[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.

                          ____________________