment are a
red herring designed to prevent Congress from providing important
relief to small communities across the country.
Madam Chairman, it is essential that the House pass this legislation
today. If we fail to act, taxpayers across the country could face much
higher tax bills as their communities are penalized for failing to meet
their contractual obligations. This is a balanced bill which provides
needed relief while placing reasonable limits on future flow control
authority. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
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 no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Vento). Pursuant to the rule, the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill
is considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and is
considered as having been read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
S. 4683
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE CONTROL OVER
TRANSPORTATION, MANAGEMENT, 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 at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 4011. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE CONTROL
OVER TRANSPORTATION, MANAGEMENT, AND DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.
``(a) Authority.--Each State and each qualified political
subdivision may, in accordance with this section, exercise
flow control authority within the boundaries of such State or
political subdivision, as the case may be, for each of the
following:
``(1) Municipal solid waste generated from household
sources within the boundaries of the State or qualified
political subdivision.
``(2) Municipal solid waste generated within the boundaries
of the State or qualified political subdivision, if, before
May 15, 1994, the State or qualified political subdivision
adopted a law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management
plan or legally binding provision that--
``(A) exercised flow control authority over such solid
waste with respect to a proposed or existing waste management
facility designated before May 15, 1994, or
``(B) identified the use of 1 or more waste management
methods that will be necessary for the transportation,
management, or disposal of municipal solid waste generated
within its boundaries, and committed to the designation of 1
or more waste management facilities for that method or
methods.
``(3) Recyclable materials generated within the boundaries
of the State or subdivision.
Any State or qualified political subdivision meeting the
requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) may
also, after the effective date of this section, direct,
limit, regulate or prohibit the transportation, management,
and disposal of such solid waste from any existing or future
waste management facility to any other existing or future
waste management facility, and may do so without regard to
subsection (b)(2).
``(b) Limitations.--(1) A State or qualified political
subdivision may exercise the authority described in paragraph
(3) of subsection (a) with respect to recyclable materials
only if--
``(A) the generator or owner of the materials voluntarily
made the materials available to the State or qualified
political subdivision, or the designee of the State or
qualified political subdivision, and relinquished any rights
to, or ownership of, such materials; and
``(B) the State or qualified political subdivision, or the
designee of the State or qualified political subdivision,
assumes such rights to, or ownership of, such materials.
``(2) A State or qualified political subdivision may
exercise the authority provided by subsection (a)(1) or
(a)(3) only if the State or qualified political subdivision--
``(A) before exercising the authority described in
subsection (a)(1), establishes a program to separate, or
divert at the point of generation, recyclable materials from
the municipal solid waste, for purposes of recycling,
reclamation, or reuse, in accordance with any Federal or
State law or municipal solid waste planning requirements in
effect; and
``(B) after conducting 1 or more public hearings--
``(i) finds, on the basis of the record developed at the
hearing or hearings that it is necessary to exercise the
authority to meet the current solid waste management needs
(as of the date of the record) or the anticipated solid waste
management needs of the State or qualified political
subdivision for management of municipal solid waste or
recyclable materials; and
``(ii) provides a written explanation of the reasons of the
finding described in clause (i).
``(3) The authority to direct, limit, regulate, or prohibit
the transportation, management, or disposal of solid waste
pursuant to subsection (a)(2) shall apply only to the
specific classes or categories of solid waste to which the
authority under subsection (a)(2)(A) was applied by the State
or qualified political subdivision before May 15, 1994, and/
or to the specific classes or categories of solid waste for
which the State or qualified political subdivision committed
to designate a waste management facility under subsection
(a)(2)(B).
``(4) The authority granted under subsection (a)(2) shall
expire if a State or qualified political subdivision has not
designated, by law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan, or other legally binding provision, 1 or
more proposed or existing waste management facilities within
5 years of the date of enactment of this section.
``(c) Competitive Designation Process.--A State or
qualified political subdivision may exercise the authority
provided by subsection (a) only if the State or qualified
political subdivision develops and implements a competitive
designation process with respect to waste management
facilities or facilities for recyclable materials which--
``(1) ensures that the designation process is based on, or
is part of, a municipal solid waste management plan that is
adopted by the State or qualified political subdivision and
that is designed to ensure long-term management capacity for
municipal solid waste or recyclable materials generated
within the boundaries of the State or subdivision;
``(2) sets forth the goals of the designation process,
including at a minimum--
``(A) capacity assurance;
``(B) the establishment of provisions to provide that
protection of human health and the environment will be
achieved; and
``(C) any other goals determined to be relevant by the
State or qualified political subdivision;
``(3) identifies and compares reasonable and available
alternatives and options for designation of the facilities;
``(4) provides for public participation and comment;
``(5) ensures that the designation of the facilities is
accomplished through an open competitive process during which
the State or qualified political subdivision--
``(A) identifies in writing the criteria to be utilized for
selection of the facilities;
``(B) provides an opportunity for interested public persons
and private persons to offer their existing (as of the date
of the process) or proposed facilities for designation; and
``(C) evaluates and selects the facilities for designation
based on the merits of the facilities in meeting the criteria
identified; and
``(6) bases the designation of each such facility on
reasons that shall be stated in a public record.
``(d) Certification.--(1) A Governor of any State may
certify that the laws and regulations of the State in effect
on May 15, 1994, satisfy the requirements for a competitive
designation process under subsection (c).
``(2) In making a certification under paragraph (1), a
Governor shall--
``(A) publish notice of the proposed certification in a
newspaper of general circulation and provide such additional
notice of the proposed certification as may be required by
State law;
``(B) include in the notice of the proposed certification
or otherwise make readily available a statement of the laws
and regulations subject to the certification and an
explanation of the basis for a conclusion that they satisfy
the requirements of subsection (c);
``(C) provide interested persons an opportunity to comment
on the proposed certification, for a period of time not less
than 60 days after publication of the notice; and
``(D) public notice of the final certification, together
with an explanation of the basis for the final certification,
in a newspaper of general circulation and provide such
additional notice of the final certification as may be
required by State law.
``(e) Ownership of Recyclable Materials.--
``(1) Prohibition on required transfers.--Nothing in this
section shall authorize any State or qualified political
subdivision (or any designee thereof) to require any
generator or owner of recyclable materials to transfer any
recyclable materials to such State or qualified political
subdivision, unless the generator or owner voluntarily made
the materials available to the State or qualified political
subdivision (or any designee thereof) and relinquished any
rights to, or ownership of, such materials.
``(2) Prohibition on prohibited transactions.--Nothing in
this section shall prohibit any person from selling,
purchasing, or accepting, conveying, or transporting any
recyclable materials for purposes of transformation or
remanufacture into usable or marketable materials, unless the
generator or owner voluntarily made the materials available
to the State or qualified political subdivision (or any
designee thereof) and relinquished any rights to, or
ownership of, such materials.
``(f) Existing Laws and Contracts.--
``(1) In general.--This section shall not supersede,
abrogate, or otherwise modify any of the following:
``(A) Any contract or other agreement (including any
contract containing an obligation to repay the outstanding
indebtedness on any proposed or existing waste management
facility) entered into before May 15, 1994, by a State or
qualified political subdivision in which such State or
qualified political subdivision has designated a proposed or
existing waste management facility pursuant to a law,
ordinance, regulation, solid waste management plan or legally
binding provision adopted by such State or qualified
political subdivision before May 15, 1994.
``(B) Any other contract or agreement entered into before
May 15, 1994, for the management of solid waste.
``(C)(i) Any law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan or legally binding provision--
``(I) that is adopted before May 15, 1994; and
``(II) that pertain to the transportation, management, or
disposal of municipal solid waste generated within the
boundaries of a State or qualified political subdivision;
if the law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management
plan or legally binding provision is applied to the
transportation, management, or disposal of municipal solid
waste, generated from household sources within its
boundaries, to a proposed or existing waste management
facility designated before May 15, 1994, under such law,
ordinance, regulation, solid waste management plan or legally
binding provision.
``(ii) Any law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan or legally binding provision--
``(I) that is adopted before May 15, 1994;
``(II) that pertains to the transportation, management, or
disposal or municipal solid waste generated within the
boundaries of a State or qualified political subdivision; and
``(III) under which a State or qualified political
subdivision, prior to May 15, 1994, directed, limited,
regulated, or prohibited the transportation, management, or
disposal of municipal solid waste that is generated, or is
commingled with municipal solid waste that is generated, from
commercial, institutional, or industrial sources within its
boundaries, or construction debris or demolition debris,
generated within its boundaries;
provided that the law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan or legally binding provision is applied to
the transportation, management, or disposal of such solid
waste described in subclause (III), to a proposed or existing
waste management facility designated before May 15, 1994,
under such law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management
plan or legally binding provision.
``(iii) Any law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan or legally binding provision--
``(I) that is adopted before May 15, 1994; and
``(II) that pertains to the transportation or management of
recyclable materials generated within the boundaries of a
State or qualified political subdivision;
provided that the law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan or legally binding provision is applied to
the transportation or management of recyclable materials,
that are generated within its boundaries and with respect to
which the generator or owner of the materials, and the State
or qualified political subdivision, have met the appropriate
conditions described in subsection (b)(1), to a proposed or
existing facility for recyclable materials designated before
May 15, 1994, under such law, ordinance, regulation, solid
waste management plan or legally binding provision.
``(2) Contract information.--A party to a contract or other
agreement that is described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) shall provide a copy of the contract or
agreement to the State or qualified political subdivision on
request. Any proprietary information contained in the
contract or agreement may be omitted in the copy, but the
information that appears in the copy shall include at least
the date that the contract or agreement was signed, the
volume of municipal solid waste covered by the contract or
agreement with respect to which the State or qualified
political subdivision could otherwise exercise authority
under subsection (a) or paragraph (1)(C), the source of the
waste or materials, the destination of the waste or
materials, the duration of the contract or agreement, and the
parties to the contract or agreement.
``(3) Limitation.--Any designation by a State or qualified
political subdivision of any waste management facility or
facility for recyclable materials after the date of enactment
of this section shall comply with subsection (c). Nothing in
this paragraph shall affect any designation made before the
date of enactment of this section, and any such designation
shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subsection
(c).
``(g) Savings Clause.--(1) Nothing in this section is
intended to supersede, amend, or otherwise modify Federal or
State environmental laws and regulations that apply to the
disposal or management of solid waste at waste management
facilities or facilities for recyclable materials.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to
authorize a qualified political subdivision to exercise the
authority granted by this section in a manner inconsistent
with State law.
``(h) Effect on Interstate Commerce.--The exercise of flow
control authority in compliance with this section by a State
or qualified political subdivision shall itself be considered
a reasonable regulation of commerce and shall not itself be
considered as imposing an undue burden on or otherwise
impairing, restraining, or discriminating against interstate
commerce.
``(i) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) Flow control authority.--The term `flow control
authority' means the authority to control the movement of
solid waste or recyclable materials and direct the
transportation of such waste or recyclable materials to one
or more designated waste management facilities or facilities
for recyclable materials.
``(2) Industrial solid waste.--The term `industrial solid
waste' means solid waste generated by manufacturing or
industrial processes, including waste generated during scrap
processing and scrap recycling, that is not hazardous waste
regulated under subtitle C.
``(3) Municipal solid waste.--
``(A) In general.--(i) The term `municipal solid waste'
means all waste materials discarded for disposal by
households, including single and multifamily residences.
``(ii) The term also includes waste materials generated by
commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, to the
extent such wastes--
``(I) are essentially the same as waste normally generated
by households; or
``(II) 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).
``(iii) The term includes residue remaining after
recyclable materials have been separated, or diverted at the
point of generation, from waste materials described in clause
(i) or (ii).
``(iv) The term also includes any waste material or waste
substance removed from a septic tank, septic pit, or
cesspool.
``(v) 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.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term does not include any of the
following:
``(i) Any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous
waste under section 3001.
``(ii) Solid waste containing a polychlorinate biphenyl
regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2601 et seq.).
``(iii) 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.
``(iv) Recyclable materials.
``(v) Materials and products returned from a dispenser or
distributor to the manufacturer or an agent of the
manufacturer for credit, evaluation, and possible reuse.
``(vi) Industrial solid waste.
``(vii) 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 or a company with which the generator is
affiliated.
``(viii) Any medical waste referred to in section 11002
that is segregated from, or not mixed with, solid waste.
``(4) Qualified political subdivision.--The term `qualified
political subdivision' means a governmental entity or
political subdivision of a State, as authorized by the State,
to plan for, or determine the methods to be utilized for, the
collection, transportation, disposal or other management of
municipal solid waste generated within the boundaries of the
governmental entity or political subdivision.
``(5) Recyclable material.--The term `recyclable material'
means any material (including any metal, glass, plastic,
textile, wood, paper, rubber, or other material) that has
been separated, or diverted at the point of generation, from
solid waste for the purpose of recycling, reclamation, or
reuse.
``(6) Solid waste management plan.--The term `solid waste
management plan' means a plan for the transportation,
treatment, processing, composting, combustion, disposal or
other management of municipal solid waste adopted by a State
or qualified political subdivision pursuant to and conforming
with State law.
``(7) Waste management facility.--The term `waste
management facility' means any facility or facilities in
which solid waste is separated, stored, transferred, treated,
processed, combusted, deposited or disposed.
``(8) Committed to the designation of one or more waste
management facilities.--The phrase `Committed to the
designation of one or more waste management facilities' as
used in subsection (a)(2)(B) means that the State or
qualified political subdivision, prior to May 15, 1994, was
legally bound to designate one or more existing or future
waste management facilities, or performed or caused to be
performed one or more of the following actions for the
purpose of designating one or more such facilities:
``(A) Solicitation of proposals for designation of a waste
management facility.
``(B) Purchase of land on which the waste management
facility to be designated will be located.
``(C) Execution of a legally binding contract or franchise
agreement for waste collection services expressly for the
delivery of waste to a waste management facility to be
designated.
``(D) Other action since January 1, 1993, that evidences
recent significant financial commitment for the continuing
development of a waste management facility for which a
designation will be made unless such action has been halted
by a court order based upon a ruling under the Constitution
of the United States.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for such
subtitle D is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to such subtitle the following new item:
``Sec. 4011. Congressional authorization of State control over
transportation, management, and disposal of municipal
solid waste.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to the bill?
amendment offered by mr skeen
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Skeen: Page 20, after line 12,
insert:
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRUCKING DEREGULATION.
Section 601(d) of the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1994 is amended by striking ``January 1,
1995'' and inserting ``January 1, 1996''.
SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO ACT PREEMPTING STATE
ECONOMIC REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS
(a) Section 11501(H)(2) of Title 49, United States Code, is
amended as follows:
(1) Strike ``and'' after subparagraph (A).
(2) Strike the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
insert in lieu thereof a semicolon.
(3) Insert the following new subparagraphs at the end
thereof:
`'(C) does not apply to the transportation of garbage and
refuse;
``(D) does not apply to the transportation of recyclable
materials, as defined under section 10733(b), pursuant to
programs conducted under the auspices of any unit of
government; and
``(E) does not apply to motor carriers providing tow or
wrecker services.''.
Mr. SKEEN (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 Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have taken this opportunity and I
appreciate the concession from the chairman of the subcommittee and the
ranking member, because I want to offer this amendment to delay
trucking deregulation for a year. I seek principally an opportunity to
discuss some salient points in support of this need for the delay.
Early last month the House and Senate conference committee attached
legislative language to the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act which essentially deregulates interstate trucking.
This bill is now law, and deregulation will take effect on January 1,
1995.
Many States are in the same position as New Mexico in that the State
legislature and small trucking companies will not have an opportunity
to meet and adjust to this deregulation by this January. Deregulation
would require or will require new State authority to address safety,
taxes, and a myriad of other legislative reforms.
Those supporting the delay include the National Conference of State
Legislators, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
Regular Common Carrier Conference, the Teamsters, the National League
of Cities, Public Citizen, and a number of State motor carrier
associations from Michigan, California, Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, Pennsylvania, just to name a few.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey] and the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], who offered to be cosponsors of a bill to effect
this delay. And rather than take this, that course, it was deemed more
prudent to try this as an amendment.
Whether or not Members agree with the concept of trucking
deregulation, the responsible thing to do is to give State regulatory
bodies and small truckers time to adjust.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Richardson
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Richardson: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Municipal Solid Waste Flow
Control Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE CONTROL OVER
MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.
(A) Amendment.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
is amended by adding the following new section after section
4010:
``SEC. 4011. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE CONTROL
OVER MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.
``(a) Authority.--Each State and each political subdivision
thereof is authorized to require the movement of municipal
solid waste generated, and recyclable material voluntarily
relinquished by its owner, within its jurisdiction to one or
more waste management facilities or recycling facilities if
such requirement--
``(1) is imposed pursuant to a law, ordinance, or other
official act of the State or political subdivision in effect
on May 15, 1994; and
``(2) has been implemented by designating before May 15,
1994, the particular management facilities in operation as of
May 15, 1994, to which the municipal solid waste and
recyclables must be moved.
Such authorization shall include any political subdivision
that has in fact implemented such requirements prior to May
15, 1994, by requiring municipal solid waste to be sent to
particular waste management facilities, but for which the
legal authority for requiring such movement of municipal
solid waste does not require the designation of particular
facilities to receive such waste, or such legal authority
resides in a designated official of the political
subdivision. The authority of this section shall only extend
to the specific classes or categories of municipal solid
waste which were actually subject to a requirement of
movement to one or more waste management facilities on or
before May 15, 1994. With respect to each designated
facility, the authority of this section shall be effective
for the remaining life of a contract between the State or
political subdivision and any other person regarding the
movement or delivery of such waste or recyclable materials
(as in effect May 15, 1994), or until completion of the
schedule for payment of the capital costs of the facility
concerned (as in effect May 15, 1994), or for the remaining
useful life of the facility, whichever is longer.
``(b) Certain Redesignations of Facilities.--
Notwithstanding the restrictions in subsection (a)(2), any
political subdivision of a State, which (1) required the
movement of municipal solid waste or recyclable materials
voluntarily relinquished by its owner to one or more waste
management facilities or recycling facilities prior to May
15, 1994; (2) declared its intent to redesignate the
facilities receiving such materials prior to May 15, 1994,
and (3) as of the date of enactment of this section is in the
process of redesignating the facilities receiving such
materials, shall be granted the authority in subsection (a).
``(c) Commitment to Construction.--Notwithstanding the
restrictions in subsection (a)(1) and (2), any political
subdivision of a State may be granted the authority in
subsection (a), if--
``(1) the law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan, or legally binding provision specifically
provides for the transportation or disposal of municipal
solid waste generated within its boundaries, was in effect
prior to May 15, 1994, and, in the case of a solid waste
management plan, has the approval of either the State or the
Administrator pursuant to this title, and
``(2) commits to the selection of one or more waste
management facilities for such method of transportation
facilities or disposal of municipal solid waste. Such a
commitment to one or more waste management facilities is
demonstrated by one or more of the following factors--
``(A) all required permits for the construction of such
facility were submitted prior to May 15, 1994,
``(B) contracts for the construction of such facility were
in effect prior to May 15, 1994,
``(C) revenue bonds were presented for sale to specifically
provide revenue for the construction of such facility prior
to May 15, 1994, or
``(D) the State or subdivision submitted to the appropriate
regulatory agency or agencies, on or before May 16, 1994,
administratively complete permit applications for the
construction and operation of the waste management facility.
``(d) Retained Authority.--Upon the request of any
generator of municipal solid waste affected by this section,
the State or political subdivision may authorize the
diversion of all or a portion of the solid wastes
generated by the generator making such request to a solid
waste facility, other than the facility or facilities
originally designated by the political subdivision, where
the purpose of such request is to provide a higher level
of protection for human health and the environment and
reduce potential future liability under Federal or State
law of such generator for the management of such wastes.
Requests shall include information on the environmental
suitability of the proposed alternative treatment or
disposal facility and method, compared to that of the
designated facility and method. In making such a
determination the State or political subdivision shall
consider the ability and willingness of both the
designated and alternative disposal facility or facilities
to indemnify the generator against any cause of action
under State or Federal environmental statutes, and against
any cause of action for nuisance, personal injury or
property loss under any State law.
``(e) Flow Control Study.--The Administrator, in
cooperation with the National Academy of Public
Administration, shall conduct a study of the extent to which
the decision of the United States Supreme Court in C & A
Carbone v. Clarkstown, New York has affected the ability of
public and private agencies and entities to secure or retain
financing for solid waste management facilities or services.
Such study shall address whether such decision is likely to
interfere with the implementation of State solid waste
management plans, and whether such decision is likely to
reduce the increased use of recycling or composting. The
Administrator shall submit a report on such study to
Congress, together with recommendations for needed
legislation, if any, not later than March 31, 1996.
``(f) Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section shall
be interpreted or construed to have any effect on any other
law relating to the protection of human health and the
environment, or the management of municipal solid waste.
``(g) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
``(1) The term `municipal solid waste' means solid waste
generated by the general public and from residential,
commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, consisting
of paper, wood, yard waste, plastics, leather, rubber, and
other combustible materials and noncombustible materials such
as metal and glass, including residue remaining after
recyclable materials have been separated from waste destined
for disposal, and including septage, except that the term
does not include--
``(A) any waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste
under section 3001 of this Act or waste regulated under the
Toxic Substances and Control Act,
``(B) any waste, including contaminated soil and debris,
resulting from response taken under section 104 or 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602 or 9606) or a
corrective action taken under this Act;
``(C) medical waste;
``(D) industrial waste;
``(E) recyclable materials; or
``(F) sludge.
``(2) The term `recyclable materials' means any materials
that have been separated from waste otherwise destined for
disposal (either at the source of the waste or at processing
facilities) or that have been managed separately from waste
destined for disposal, for the purpose of recycling,
composting or organic materials such as food and yard waste,
or reuse (other than for the purpose of incineration), only
to the extent that the generator or owner of the materials
has voluntarily made the materials available to the State or
qualified political subdivision, and relinquished any rights
to, or ownership of, such materials, and the State or
political subdivision assumes such rights to, or ownership of
such materials.
``(3) The term `waste management facility' means any
facility collecting, separating, storing, transporting,
transferring, treating, processing, or disposing of municipal
solid waste.''.
``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for
subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by
adding the following new item after the item relating to
section 4010:
``Sec. 4011. Congressional authorization of State control over
movement of municipal solid waste and recyclable
materials.''.
Mr. RICHARDSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered
as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the nature of
a substitute of H.R. 4683 with Mr. Fields of Texas and the 22
cosponsors of H.R. 4643, the bill upon it is based.
In this congressional session when nearly all the environmental
legislation we have considered has been stalled, we do have an
opportunity to do something positive for environmental protection, for
Superfund reform, for environmental justice, and for competition and
free market principles. That opportunity is this amendment.
As we enter the final days of the 103d Congress, there is no denying
that we are all looking for ways to pass important bipartisan
legislation that responsibly addresses the problems of this Nation: We
are all trying to work hard and go home.
The Richardson-Fields amendment offers the perfect broad-based,
bipartisan opportunity to do just that. Where else will you find the
National Taxpayers Union and Clean Water Action, National Association
of Manufacturers, and the Sierra Club on the same side of an issue?
The Richardson-Fields amendment would grandfather existing flow
control arrangements to protect those facilities financially dependent
on flow control, and allow local governments which have shown
significant movement toward designation to continue flow control
controlling waste for a limited time in the future.
However, our amendment will not allow for future flow control
authority. If you are not flow controlling now, and you cannot prove
that you had made significant steps toward flow control authority prior
to the Supreme Court decision then you should not be able to exert new
monopoly power in the future.
Mr. Chairman, the one thing to remember through all the hazy rhetoric
we will hear today is that without our amendment, we will continue the
monopoly power of local governments to continue to exert sole authority
over waste disposal in the future.
But, don't be fooled, we aren't playing with Monopoly money. If you
defeat the Richardson-Fields amendment you will be writing a blank
check that will be cashed on the taxpayer's money.
flow control and recycling
In the past several days, local governments have been telling Members
that flow control is pro-environment and pro-recycling.
In fact, because flow control guarantees a waste stream for newly
constructed facilities like incinerators, the Sierra Club says that
``these facilities lock out the adoption of recycling and source
reduction alternatives because incinerators compete for the same
materials collected by recycling programs.''
And the New York Public Interest Research Group, Clean Water Act, the
Audobon Naturalist Society, Baltimore Recycling Coalition, the
Environmental Planning Lobby, and the Grassroots Environmental
Organization of New Jersey all say that ``Congressional authorization
of flow control could inhibit the development of alternative waste
management options, including market-driven recycling efforts.''
These same organizations further charge that flow control laws
``unnecessarily inhibit the ability of recyclers and other ecological
entrepreneurs to compete in the marketplace.''
So, my fellow colleagues, you have a choice. You can believe the
monopoly proponents that flow control is somehow good for recycling, or
you can believe a nationwide coalition of environmental groups that
flow control and recycling are like oil and water: they don't mix.
flow control and incineration
During this debate, we will hear that flow control and incineration
do not necessarily go hand in hand. But who do you believe? The Sierra
Club says that ``H.R. 4683 would make it significantly easier to site
new incinerators.''
The executive director of Pittsburgh Against Toxic Incineration,
Clean Water Action, and the New York Public Interest Research Group say
that the monopoly power over solid waste decisions conferred by flow
control leads to the disposal of waste at ``overpriced, inefficient
incinerators.''
The Nation's environmental groups say flow control is bad for the
environment; the Nation's two largest incinerator companies are trying
to convince Congress that flow control is good for you and poses no
threat to environmental protection efforts. You be the judge.
flow control and superfund
Future flow control authority has the potential to lock waste
generators and communities into using unnecessary or unsafe disposal
facilities.
Local governments are not required to ensure that a facility treat
waste in the safest possible manner. Waste generators who have no
control over where or how their waste is disposed of under flow
control, could be liable as a potentially responsible party under
Superfund simply because their waste was shipped to an environmentally
unsuitable facility.
The American Trucking Association and the National Association of
Manufacturers have said that ``flow control is totally at odds with the
objections of Superfund'' because ``generators are denied altogether
the ability to send waste to the most environmentally appropriate
location.''
Waste generators should demand that flow control not be enacted or
even considered until the Congress can consider comprehensive RCRA
reauthorization next year.
And, as many of my colleagues may know, waste generators and waste
transporters are demanding that future flow control not be debated
until we can talk about RCRA comprehensively. Kimberly-Clark Corp., the
National Association of Manufacturers, the American Trucking
Association, Southern Pacific Transportation Co., Union Pacific Corp.,
and Chicago and Illinois Midland Railways are all opposed to H.R. 4683.
flow control and environmental justice
Because flow control leads to more incinerators, H.R. 4683 presents a
problem for environmental justice advocates. As Congressman Ed Towns
and I know from the sponsorship of our incinerator bill, H.R. 2488,
incinerators are more often located in communities of color and low-
income areas.
If we pass H.R. 4683 today without the Richardson-Fields amendment,
we will be signing a blank check for the future construction of
incinerators. The EPA's recently announced reassessment of the toxic
dioxin found that the most common source of dioxin emissions in the
United States is municipal solid waste incinerators.
If Congress passes H.R. 4683 today without the Richardson-Fields
amendment, we will be saying to people of color and people of low
incomes that we don't care about their health and well-being because
we're going to allow more dioxin-spewing incinerators to be located in
their neighborhoods to dispose of someone else's trash.
flow control and consumers
The National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the
executive director of the Consumer Alert Advocate say that ``flow
control confers a portion of the solid waste management market to
politically preferred constituencies at the expense of consumers.''
In describing the effect of unlimited flow control authority in the
future, these organizations say that ``consumers of waste management
services would pay more as they would be deprived of the option to take
their business elsewhere when prices get too high.''
flow control, competition, and the free market
A diverse group of businesses including Browning-Ferris Industries,
Laidlaw, Inc., and the National Association of Manufacturers says that
``under flow control, competition would be limited and costs would
increase.''
The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Reason Foundation say
that ``flow control would establish protected government monopolies
that have no incentive to increase the quality of their services. Waste
management prices would be set by political forces, without regard for
market pressures.''
Mr. Chairman, competition not monopolization is the best alternative
for waste disposal decisions. The artificial constraints of flow
control represent a step backward toward government control of waste
policy, not free market competition where the best facility at the best
price wins.
The argument has been made that our efforts to block future flow
control authority represent another unfunded Federal mandate. This is
simply not true. The Richardson-Fields amendment would in fact provide
local governments with relief from the immediate impact of the Supreme
Court decision while allowing the free market and open competition to
prevail in the future.
The following organizations have opposed H.R. 4683:
National Federation of Independent Business; National
Association of Manufacturers; Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America; American Trucking Associations;
Sierra Club; Clean Water Action; Environmental Action;
Audubon Naturalist Society; National Taxpayers Union;
Consumer Alert Advocate; Citizens for a Sound Economy;
Competitive Enterprise Institute; New York Public Interest
Research Group, Inc.; New Jersey Chamber of Commerce; Ohio
Chamber of Commerce.
International Council of Shopping Centers; Union Pacific
Corporation; Southern Pacific Transportation Company; CS
First Boston; Browning-Ferris Industries; Laidlaw, Inc.;
Chambers Development Company, Inc.; Kimberly-Clark
Corporation; New Jersey Business & Industry Association;
Georgia Chamber of Commerce; American Bakers Association; The
John Locke Foundation; Environmental Industry Associations;
Environmental Transportation Association; Grassroots
Environmental Organization of New Jersey.
Institute for Justice; Indiana Policy Review Foundation;
Arizona Institute for Public Policy Research; The Yankee
Institute for Public Policy Studies; National Center for
Public Policy Research; Institute for Local Self-Reliance;
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater; The Heartland Institute;
Chicago and Illinois Midland Railways; Intermodal
Technologies; National Environmental Development
Association's RCRA project; Pittsburgh Against Toxic
Incineration; Waste-NOT; PERC; Environmental Planning Lobby.
____
September 26, 1994.
Hon. Bill Richardson,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Richardson: The issue of flow control--
the monopolization of municipal solid waste by local
governments--is a deeply troubling one for us. The
implications for taxpayers, businesses and the environment
are extremely dangerous. Congress should not lightly
interfere with interstate commerce, and Congress should not
confer monopoly power on the public sector when there is a
competitive private sector already operating successfully.
Under flow control, competition would be limited and costs
would increase. We urge Congress to act to reduce costs by
assuring the continuing existence of a vibrant private sector
industry.
We believe flow control is totally at odds with the
objectives of Superfund. It is unfair to impose Superfund
liability on waste generators who would be stripped of the
ability to send waste to the protective facility of their
choice. Under flow control they could be forced to send their
waste to sites that either are or may well end up on the
Superfund list. Instead of providing incentives for waste
generators to take steps that protect the environment,
generators are instead denied altogether the ability to send
waste to the most environmentally appropriate location.
Flow control does a disservice to the environment. Flow
control commits communities, in many cases for 20 to 30 years
or more, to massive investments in environmental technologies
that may soon be outdated. By interfering with the free
market, flow control can also represent a barrier to
recycling, which depends on the untrammeled movement of post-
consumer recyclables for its success.
For all these reasons--threat to the free market, increased
costs, imposition of Superfund liability and obstruction to
environmental advances and recycling--we urge Congress to
approach the issue of flow control with extreme caution.
Excessively broad flow control legislation, and most
certainly the virtually unlimited grant of flow control
authority that recently passed the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, would present precisely those problems that we
believe Congress should be trying to prevent, not create. If
it is necessary to legislate in this area, we believe that an
approach that protects existing facilities dependent on flow
control for the life of the original facility, but that
confers the benefit of the free market in all other
circumstances, is the best way for Congress to proceed. We
would appreciate your support for our position.
Respectfully submitted,
International Council of Shopping Centers; Southern
Pacific Transportation Company; Union Pacific
Corporation; Intermodal Technologies; Chicago and
Illinois Midland Railways; The National Environmental
Development Association's RCRA Project; National
Association of Manufacturers; American Trucking
Association; Browning-Ferris Industries; Chambers
Development Company, Inc.; Kimberly-Clark Corporation;
Environmental Transportation Association; and Laidlaw,
Inc.
____
Sierra Club,
Washington, DC, September 27, 1994.
Dear Representative: Broad ``flow control'' legislation,
H.R. 4683, to be voted on by the full House this week, could
negatively impact public health, the environment and safe
waste disposal. Such legislation would give local governments
exclusive control over the flow of trash, make it
significantly easier to site new incinerators, and increase
the possibility of Superfund liability for waste genertors.
Sierra Club strongly urges you to narrow the scope, and curb
these impacts by supporting an amendment expected to be
offered by Reps. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and Jack Fields (R-
TX).
Flow control requires that municipal solid waste be
disposed of in a designated waste facility. The overwhelming
experience in most communities has been the use of flow
control to support the construction of capital intensive
incinerators or waste-to-energy facilities which can emit
dangerous toxins. (Flow control guarantees a waste stream for
newly constructed facilities. Thus the revenue from the waste
allows a facility to pay off the indebtedness occurred from
building the facility.) These facilities also lock out the
adoption of recycling and source reduction alternatives
because incinerators compete for the same materials collected
by recycling programs. Sierra Club urges that prospective
flow control be considered only within the context of a RCRA
reauthorization where sound solid waste plans--including
reduction, recycling, and composting--and enforcement of
those plans, can be adopted.
Furthermore, flow control could potentially lock waste
generators and communities into using unnecessary or unsafe
disposal facilities. Local governments are not required to
ensure that a facility treat waste in th4e safest possible
manner. Thus a generator might be liable simply by complying
with a municipalities' flow control requirements should the
waste facility ultimately be listed under Superfund. Waste
generators should demand that flow control not be enacted or
even considered until the best waste management system is
established under RCRA.
The Richardson-Fields amendment would ``grandfather''
current flow control arrangements established prior to May
15, 1994, yet require new facilities to be built based on
competition. This ``grandfather'' provision would prevent the
disruption of existing municipal financing arrangements.
Additionally, the Richardson-Fields grandfather has been
broadened further to include those existing facilities that
have not completed the schedule of payments for capital
costs, or those in which the useful life of the original
facility had not expired, whichever is longest.
The ramifications of enacting flow control legislation are
great. We urge you to vote for the Richardson-Fields
amendment which would provide a reasonable compromise to
full-scale flow control. Sound solid waste management should
not bring waste facilities on-line hastily, or when they are
not the safest option.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
A. Blakeman Early,
Washington Director,
Environmental Quality Program.
____
Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC, September 20, 1994.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: In May of this year, the Supreme
Court ruled that local flow control laws are unconstitutional
impositions on interstate commerce. Now, some in Congress
hope to reverse this decision and provide specific
Congressional authorization for those laws. We, the
undersigned, believe that this would be a terrible mistake
and urge you to oppose any such efforts.
Flow control is the practice whereby local governments
require all waste within their jurisdiction be processed at
designated facilities, often at overpriced, inefficient
incinerators. In this manner, flow control confers a portion
of the solid waste management market to politically-preferred
constituencies at the expense of consumers. It is this type
of arrangement that the Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional.
Reauthorizing the use of flow control would be a step
backward in the handling of municipal solid waste. Rather
than encourage expanded markets in solid waste management
that would encourage greater efficiencies and innovation,
flow control would establish protected government monopolies
that have no incentive to increase the quality of their
services. Waste management prices would be set by political
forces, without regard for market pressures. Public sector
facilities would not have to compete for any of their
business. There is little doubt that under this scenario,
consumers of waste management services would pay more as they
would be deprived of the option to take their business
elsewhere when prices get too high.
Equally important, Congressional authorization of flow
control could inhibit the development of alternative waste
management options, including market-driven recycling
efforts. Flow control laws unnecessarily inhibit the ability
of recyclers and other ecological entrepreneurs to compete in
the marketplace. While our organizations have different
perspectives on waste management, we agree that if recycling
efforts are to succeed, they need to establish a firm
foothold in the marketplace. Flow control represents a
political barrier to this development.
We, the undersigned, represent no single ideological or
economic interest. Rarely are we united on a single issue. In
this instance, however, we are working together to oppose the
folly of flow control. Flow control laws unnecessarily limit
competition within the waste management industry, increase
costs for local consumers, and discourage environmental
innovation. They are not in the interest of the American
people.
Sincerely,
Fred L. Smith, Jr., President, Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Washington, DC.
Larry Shapiro, Senior Attorney, New York Public Interest
Research Group, Inc., New York, NY.
Michael Sanera, President, Arizona Institute for Public
Policy Research, Phoenix, AZ.
Neal Fitzpatrick, Conservation Director, Audubon Naturalist
Society, Chevy Chase, MD.
Daniel Jerrems, Coordinator, Baltimore Recycling Coalition,
Baltimore, MD.
Paul Beckner, President, Citizens for a Sound Economy,
Washington, DC.
Paul Schwartz, Assistant to the Director, Clean Water
Action, Washington, DC.
David Ridenour, Vice President, National Center for Public
Policy Research, Washington, DC.
David Keating, Executive Director, National Taxpayers
Union, Washington, DC.
Richard Stroup, Senior Associate, PERC. Bozeman, MT.
Betsy Ensminger, Founding Member, Pittsburgh Against Toxic
Incineration, Pittsburgh, PA.
Robert Poole, President, The Reason Foundation, Los
Angeles, CA.
Joseph Stouffer, Legislative Director, Sierra Club--
Atlantic Chapter, Albany, NY.
Paul and Ellen Connett, Co-Editors, Waste-NOT, Canton, NY.
Laurence Cohen, Executive Director, The Yankee Institute
for Public Policy Studies, Glastonbury, CT.
Frances Smith, Executive Director, Consumer Alert Advocate,
Arlington, VA.
Lee Wasserman, Executive Director, Environmental Planning
Lobby, Albany, NY.
Madelyn Hoffman, Director, Grassroots Environmental
Organization of New Jersey, Flanders, NJ.
Joseph Bast, President, The Heartland Institute, Palatine,
IL.
Bridget Barclay, Environmental Director, Hudson River Sloop
Clearwater, Poughkeepsie, NY.
Thomas Hession, President, Indian Policy Review Foundation,
Indianapolis, IN.
William H. Mellor III, President and General Counsel,
Institute for Justice, Washington, DC.
Neil Seldman, President, Institute for Local Self Reliance,
Washington, DC.
Marc Rotterman, President, The John Locke Foundation,
Raleigh, NC.
{time} 1810
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the Richardson substitute is really
unfair. The Richardson alternative would freeze out communities that
have spent significant resources to build facilities. The Richardson
substitute would bar using flow control in the future to finance new
facilities, retrofits, or expansions necessary to meet current needs or
new environmental requirements.
A community that has spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars
to finance its facility would be frozen out under the amendment.
Richardson pretends to grandfather communities that have invested in
good faith reliance on flow control authority, but only under very
rigid and limited circumstances.
The committee bill, on the other hand, will not now nor will it ever
provide unfettered flow control authority. It simply recognizes the
equity of allowing counties that have made significant financial
investments in integrated waste systems to go ahead with their plans
where those plans have been relying on flow control.
The committee-passed legislation neither encourages nor discourages a
particular method of disposal, and I think that is very important to
emphasize. We are not discouraging or encouraging any particular method
of disposal: incineration, landfill, whatever.
For example, in my home State, we have an integrated system that
consists of 12 modern lined countywide landfills, 14 major transfer
stations, and 5 regional incinerators. I view flow control as
prorecycling and procomposting.
In my home county, which is called Monmouth County, we have an
aggressive recycling program in place which has achieved a 42 percent
total waste stream and a 44 percent municipal waste stream recycling
rate. Through county planning and with the use of flow control
authority, Monmouth County is well on its way toward meeting the
statutory 60 percent total and 50 percent municipal stream recycling
goals by the end of 1995. We would not be able to achieve this without
flow control authority.
Mr. Chairman, some have argued that flow control authority merely
fuels incinerators, and I think this is very misleading. Flow control
allows the local governments to move forward and implement better
technologies, environmental technologies. The real environmental danger
comes from the reduced recycling and haphazard disposal of trash that
will occur without strong flow control authority from municipalities.
Recycling and composting facilities are very costly initiatives,
often requiring designating authority and subsidies to make them
viable. What responsible local government could finance or construct a
recycling or composting facility without flow control authority.
The financial community testified, Mr. Chairman, before the
subcommittee in the Committee on Energy and Commerce and warned that
recycling and composting facilities would not likely be financed
without the option of flow control. Should a county like Monmouth
County, my own county, want to build a composting or recycling
facility, they would have no choice without flow control but to raise
taxes. They would have no other alternative.
Mr. Chairman, I personally am concerned as an environmentalist that
we may face a major step backward in environmental protection as the
short-term economic gains of artificially cheap disposal prevail over
more comprehensive long-term strategies to reduce the amount of waste
we produce through resource reduction, reuse, and recycling. Make no
mistake that the environmental vote is no on the Richardson amendment.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Richardson-Fields amendment.
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] for his eloquent
statement and explanation of our amendment just a moment ago.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Richardson-Fields
amendment.
Since the recent Supreme Court Carbone decision, the local
governments' push for legislative relief has intensified. After many
negotiations and significant alterations to our bill, I am proud to be
a sponsor with my friend, Mr. Richardson, of an amendment to be offered
as a substitute to the bill today. Our amendment will protect those
facilities financially dependent on flow control but would rely on the
free market and open competition in the future.
Our amendment addresses the core problem by providing the needed
relief to the local government which are currently operating under flow
control ordinances until such time as their contract expires or the
current schedule of payments for the facility is paid off, whichever is
longer. This amendment actually goes beyond our original bill by
including facilities not yet constructed if they meet certain
requirements such as having obtained required construction permits, the
completion of contracts for construction or the presentation for sale
of revenue bonds for financing the construction of the facility.
As a proponent of the free market, I believe our approach is the only
one which would protect taxpayers, businesses, and the environment.
Unlimited flow control authority which gives local governments a
monopoly power would disrupt open competition and could raise prices
for waste collection and disposal. As we all know, the market for waste
is a large and extremely competitive one. Having no evidence that the
private sector cannot effectively and maybe more efficiently control
the movement of municipal solid waste, there is no need for Congress to
grant this monopoly power to the local governments.
You all should have received a copy of a letter from the National
Federation of Independent Businesses stating their opposition to
virtually any flow control ordinance. The National Association of
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Builders
and Contractors are just a few of the others who strongly oppose flow
control.
They are concerned that small and large businessowners who want the
ability to contract for the best possible price for their solid waste
collection will not be able to do so under eternal flow control
arrangements. They also feel that all waste companies should be allowed
to compete fairly for waste collection contracts.
Let's address the real problem today and grandfather those facilities
which would be affected immediately by the Supreme Court decision and
leave the future in the hands of a competitive marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Richardson-Fields
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
The environmental vote is aye, and the pro-business vote is aye.
1820
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in the arguments in favor of the
Richardson substitute. I feel they are fallacious. To say that the
environmentally favorable position is aye on this amendment really
defies analysis. What we see happening around this country is that
hundreds of local communities are attempting to do the right thing
environmentally. They are being hamstrung by the Carbone decision. They
are being hamstrung by the delay in Congress in responding to that
decision. The responsible thing is to let local governments get on with
the environmentally sound work that they have started. In my State, we
have dozens of local communities that are trying to work together to do
the right thing with local enterprise.
The other aspect of this which I find very interesting is that if we
can, we should allow local units of government to solve these problems
in their own communities rather than trying to micromanage things from
Washington, DC or forcing local units of government to have one hand
tied behind their back as they deal with a very difficult problem.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that those of us here in Congress on both sides
of the aisle recognize the importance of maximum local autonomy to
respond as is appropriate to local problems. I feel that the
responsible vote on this amendment is no if we are thinking about how
we relate to our local units of government and those officials. What we
should do is encourage this debate to occur in our local communities.
Let them thrash out the problem. Local businesses can come in, present
their arguments, and they can work out an accommodation that makes
sense at the county level.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge that all in this Chamber vote against
the Richardson substitute.
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered to the
committee-passed bill.
Mr. Chairman, proponents of Richardson argue that flow control is
environmentally unsound, and anticompetitive. It is pure and simple one
waste management company and the Sierra Club.
Each of these charges is specious. The committee bill, which this
amendment seeks to strike, has language to compel the use of
competitive bidding, solid waste management planning, and a time
certain when commercial flow control authority ends. This is not the
open-ended granting of broad authority that the proponents of
Richardson would have you believe it is. The committee bill balances
the needs of both sides of the debate, Richardson does not.
Forty-three States allow the use of flow control authority, most as a
base for environmentally sound solid waste management laws. Richardson
would effectively make compliance with many of those laws impossible
because the laws were based on flow control authority.
Under the Richardson language, scores of communities who have made
substantial financial commitments could be left without the means to
accomplish waste management goals required by State law.
Proponents of Richardson argue that flow control leads to
incineration and supporting this amendment will result in a reduction
in exposure to dioxin. This argument ignores that incineration is
strictly regulated by EPA and a choice a community should make.
Finally, to say the committee bill eliminates competition in the
marketplace is wrong. I am a strong advocate of competition and worked
to insure that any flow control legislation include a requirement that
competitive bidding be a part of any new designation. This competitive
bidding process increases not decreases private sector involvement.
The arguments supporting this amendment were weak and unsound when it
was handily defeated in the full Energy and Commerce Committee and they
are weak and unsound today. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Ms. LAMBERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Richardson Amendment. I believe that this amendment, while providing
limited relief to our local communities, still leaves many communities,
who have relied in good faith on flow control, out in the cold.
The Richardson approach would not help communities that are in the
process of implementing flow control nor would it help communities that
have comprehensive waste management plans in place. In both of these
situations, communities have devoted much time and money.
Mr. Chairman, flow control will not create new monopolies with the
localities. First, H.R. 4683 would provide for a competitive bid
process for future flow control authority; second, it does not expand
on existing flow control authority.
Mr. Chairman, some would say that H.R. 4683 is bad for small business
and bad for the environment. I disagree.
Under this bill, small waste haulers will be able to compete on an
equal level with the large vertically integrated waste management
companies. Since these large waste management companies own their own
landfills in addition to hauling waste, their tipping fees at the
landfill can partially subsidize the costs associated with their
hauling expenses. However, where the local governments own the waste
disposal facility, the most competitive and price effective waste
hauler will win the hauling contract, regardless of the size of the
business. For this very reason, these small mom and pop trash haulers
have survived and flourished in flow control jurisdictions.
This bill is also environmentally friendly. Under many flow control
jurisdictions, local governments have installed new environmentally
sound methods of waste disposal. Many localities have built and
financed recycling and composting facilities and have organized
curbside recycling and household hazardous waste pickups. None of these
jurisdictions would have been able to invest in such facilities were it
not for flow control. Without flow control, the locals would be unable
to secure an adequate waste stream to pay off the debt secured by
revenue bonds.
Additionally, recyclers are in strong support of H.R. 4683.
Supporters of this bill include the American Forest and Paper
Association, Weyerhaeuser, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries. Many of my colleagues know that I am a strong proponent of
recycling. I am pleased to say that the bill before the House protects
municipal, as well as commercial, recycling of paper, glass, plastic,
metals, textiles, and rubber. Recyclables voluntarily provided to
governmental entities are unaffected by H.R. 4683. This bill does not
subject to flow control those recyclables which have been collected and
processed by commercial entities and which have not been voluntarily
relinquished to government programs. Thus, this bill preserves the
commercial market for recyclables.
In closing, flow control will not create new monopolies with the
localities. First of all, H.R. 4683 would provide for a competitive bid
process for future flow control authority and, second of all, it does
not expand upon existing flow control authority.
H.R. 4683 is responsible legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the Richardson amendment that would weaken this bill.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Richardson-
Fields amendment. This substitute offers us a responsible compromise to
the troubling issue of flow control. Ultimately, flow control is about
a choice between inefficient government monopolies and a competitive
free enterprise system. The Supreme Court has already chosen in favor
of free enterprise. It has already ruled that local governments should
not be able to have a monopoly on the flow of waste.
My preference would be to allow the court decision to stand. Congress
does not need to provide broad new authorities to overturn the Court's
ruling. Let the free market do the job.
I do realize that some local communities will suffer if Congress does
not take some sort of action. If Congress must act, it should be in a
very limited way to assist these communities and leave the core of the
Carbone decision intact. This is what the Richardson-Fields amendment
would accomplish. It would protect those communities currently involved
in flow control, and it would protect free enterprise in the future.
If we must act, let us act responsibly. The Richardson-Fields
amendment will accomplish this outcome. The bill before us right now
will not.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my good friends from New Mexico
and Texas in support of their amendment to grandfather existing flow
control programs.
Flow control is a legal regimen that some communities have adopted to
underwrite expensive waste projects. It was adopted because these
communities found that they could not raise the necessary capital to
pay for high priced incinerators and landfills without somehow assuring
that the flow of waste would be large enough to provide the revenues to
pay for that capital.
When the Supreme Court's Carbone decision struck down flow control,
it left many communities that had made such commitments with stranded
investments. Some cities and counties had invested tens of millions of
dollars in landfills, incinerators, and waste-to-energy plants.
With flow control suddenly gone, how are they to pay back the loans
or service the bonds that were issued to pay for these facilities?
The Richardson-Fields amendment resolves this problem by simply
allowing communities that had made such financial commitments to retain
flow control authority long enough to honor these obligations.
It is not the ``Hands off Carbone'' policy some of the waste
companies and environmental groups wanted. It is not the complete,
unlimited grant of flow control authority that some communities want.
Like the interstate waste bill we passed overwhelmingly yesterday, it
is legislation that gives no party all that it wants but, most
importantly, it is fair to all parties.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take 5 minutes because
much of what I have to say has been said in one form or another.
However, I did not want the opportunity to go by without responding to
something that was said about New Jersey, and also to reinforce the
belief of I think most of this House that this committee has done a
good job really in bringing out a balanced piece of legislation
addressing a very difficult but important issue. I congratulate the
gentleman from Washington State and the gentleman from Ohio for their
work.
{time} 1830
I rise in support of the committee bill and in opposition to the
Richardson-Fields amendment.
If a Member wants to be a mayor of a community, they ought to go back
and run for mayor. They have enough problems trying to deal with waste
management and they have done a good job.
I invite my colleagues to come to New Jersey and see what New Jersey
is doing to recycle its waste. It is one of the most densely populated
States in the Union, a lot of miles of coastline. Much of my industry
is tourist oriented, and we have a major problem trying to manage
waste. We have made major investments in facilities to recycle. We are
aggressive recyclers. We are ahead of the curve. We are doing a good
job in New Jersey like in many parts of the country.
We cannot invest millions and millions of dollars, as we have done,
in major facilities without having some ability to control the flow of
wastes. That is what these municipalities have done, they have invested
tens of millions of dollars in an effort to provide good waste
management.
Those who suggest that the environmental vote is a vote in favor of
Richardson really have not looked at what is happening in waste
management, because the committee bill basically does encourage, it
grandfathers those that presently are managing wastes through flow
control. It also encourages those who are trying to grapple with the
problems to invest in facilities that will do just that, to recycle, to
develop better waste management programs, and that is why the committee
bill is the right bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it and
salute the committee for their outstanding work.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Richardson-Fields
amendment.
In very practical language, in my district in Illinois there is a
real practical problem, a practical problem that some cities have
pulled together in cooperative entities to try to solve the waste
problems, and some of them, 50 some communities have been tied into a
consideration that has spent a lot of money and used taxpayers' money.
All of a sudden these cities now cannot get out of that amalgamation
because of this waste flow legislation. They cannot get out and they
cannot invest in better ways and the new technologies in the
environmentally sound ways, and quite frankly, they cannot get out to
save their taxpayers money.
The Richardson-Fields amendment holds harmless those people who are
already doing it but prospectively allows us to start to plan for
cities to be able to find better opportunities not being tied into the
old corporate schemes that are out there. I think it is a good
amendment. It deserves the support of this body and I ask for positive
support.
Mr. Chairman, it is premature and irresponsible for Congress to pass
this bill at this time. Congress should wait, and not enact any flow
control legislation, until we have had time to determine the impact of
the Carbone decision pertaining to currently operating waste management
facilities. Furthermore, I do not believe any case can be made for
granting prospective relief from Carbone.
As currently crated, H.R. 4683 would enable local governments to
control where wastes brought into a community, or generated within a
community, will be disposed of. Such authority could remove many
existing waste facilities from the competitive marketplace, a
marketplace which in many instances would save taxpayers money.
Additionally, this flow control legislation would eliminate incentives
to control costs, provide quality services, and maintain efficient
facilities. In short, this legislation creates a government monopoly
that would stifle competition and deny the public the benefits of a
free market system. To be sure, Congress should not be in the business
of creating these government monopolies.
In conclusion, I believe that the free market is capable of
responsibly and efficiently managing our waste facilities. Accordingly,
I am opposed to enacting any flow control legislation during this
Congress. I urge my colleagues to act responsibly and defeat this ill-
timed piece of legislation.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I too rise in opposition to the Richardson-Fields
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4683 very wisely grandfathers integrated systems
including a full range of services such as recycling, composting, and
energy to waste. H.R. 4683 enables communities that use flow control to
continue advancing and creating better and more sophisticated means of
disposal.
The Richardson-Fields amendment, on the other hand, grandfathers
facilities only, and once a facility runs its useful life, flow control
authority is over as well, no grandfathering of retrofits, expansions,
redesignations, or modifications. If a landfill becomes full, tough
luck, no more flow control. If a burner is too small for increased
waste, too bad.
Mr. Chairman, the Richardson amendment will freeze out hundreds of
local governments across the Nation, including many counties in my
State of New Jersey that have taken meaningful actions toward flow
controlling their waste management facilities but have not yet
completed such actions.
I think the committee has, again, very wisely, crafted a bipartisan
bill, a bill I think that is environmentally sound, and I think that
the Richardson amendment ought to be rejected and this consensus bill
accepted by the House.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I just want to expand on this issue as I rise in opposition to
the Richardson-Fields amendment, and I rise based on the experience I
had in local government for 8 years and the State legislature for 11
years. As county commissioner I served as chairman of the Board of
Public Works and had a great deal of responsibility with solid waste
disposal and became intimately familiar with solid waste problems and
handling these problems at the local level. In the State Senate I
chaired the Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee and
was involved in developing a State-county planning mechanism which was
very effective in resolving some of the issues we are talking about
here.
I believe it is very important to pass the original bill and to
reject the Richardson-Fields amendment because States and counties have
in many cases worked out systems of modified flow control which I
believe are legitimate, should be constitutional, and will work.
I believe in competition, as the sponsors of the amendment do. But I
have found that in the area of solid waste we generally do not have
true competition. First of all, in this era of super-large landfills
and limited numbers of landfills, we often have a monopoly situation,
and that does not lend itself to competition. Frequently it is
necessary to institute flow control in order to obtain competition.
Furthermore, we have to recognize that the true costs of landfills
are not always apparent. As an example, we are spending billions of
dollars through Superfund to clean up landfills, and including the true
costs the of those landfills make waste reduction facilities,
incinerators, and other facilities look far more competitive. We still
have that problem today. We must introduce some other methods to assure
true competition.
with flow control we can still have industry competition, as we do in
Michigan, by having the State and the county have limited flow control,
but then having the projects bid out to the private sector. That I
think is probably the best way of ensuring competition in a
semimonopolistic situation.
I am well aware of the environmental community's concerns with
incinerators, but I have investigated that thoroughly, and I am
convinced that the use of incinerators with good air-pollution
controls, along with aggressive recycling programs, is better than the
use of landfills, which are often the only alternative.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to reject the Richardson-Fields
amendment and pass the bill as originally submitted.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind Members that this committee was
the first committee the Congress formed after 1787. It did so because
of the squabbles between the States and reaffirmed that we regulate
interstate commerce.
We need a bill, but I think we need a bill as moderate as we can get.
We need to act very cautiously in a very limited manner when addressing
this issue which we knew arose as a result of the Supreme Court
decision.
Our colleagues, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] and
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], have an amendment that addresses
a genuine problem: to grandfather existing facilities in communities
that had invested in flow control laws. This legislation, with some
very minor fine tuning, should be all that is needed.
While I have the greatest respect and have enjoyed working with the
chairman of the subcommittee for the 14 years I have been privileged to
serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I have enjoyed
working with the gentleman from Ohio, and as much as I respect him, I
think on this issue that they are wrong, that the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] have
the better argument.
{time} 1840
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the Richardson-Fields amendment.
Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to note that I believe both H.R.
4683 and the Richardson-Fields approach represent responsible
compromises and that I would vote for either approach upon final
passage.
I have discussed these approaches with community leaders in my
district. At this time and based on these discussions, however, I
prefer the approach in H.R. 4683.
The approach in H.R. 4683, in effect, grandfathers flow control
systems and, thus, allows for redesignation. The Richardson-Fields
substitute authorizes flow control for only the initial facility, which
may make it difficult for communities to provide for integrated waste
management that may include transfer facilities, and different types of
disposal facilities that may change over time.
I also do not believe that H.R. 4683 is a blank check to local
governments. H.R. 4683 only allows for flow control of commercial waste
under reasonable indicia of a commitment to designate a facility within
a specified period of time. Moreover, the bill contains a competitive
designation process that ensues some competition for operating the
facility. Flow control in such situations, in effect, allows a
community to bargain for the most cost-effective and environmentally
sound waste management system for the whole community and assured
financial stability for that system. This is a traditional function of
local government.
I am not saying that flow control is the best option in any given
community. I do, however, believe that legislation should not limit
existing operations or facilities late in the planning process. I am
more confident that H.R. 4683 will not disrupt these local communities,
than I am with the Richardson-Fields substitute.
Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Richardson-
Fields amendment.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I had brilliant remarks in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, but in an act of
heroic restraint, I will not give them at this time.
While I recognize that the gentleman from New Mexico has made a
number of improvements to his amendment, and commend him for making
these changes, I cannot support it for the following reasons:
First, the amendment contains only a narrow grandfather, limited to
facilities. To me, this does not adequately address the issue of the
integrated waste management systems which we have been urging States
and local governments to adopt.
Second, the grandfathered flow control authority sunsets at the end
of the life of contracts for delivery of waste to the facility, or the
completion of the schedule of repayments for the facility, whichever is
longer.
This sunset ensures that, while the local government will probably be
able to pay off its financial commitment regarding the facility, it
will never be able to use the facility to generate revenue. In effect,
the use of the facility beyond the sunset date will be taken away.
Third, while the amendment makes some provision for local governments
that need to redesignate facilities to account for a facility's
closing, the grant of authority to make such redesignations is too
restrictive.
Fourth, the same is true of the amendment's language regarding
facilities in the pipeline, but not up and running, as of the date of
the Carbone decision.
The Richardson amendment calls for an end to flow control in the near
future. Before we take that step, we should consider a few factors:
Local governments have traditionally had the responsibility for waste
management. They need to have the full range of available tools in
order to best fulfill this responsibility.
Flow control is a useful solid waste management tool, especially for
local governments that wish to develop integrated waste management
systems.
Perhaps the alternative to providing local governments with the waste
management tools they need is to take the responsibility for waste
management from them and give it to another entity, such as the Federal
Government.
Another option would be to regulate the waste disposal industry as a
public utility.
The private sector will not always provide every service a community
desires, especially when some of these services are not profitable.
Examples of such services are household hazardous waste and scrap tire
collection.
Local governments can use flow control to subsidize these
unprofitable, but desirable, services.
The private sector is often the beneficiary of flow control--it
provides them with long-term waste supplies at a guaranteed price.
Besides, several of the larger members of the industry do not seem to
be unduly suffering under the current system.
The escalating construction and operation costs for waste management
facilities such as landfills, and the increasing reliance on regional
facilities, automatically lead to more private sector involvement--it
seems unlikely to me that many local governments will be building large
subtitle D landfills in the coming years. They might wish, however, to
contract with a private landfill operator, in which case they will
probably need to guarantee a reliable waste stream for that privately
owned or operated facility. Flow control is an excellent way to do
this.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of the Richardson-
Fields flow control grandfather legislation, I rise in strong support
of the Richardson-Fields amendment. Minnesota--like 28 other States--is
a flow control State. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled State flow
control laws unconstitutional, local governments in my State were
thrown into turmoil.
In my home State, county officials developed an integrated waste
management system premised upon waste flow control laws. They build
incinerators or composting facilities with a mandate for a steady
stream of waste to finance them. Yet, as a result of the Carbone
decision, these county commissioners have been faced with the unsavory
options of having to cut vital programs or raising residential taxes.
Over the past 2 years, I have worked closely with Minnesota officials
and representatives from the various parties interested in the flow
control debate. I've worked hard to identify a compromise to address
the arguments being made on all sides of this issue.
That compromise is embodied in the Richardson-Fields amendment. This
language protects existing investments made under flow control before
it was struck down, but does not expand the practice to the remainder
of the country. It is a pure grandfather--affecting only those
facilities teetering out on a limb--and sunsetting when the facility
debt is paid off or a flow control contract expires.
Richardson-Fields fixes only what is broken, and does not interfere
with the free-market in situations where flow control did not exist.
That is why Richardson-Fields has gained the broadest base of support,
including environmental groups, business groups, taxpayer, and consumer
groups.
The Richardson-Fields amendment is the true compromise here today. I
urge my colleagues to adopt the Richardson-Fields amendment as a
solution for those governments which are in a bind as a result of the
Carbone decision, and as a means of averting efforts to expand flow
control.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on an issue that
has affected municipalities in my district and districts all over the
country, flow control of municipal waste.
Ever since a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down local
laws that control the flow and disposal of trash, municipalities, large
and small, have been in conflict in an effort to best serve the needs
of their taxpayers.
In my district, flow control was locally enacted several years ago,
in order to ensure that incinerators owned and operated by the town
governments received a constant and steady supply of garbage. The
Supreme Court, however, has ruled that State and local governments
cannot use their regulatory power to favor their own incinerators.
These incinerators were built by the towns in order to dispose of the
waste created there, when the town governments felt they were under an
obligation to do so. Smaller municipalities now wish to find more cost
effective places to dispose of their waste, to benefit their taxpayers.
If the town incinerators go unused, however, it is these same taxpaying
citizens who are the real losers.
For these reasons, I rise in support of H.R. 4683, the Municipal
Solid Waste Flow Control Act of 1994. This legislation would
grandfather existing flow control contracts, which provide authority to
local governments to designate facilities where municipal solid waste
must be disposed of. Additionally, it would allow States and local
governments to exercise flow control authority for either household
waste or recyclable materials if it: First, establishes a program
providing for separation or recyclable materials from other waste, for
recycling, reclamation and reuse; and second, makes a finding, on the
basis of one or more public hearings, that the use of flow control is
necessary to meet current or anticipated solid waste management needs.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the flow control
substitute offered by the gentleman from New Mexico.
Despite the attention given to many environmental issues, flow
control is relatively esoteric and commands few headlines. Yet it could
effect the pocketbooks of ratepayers and businesses throughout the
United States.
We are voting today to decide what local governments can do to
determine where people must send their trash. For most, this is not
much of a constraint, residents put their trash at curbside and are
happy to be rid of it. For businesses, commercial and industrial, waste
disposal is more complicated, and certainly the cost of waste disposal
is an important concern to a business' viability.
With flow control, many local governments will be able to plan
knowing that they can capture all the ordinary garbage, residential and
commercial, that is generated. The effect of this may not be so
sanguine. Many governments have overbuilt for disposal, and need flow
control precisely because their facilities are much more expensive than
other options.
In particular, flow control supports incinerators, which are often
more expensive than alternatives. I have been urging my own city, New
York, to invest as much in recycling as they have in new incinerators.
Ironically, recycling capacity could easily dwarf the capacity of the
pending incinerator proposals, and it does not lock the city into an
expensive technology for 20 years.
I am glad to see that flow control can also be used to support
recycling programs, but I am not convinced that flow control is
necessary to make recycling work. Most residents will surrender their
trash happily. Many businesses will seek a part in recycling because
that is seen as ``the right thing to do.'' But flow control casts too
broad a net, and supports foolish decisions as well as wise ones.
I am especially troubled by how this might affect businesses under
Superfund. A local government would have the authority to tell a
business where to send its trash. But if that site is not as well-
managed or as well-designed as hoped, it could become, or contribute
to, a superfund site. Businesses could have superfund liability where
they had no choice. I support making the polluter pay, but this does
not strike me as fair.
It is not that I do not acknowledge the merits to some of the
arguments the other side will make. People hold local governments
responsible for handling trash, and Congress has certainly encouraged
planning at local and State levels. But we do not need the broad flow
control in the current bill.
We do need to do something limited in this area to protect a few
communities who have already issued bonds and built facilities under
the assumption that they could use flow control, but we do not need to
encourage this inefficient behavior.
I support the much more limited option in the amendment of my good
friend from New Mexico. I urge my colleagues to support this
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161,
noes 244, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 452]
AYES--161
Allard
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Bryant
Bunning
Byrne
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Chapman
Conyers
Coppersmith
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
English
Eshoo
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fowler
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Geren
Gilchrest
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Grams
Grandy
Green
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Harman
Hastert
Hefley
Hoekstra
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kyl
LaFalce
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McHale
McInnis
Mfume
Michel
Mineta
Moorhead
Morella
Nadler
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Parker
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickle
Pombo
Porter
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Reed
Richardson
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sanders
Sarpalius
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shepherd
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stenholm
Stump
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tejeda
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vucanovich
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOES--244
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Costello
Coyne
Danner
Darden
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Dornan
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Ehlers
Emerson
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hughes
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Knollenberg
Kreidler
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lazio
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McDermott
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Olver
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Regula
Reynolds
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Rush
Sabo
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sawyer
Saxton
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swift
Synar
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--34
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Calvert
Clyburn
Engel
Faleomavaega (AS)
Fields (LA)
Fish
Ford (MI)
Gallo
Hayes
Hoyer
Hutto
Inhofe
King
Laughlin
Lloyd
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McNulty
Murtha
Owens
Quillen
Ridge
Slattery
Stark
Stokes
Sundquist
Thompson
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Wheat
Yates
{time} 1903
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Calvert for, with Mr. Andrews of New Jersey against.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Messrs. VENTO, JACOBS, FARR of California,
MILLER of California, and MYERS of Indiana changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BOEHNER, Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona, Messrs. LEACH, JEFFERSON, and
WILSON, Ms. NORTON, and Messrs. McCOLLUM, DOOLITTLE, POMBO, and
CUNNINGHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4683,
flow control legislation brought to the House floor by the Energy and
Commerce Committee. This bill will ensure that States, like New Jersey,
which have made flow control an important part of their solid waste
management plans have the necessary authority to do so.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's Carbone ruling this past May,
which held that local governments do not have the legal right to enact
flow control ordinances absent Congressional authorization, has cast
into doubt a local government's right to adopt flow control policies.
Prompt passage and enactment of this legislation, prior to our final
adjournment, must be a very high priority for the bipartisan leadership
of the 103d Congress and President Clinton.
Earlier this week, I received a letter from the State Department of
Environmental Protection's [DEP] Commissioner, Robert Shinn, outlining
why New Jersey prefers H.R. 4683, as reported by the Energy and
Commerce Committee, to the Richardson-Fields alternative.
Having said that, the State has made it clear to the New Jersey
delegation that it would still like to see some improvements to H.R.
4683 with respect to its provision that a State's Governor
affirmatively certify compliance with the so-called competitive
designation provision. I hope that when the conference committee meets
to craft a final version of flow control legislation that the concerns
of New Jersey can be addressed. If so, I would welcome the chance to
support final passage and enactment of that bill as well.
In the meantime, I urge all of my colleagues in the House join me in
supporting House passage of the Energy and Commerce Committee version
of H.R. 4683 this afternoon.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of informing the membership that there has been agreement on
both sides that the vote we just had will be the last vote of the
evening. We will seek a voice vote on final passage, or, should we be
surprised, we will roll that vote until tomorrow so the membership can
plan the rest of its evening.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I originally planned to offer an amendment, but I will
not, Mr. Chairman, because of my respect for the chairman of the
subcommittee with whom I have had the privilege to work with for the
last 14 years, and this may be the last vote on the last bill that he
controls the time on the floor, and certainly it is one of the last.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a privilege to work with the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Swift]. He has always been patient and understanding,
particularly when I first came in as a young man, ready to change the
world, and he tried to change me, sometimes successfully, and sometimes
unsuccessfully. But on this matter of flow control I think that the
term ``significant finance commitment'' is unnecessarily broad, and I
would hope that he and the ranking member, as they go to conference
with the other body, will look at this with a view, possibly, to see if
it might be tightened up.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley] for suggesting that he was such a young man and that this old
man helped him, but I would remind the gentleman that his hair was gray
before mine was.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, that is from serving in local government.
One gets that way in a hurry.
Mr. SWIFT. Of course I would be very happy to work with the gentleman
from Virginia on his areas of concern to see if there is some
accommodation that can be reached.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the section in the bill that
Mr. Bliley would have amended is designed to provide authority to those
communities that, pursuant to State law, have made significant
financial commitment to develop waste management facilities for which a
designation has not yet been made. These communities have spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars in reliance on the right to flow
control to determine sound municipal waste management options, but they
have not yet secured financing for a particular waste facility.
The Bliley amendment now withdrawn would make it exceedingly
difficult for those communities to carry through on their obligations
and realize their investments.
More important, the Bliley amendment would subject communities to
significant lawsuits brought by the waste management industry over what
is and what is not ``significant substantial investment'',
``detrimental reliance'' and ``substantial loss''. It would be
inherently unfair to local communities to second guess what is or is
not a significant financial investment.
H.R. 4683 Mr. Chairman, as reported by committee is designed in part
to end litigation that has saddled and burdened local community
resources. The bill is designed to enable communities to effectively
and efficiently manage municipal solid management without the threat of
litigation.
Municipal solid waste management is a critical role of local
communities today and the communities must be provided tools to do it
effectively without the threat of litigation.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Are there further
amendments to this bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Roemer) having assumed the chair, Mr. Montgomery, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4683)
to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide congressional
authorization of State control over transportation of municipal solid
waste, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 552, 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.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________