[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT OF 1994

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 537, S. 2345, 
the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1994; 
that the bill be read three times, passed and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto appear in 
the Record at the appropriate place as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 
2345, the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 
1994.
  Over the years, my position on interstate garbage restrictions has 
remained the same. My State has a policy of solid waste self-
sufficiency by the end of the decade. Just over the last few years, New 
Jersey has reduced exports of municipal solid waste by over 50 percent, 
from 1988 levels.
  New Jersey has been able to make these reductions by increasing its 
recycling efforts and by building additional instate solid waste 
capacity.
  New Jersey has shown that it will continue to move to implement its 
commitment to self-sufficiency. What New Jersey wants to assure that it 
will be able to export reduced levels of garbage while it moves towards 
self-sufficiency.
  I have asked the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection to review S. 2345. The commissioner has told 
me that New Jersey will be able to implement its self-sufficiency 
policy under this bill.
  So I will not object to consideration of S. 2345.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for 
this measure which would permit a State's Governor to restrict the 
disposal of out-of-State municipal solid waste in any landfill or 
incinerator in his or her jurisdiction with certain limited exceptions. 
My colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, deserves tremendous credit 
for keeping this issue before the public and the Congress in response 
to an urgent national problem.
  I would also offer my congratulations and support to the chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Baucus, for his 
efforts to being this legislation to the floor.
  State and local governments must be able to ensure that their people 
will have safe and reliable disposal facilities. Not only is this 
important for the management of municipal waste, but is essential for 
the protection of limited and precious groundwater resources. This need 
for protection is of special concern to the people of the West, who are 
often targeted for disposal of solid waste from more populous and 
geographically restricted States. I reiterate my support for this bill, 
and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN Mr. President, it is only with great reluctance that I 
can bring myself to let this measure come to a vote. Many States have 
attempted to restrict imports of waste. In fact, at least 37 States 
have enacted laws that restrict or otherwise treat out-of-State wastes 
differently than wastes generated within the State. However, when these 
have been subject to constitutional challenge, the courts have upheld 
such challenges on the ground that the restriction of interstate 
commerce, without specific approval by Congress, violates the 
Constitution's Commerce clause.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear that only the 
Congress has the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and 
among the several States, and with Indian Tribes. In its wisdom, 
Congress has not seen fit to allow States to regulate the interstate 
transport of waste. I would prefer it not do so now, but the fact is 
that the House has passed a bill to do so by an overwhelming margin, 
368 to 55, and the Senate has passed similar bills in the past two 
Congresses by like majorities, and seems inclined to do so in this 
Congress.
  The House bill is a draconian measure, extremely harmful to New York. 
It does not sufficiently protect existing waste disposal contracts. I 
am unalterably opposed to this bill and will do whatever is necessary 
to ensure it does not become law.
  The Senate bill [S. 2345] is certainly not helpful to New York, but 
neither is it punitive as is the House bill. And so may able colleague, 
Senate D'Amato, and I have reluctantly concluded that the interests of 
New York State and New York City are best served at this point by 
allowing the bill reported by the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works to pass the Senate, thereby avoiding a result far worse for New 
York. We have consulted representatives of the Governor of New York and 
the mayor of New York City and they have concurred with this 
assessment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from 
Montana in a colloquy on S. 2345, the Interstate Transportation of 
Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1994. Although this legislation only deals 
with the question of granting States authority to control imports of 
out-of-State municipal waste, does the Senator agree that the matter of 
interstate transportation of industrial waste is a concern at least in 
some States and this issue needs further consideration?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes. I understand that at least in some States, including 
North Dakota, the importation of out-of-State industrial waste is a 
concern. However, more information is needed to better understand this 
issue. For example, we need to have a better understanding of the 
sources of industrial waste, where it is shipped and stored. Up until 
now, the focus of our attention has been on the interstate 
transportation of municipal waste and we have not fully studied the 
issues involved with respect to the interstate transportation of 
industrial waste.
  Mr. DORGAN. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, would the Senator from Montana commit to holding a hearing 
on this subject next year?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes. I intend to hold a hearing next year in the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee on the issue of interstate 
transportation of industrial waste.
  In addition, I would be happy to work with the Senator from North 
Dakota to attain more data and information on issues related to the 
interstate shipping and storage of industrial waste. I would be willing 
to join the Senator in inquiring with the General Accounting Office 
about attaining more information on interstate transportation of 
industrial waste and ask for their analysis with respect to what 
problems, if any, should be address by the Congress in the future.
  Mr. DORGAN. I should like to thank the Senator for his cooperation 
and his leadership in this important subject.


                               RECYCLING

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to engage the chairman of the 
committee in a colloquy concerning the effect of this bill on 
recycling. It is my understanding that the chairman does not intend for 
this bill to have any effect on the interstate transportation of 
recyclable materials.
  The bill defines recyclable materials as material that has been 
separated or diverted from municipal solid waste and has been 
transported for the purpose of recycling or reclamation. There are 
recyclers in my State which takes paper from New York City buildings to 
their recycling facility in New Jersey where it removes unwanted 
materials and sorts the paper by grade. It places bins in the buildings 
and identifies the bins for recycled paper. But people put other 
materials which they think can be recycled beside paper and regular 
garbage. So there is sorting before material is transported across 
State lines but a further sorting is conducted after material is 
transported.
  I am concerned that the bill could be interpreted to exclude material 
from the definition of recycling when further sorting may be needed 
even though some sorting has occurred before material is transported.
  I want to ask whether the Senator will agree that the definition of 
recycling which talks about material which has been separated includes 
materials where there has been some sorting even though additional 
sorting may be necessary after the material has crossed State lines?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with the Senator from New Jersey that the bill's 
definition of recycling includes material where there has been some 
sorting even though additional sorting may be necessary after material 
has crossed State lines. I strongly support recycling and do not want 
this bill interpreted in any way which could adversely affect 
legitimate recycling efforts.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chairman for his comments.


                      interstate waste legislation

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has turned 
to this critical environmental issue and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation, the Interstate Transportation of Municipal 
Solid Waste Act of 1994.
  This legislation would provide much-needed relief to Pennsylvania, 
which is by far the largest importer of out-of-State waste in the 
Nation. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Resources, 3.8 million tons of waste came into Pennsylvania in 1992 and 
4.1 million tons of out-of-State waste entered my State in 1993. Most 
of this trash came from other States in the Northeast; in 1993, New 
York and New Jersey were responsible for 3.2 million of the 3.8 million 
tons imported into my Pennsylvania.
  This legislation would go a long way toward resolving the landfill 
problems facing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and similar waste importing 
States. I am personally familiar with the anxiety that the landfill 
crisis provokes in local communities. On several occasions, I have met 
with Lackawanna County officials, environmental groups representatives, 
and other residents of northeastern Pennsylvania to discuss the solid 
waste issue. The Empire landfill, Pennsylvania's largest, is located in 
Lackawanna County, and I came away from those meetings impressed by the 
deep concerns expressed by the area's residents.
  Recognizing the recurrent problem of landfill capacity in 
Pennsylvania's 67 counties, since 1989 I have pushed to resolve the 
interstate waste crisis. In 1989 and 1991, I joined my late colleague, 
John Heinz, to introduce the Solid Waste Disposal Act amendments, which 
would have provided incentives for States to devise realistic long-term 
plans for handling solid waste disposal.
  I also supported the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Waste Act 
of 1992, which passed the Senate by an 89-2 vote in July 1992. That 
bill would have allowed a Governor, at the request of a local 
government, to prohibit the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste in 
any landfill or incinerator within its jurisdiction. The House failed 
to take action on that bill, leaving it to this Congress to act on this 
issue.
  Building on our near-success in 1992, I joined Senator Coats in 
trying to jumpstart the process when we and 16 of our colleagues 
introduced bipartisan interstate waste legislation on February 25, 
1993. That bill was modeled on the waste legislation which passed the 
Senate in July 1992 by an overwhelming margin. Nonetheless, it has 
taken 19 months for the Senate to have the opportunity during the 103d 
Congress to consider this much-needed interstate waste legislation.
  The legislation we are considering today builds upon the 1992 
legislation that passed by an 89-2 vote and the Coats-Specter bill 
introduced 19 months ago. I am confident that it will empower States to 
deal with their solid waste more effectively because it would provide 
every State with significant new authority to restrict imports of out-
of-State municipal solid waste.
  Without Federal legislation to empower States to restrict cross-
border flows of garbage, States such as Pennsylvania inevitably end up 
as the dumping ground for States that have been unwilling to enact and 
enforce realistic long-term waste management plans. While we have heard 
that these States are making some progress, some continue to ship 
increasing amounts of waste to Pennsylvania landfills.
  This legislation will lead to significant reductions in the amounts 
of out-of-State waste imported into Pennsylvania and other States. 
According to Governor Casey's office, when the provisions are fully in 
effect, it should result in reductions as high as one-half of 1993 
import levels.
  Let me explain how this will be accomplished. First, the legislation 
allows a Governor to freeze unilaterally out-of-State waste at 1993 
levels at landfills and incinerators that received waste in 1993. In 
addition, a Governor may unilaterally ban out of State waste from any 
State exporting more than 3.5 million tons in 1995, going down to 1 
million tons in 2002 and thereafter. Another provision, known as the 
import state ratchet, provides that a Governor may restrict waste 
imported from any one State in excess of 1.4 million tons in 1995, down 
to 600,000 tons in 2001 and thereafter. This provision provides a 
concrete incentive for the largest exporting States to get a handle on 
their solid waste management immediately.
  It is important to note that this legislation explicitly protects 
State contract law and protects host community agreements. It also 
authorizes restrictions on waste imported from Canada if doing so is 
found by the President to be consistent with NAFTA and GATT.
  I am glad that the Senate has once again had the opportunity to 
consider this much-needed interstate waste legislation, which will 
improve the quality of life in Pennsylvania. We must make a vigorous 
war on waste and I believe that we are moving in the right direction in 
making the environment one of our critical priorities.
  Mr. CONARD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today is 
considering S. 2345, legislation to give States and local governments 
the power to regulate and, if they so choose, reject, interstate 
shipments of municipal solid waste. I fully support S. 2345 and hope 
the Senate will approve it.
  This is a problem I and others in the Senate have been working on for 
many years. Twice, the Senate has passed legislation addressing this 
issue, but we still do not have a law allowing regulation of interstate 
waste. It is time to take action that will finally give to the people 
of our States the power to decide whether or not to receive out-of-
State waste.
  Waste imports are a growing problem in our country, with an estimated 
15-18 million tons of municipal solid waste traveling across State 
lines each year. Around the country, landfills are filling up and 
communities are now looking to send their trash to rural States like 
North Dakota. In rural areas, land is cheap and small communities 
usually do not have the resources to fight off giant waste companies 
who want to site new landfills. In addition, some small communities may 
be willing to take huge amounts of money from a waste company in 
exchange for landfill space.
  Whether they want this imported waste or not, States are almost 
powerless to stop the flow of garbage across their borders. The Supreme 
Court has clearly ruled that States may limit interstate waste, but 
only if they are expressly given this power by Congress. S. 2345 would 
give the States this power.
  States should be able to regulate how much solid waste comes into the 
State so that they can implement effective waste disposal policies. The 
Federal Government requires the States to manage and oversee solid 
waste disposal programs. States are required to issue permits, 
monitoring existing sites, and enforce landfill regulations. Why, then, 
should States not also be able to regulate how much waste comes in from 
out of State? It only makes sense that they have this power.
  Imported waste not only takes up precious landfill space, but it also 
puts a strain on services of the importing State without properly 
compensating that State. Waste trucks from out of State wear down the 
roads of the importing States, but the exporting community pays nothing 
for the maintenance of these roads. Similarly, States must spend money 
to run their solid waste program, but they get no additional payments 
for accepting out of State waste. In other words, exporting communities 
are passing on their waste problems, and the costs associated with 
them, on to importing States. This isn't fair, and it should change.
  Locally affected communities also must have a say in whether or not 
to accept imported waste. Waste affects more than just the single town 
that hosts a disposal site. It affects the entire surrounding area, 
posing a potential threat to aquifers, surface waters, air quality, 
road quality, soil quality, the list goes on and on. A decision on 
siting a solid waste landfill, especially one that will take large 
amounts of imported waste, must be a collective one. A small community 
alone should not be able to make a decision that will affect so many 
people.
  Mr. President, the bill before us accomplishes the goal of giving 
States and local communities the authority to regulate imported waste. 
The bill is not as strong as I would have liked. I believe both 
Governors and local communities should have even greater authority. 
Nevertheless, S. 2345 builds on what the Senate has done in the past 
and goes a long way toward solving the interstate waste problem.
  Specifically, it gives Governors the authority to freeze waste 
imports at current levels, and it allows Governors to reject waste 
shipments aimed at communities that do not want them. In addition, it 
requires that waste companies fully disclose their plans for waste 
disposal if they want to enter into an agreement with a host community. 
This will allow the community to make a fully informed decision on 
whether to take imported waste.
  This last provision is particularly important, and I worked closely 
with Senator Baucus to have it included. In my State, we have many 
small communities that are economically depressed and desperate for 
economic opportunity. Waste companies prey on communities like these. 
The companies polish their image and hold up the promise of jobs and 
economic incentives. However, they never reveal the potential risks 
involved in their plans, and, in many cases, they don't even reveal 
their overall plans until it is too late to stop them. One practice I 
have seen involves having a local developer purchase a site and get a 
permit to dispose of modest amounts of solid waste. The big waste 
company then buys out the local party and aggressively expands the 
site's permit. The local community doesn't have a chance. This isn't 
fair and cannot be allowed to continue. Communities need to make 
informed choices, so we should require full disclosure of all relevant 
information prior to any decision being made.
  Some of my colleagues may think that interstate waste is not a 
problem. They should think again. The trash is coming--by truck, by 
train, by barge--from all over the country. If it hasn't come to your 
State today, you can be sure that it will tomorrow. States and locally 
affected communities must have the power to manage waste in the most 
effective manner possible. In addition, giving States and communities 
the power to regulate waste imports will provide a powerful incentive 
for exporting communities to reduce their waste stream and increase 
recycling.
  The House recently passed its own bill regulating interstate waste. I 
urge the Senate to work quickly with the House to arrive at a 
compromise that can be enacted into law so that we can finally provide 
States and local communities with the authority they so desperately 
need.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is 
considering S. 2345, the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Waste 
Act of 1994. This bill will give our States the authority they need to 
regulate shipments of garbage between States. It was unanimously 
approved on June 23 of this year by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  We have been working on this issue for 5 years. We have explored all 
options in an effort to find a workable solution. We have held hearings 
on interstate waste issues. We included interstate provisions in the 
RCRA bill we reported last Congress.
  And we passed a stand alone interstate bill by a vote of 89 to 2 last 
Congress. Unfortunately that bill died in the House. But I am hopeful 
that the bill we pass today will win the approval by the House and be 
enacted into law.
  This bill builds on last year's proposal. It is a balanced approach 
to a problem that our States cannot solve without congressional action. 
The Supreme Court repeatedly has struck down State laws aimed at 
restricting out-of-State garbage, because these laws violate the 
Constitution's interstate commerce protections.
  Not many people think of garbage as a valuable commodity like other 
products traded in interstate commerce--but it is:
  Every year, the United States produces more than 200 million tons of 
municipal waste. Seven percent of this garbage--1 ton in 14-- is sent 
to a landfill or incinerator in another State for a price.
  Nearly every State is both a willing seller and a willing buyer in 
the municipal waste market: 43 States some export some garbage, and 42 
States import some.
  When you think about it, trading garbage makes some sense especially 
for border towns. In Montana for example, two towns have made 
arrangements to share landfills with western North Dakota towns. And 
some trash from Yellowstone Park is disposed in Montana. These 
arrangements save money to communities. Moreover, these shared regional 
landfills are the waive of the future.
  But no city or State should be allowed to become a dumping ground 
simply because an exporting community does not have the will to build a 
new landfill. While interstate commerce is a protected right of the 
Constitution, not in my backyard or NIMBY is not a protected right--nor 
should it be.
  The bill before us today helps all States address their trash 
problems. The effect of this bill will be to reduce exports over time.
  More importantly, it will ensure that in the future exports to 
landfills and incinerators in other States will be an option only if 
the community wants it.
  Simply stated, this bill gives States and communities the power to 
decide what's best for them: Accepting garbage from other States--or 
refusing it.
  Moreover, it will put pressure on the Nation's largest exporting 
States to cut their exports by specific amounts or importing States 
will be able to ban their exports altogether. It puts pressure on 
exporting States to take care of their own needs so there will be less 
pressure to export garbage to neighboring States.
  This bill strikes the balance that I believe is needed to make 
interstate waste shipment legislation work for every community. It 
achieves this by letting Governors stem the rising tide of incoming 
garbage without forcing communities that now rely on this commerce to 
scramble.


                          authority for states

  The cornerstone of this bill is the added authority for all States. 
It lets every Governor freeze future shipments of garbage at the 
amounts received in 1993, no more than what was received in 1993. 
Unlike the bill passed last Congress, under this bill a Governor does 
not need to wait for a request for action from the local community to 
freeze imports. It can do it on its own.
  At landfills or incinerators that did not receive out-of-State waste 
in 1993, any Governor may ban out-of-State garbage at landfills or 
incinerators if the local community does not want it.
  To give every community incentive to reduce waste, the bill has a 
mechanism to force large exporting States to reduce their exports. What 
are they? Under the bill no State may export: more than 3.5 million 
tons of municipal waste in 1995; more than 3 million tons in 1996 and 
1997; more than 2.5 million tons in 1998 and 1999; more than 1.5 
million tons in 2000 and 2001; and more than 1 million tons in the year 
2002 and beyond.
  If a State does not meet these reductions, then any Governor may ban 
out-of-State garbage coming from that State. Not only will this help 
reduce exports, it will add some marketplace muscle by rewarding 
recycling and other efforts to cut the amount of garbage we produce in 
this country.
  Finally, to ensure that no State becomes a dumping ground for any 
other State, the bill authorizes a Governor to limit the amount of 
waste exported to another State. Under the bill, by the year 2001 and 
each year thereafter no State may export more than 600,000 tons to 
another State.
  This bill puts both local communities and States in the position to 
decide whether to accept more out-of-State garbage. It is their 
decision. The only way new imports would be allowed is if the affected 
local community agrees to take out-of-State waste and enters into what 
we are calling a ``host community agreement.''
  While everyone agrees that ``host community agreements'' are 
desirable, one concern has been that a very small community could enter 
into such an agreement when the larger community opposes it. To protect 
against that, the bill allows the Governor to decide which local entity 
can enter into new agreements.
  But one a so-called host community agreement is in place it will be 
protected from any interstate restrictions unless it violates a State's 
solid waste management plan.
  In addition, new ``host community agreements'' must be very specific. 
Not only must they allow for out-of-State waste they must also specify 
the amounts allowed. And before they can be executed, the public must 
be notified and given an opportunity for comment.
  I believe the result of this bill will be to give States better 
control of their borders, and local communities more say over what 
happens in their backyards.
  This is a rational way to deal with a real problem that does not have 
the perverse effects of broader proposals that give State or local 
government blanket power to stop all interstate waste shipments 
immediately. It provides balance. It is common sense. It is all or 
nothing. It is a worked out combination and solution.
  It will provide importing States the authority to restrict imports, 
and it will require exporting States to reduce their exports.
  It will accomplish this in an orderly way without disrupting 
beneficial existing arrangements or lead to illegal disposal. And 
mostly it will give people in local communities more control over their 
own lives.
  Mr. President, S. 2345 as unanimously approved by the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, is a good and responsible bill that addresses 
the needs of State and local communities in a balanced way.
  Mr. President, I give special thanks to many Senators for their very, 
very hard work to help resolve this very vexing, not very glamorous but 
very vexing issue.
  Special thanks go to Senator Coats of Indiana, a tireless worker, to 
resolve this, Senator Wofford for his diligence and perseverance to try 
to find solutions, particularly in his home State; Senator Lautenberg 
of New Jersey, another member of our committee for his hard work; 
Senator Moynihan, the chairman of the Committee on Finance; Senator 
Chafee of Rhode Island, the ranking member of our committee; and as 
well as Senator Robb of Virginia, whose State has a direct interest in 
this bill.
  Mr. President, they worked long and hard to finally have this bill 
passed. I am hopeful in the remaining few days we can work out other 
arrangements in a similar bill in both the House and Senate so our 
people can have more control over their lives.
  So the bill (S. 2345) was passed, as follows:

                                S. 2345

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate Transportation of 
     Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       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:


          ``INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

       ``Sec. 4011. (a) Authority To Restrict Out-of-State 
     Municipal Solid Waste.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (4), immediately upon the date of enactment of this section 
     if requested in writing by an affected local government, a 
     Governor may prohibit the disposal of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste in any landfill or incinerator that is not 
     covered by the exceptions provided in subsection (b) and that 
     is subject to the jurisdiction of the Governor and the 
     affected local government.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4), immediately upon 
     the date of publication of the list required in paragraph 
     (6)(D) and notwithstanding the absence of a request in 
     writing by the affected local government, a Governor, in 
     accordance with paragraph (5), may limit the quantity of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal at each 
     landfill or incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in 
     subsection (b) that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Governor, to an annual amount equal to the quantity of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal at such 
     landfill or incinerator during calendar year 1993.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (4), immediately 
     upon the date of publication of the list required in 
     paragraph (6)(E), and notwithstanding the absence of a 
     request in writing by the affected local government, a 
     Governor, in accordance with paragraph (5), may prohibit the 
     disposal of out-of-State municipal solid waste, at any 
     landfill or incinerator covered by the exceptions in 
     subsection (b) that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Governor, generated in any State that is determined by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (6)(E) as having exported, to 
     landfills or incinerators not covered by host community 
     agreements, more than--
       ``(i) 3.5 million tons of municipal solid waste in calendar 
     year 1995;
       ``(ii) 3.0 million tons of municipal solid waste in each of 
     calendar years 1996 and 1997;
       ``(iii) 2.5 million tons of municipal solid waste in each 
     of calendar years 1998 and 1999;
       ``(iv) 1.5 million tons of municipal solid waste in each of 
     calendar years 2000 and 2001; and
       ``(v) 1.0 million tons of municipal solid waste in calendar 
     year 2002 and each year thereafter.
       ``(B) No State may export more than 1.4 million tons of 
     municipal solid waste to any one State in calendar year 1995 
     or 90 percent of the 1993 levels exported to a State, 
     whichever is greater, 1.3 million tons in 1996 or 90 percent 
     of the 1995 levels exported to a State, whichever is greater, 
     1.2 million tons in 1997 or 90 percent of the 1996 levels 
     exported to a State, whichever is greater, 1.1 million tons 
     in 1998 or 90 percent of the 1997 levels exported to a State, 
     whichever is greater, 1 million tons in 1999, 800,000 tons in 
     2000, and 600,000 tons in 2001 and each year thereafter, to 
     landfills or incinerators not covered by host community 
     agreements. Governors of importing States may restrict levels 
     of imports to reflect the appropriate level of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste imports if--
       ``(i) the Governor of the importing State has notified the 
     Governor of the exporting State and the Administrator 12 
     months prior to enforcement of the importing State's 
     intention to impose the requirements of this section;
       ``(ii) the Governor of the importing State has notified the 
     Governor of the exporting State and the Administrator of the 
     violation by the exporting State of this section at least 90 
     days prior to the enforcement of this section; and
       ``(iii) the restrictions imposed by the Governor of the 
     importing State must be uniform at all facilities.
       ``(C) The authority provided by subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     shall apply for as long as a State exceeds the permissible 
     levels as determined by the Administrator under paragraph 
     (6)(E).
       ``(4)(A) A Governor may not exercise the authority granted 
     under this section if such action would result in the 
     violation of, or would otherwise be inconsistent with, the 
     terms of a host community agreement or a permit issued from 
     the State to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       ``(B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a Governor may 
     not exercise the authority granted under this section in a 
     manner that would require any owner or operator of a landfill 
     or incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in 
     subsection (b) to reduce the amount of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received from any State for disposal at such 
     landfill or incinerator to an annual quantity less than the 
     amount received from such State for disposal at such landfill 
     or incinerator during calendar year 1993.
       ``(5) Any limitation imposed by a Governor under paragraph 
     (2) or (3)--
       ``(A) shall be applicable throughout the State;
       ``(B) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any particular landfill or incinerator within the State; and
       ``(C) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste on the 
     basis of State of origin and all such limitations shall be 
     applied to all States in violation of paragraph (3).
       ``(6)(A)(i) Any Governor who intends to exercise the 
     authority provided in paragraph (2) or (3) shall, within 120 
     days after the date of enactment of this section, and on the 
     same day of each year thereafter, submit to the Administrator 
     information documenting the State of origin and the quantity 
     of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal 
     at landfills and incinerators covered by the exceptions 
     provided in subsection (b) in the State of such Governor 
     during calendar year 1993.
       ``(ii) The Administrator is authorized and directed to 
     collect such additional information in addition to what is 
     submitted under clause (i) as may be necessary to determine 
     if the level of exports of municipal solid waste by any State 
     exceeds the level established in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(B) On receipt of the information submitted or collected 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall notify 
     the Governor of each such State and the Governors of States 
     with exports that exceed the level of exports of municipal 
     solid waste established in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     paragraph (3) and shall publish notice and shall provide a 
     comment period of not less than 30 days.
       ``(C) Not later than 60 days after receipt of information 
     from a Governor, and any additional information obtained by 
     the Administrator, under subparagraph (A), the Administrator 
     shall determine the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste that was received for disposal in the State during 
     calendar year 1993, the State of origin and the total amount 
     of municipal solid waste exports from each State that exceeds 
     the level established in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph 
     (3), and the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received for disposal at landfills and incinerators covered 
     by the exceptions provided in subsection (b) in the State of 
     such Governor during calendar year 1993. The Administrator 
     shall publish a public notice and shall provide direct 
     notification to each of the Governors of all States affected 
     by this determination, for each such State for which the 
     determination is made. A determination by the Administrator 
     under this subparagraph shall be final and not subject to 
     judicial review.
       ``(D) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, the Administrator shall publish a list of 
     the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste that was 
     received during calendar year 1993 at each landfill and 
     incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in subsection 
     (b) for disposal in each State in which the Governor intends 
     to exercise the authority provided in paragraph (2) or (3), 
     as determined in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(E) Not later than March 1, 1996, and on March 1 of each 
     year thereafter, the Administrator shall publish a list of 
     States that the Administrator has determined have exported 
     out of State an amount of municipal solid waste in excess of 
     3.5 million tons in calendar year 1995, 3.0 million tons in 
     each of calendar years 1996 and 1997, 2.5 million tons in 
     each of calendar years 1998 and 1999, 1.5 million tons in 
     each of calendar years 2000 and 2001, and 1.0 million tons in 
     calendar year 2002 and each year thereafter, as determined in 
     accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(F) Not later than March 1 of each year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, or as required by State law, the 
     owner or operator of each landfill or incinerator receiving 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste shall submit to the 
     Governor of the State in which the landfill or incinerator is 
     located information specifying, by State of origin, the 
     amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for 
     disposal during the preceding year. Each year the Governor of 
     a State who intends to exercise the authority provided in 
     paragraph (2) or (3) shall publish and make available to the 
     public a report containing information on the amount of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal in the 
     State during the preceding year.
       ``(7) Any affected local government that intends to submit 
     a request under paragraph (1) or take formal action on a host 
     community agreement shall, prior to taking such action--
       ``(A) notify the Governor, contiguous local governments, 
     and any contiguous Indian tribes;
       ``(B) publish notice of the action in a newspaper of 
     general circulation at least 30 days before taking such 
     action;
       ``(C) provide an opportunity for public comment; and
       ``(D) following notice and comment, take formal action on 
     any proposed request or action at a public meeting.
       ``(8) Any owner or operator seeking a host community 
     agreement shall provide to the affected local government the 
     following information, which shall be made available to the 
     public from the affected local government:
       ``(A) A brief description of the planned facility, 
     including a description of the facility size, ultimate waste 
     capacity, and anticipated monthly and yearly waste quantities 
     to be handled.
       ``(B) A map of the facility site that indicates the 
     location of the facility in relation to the local road system 
     and topographical and hydrological features and any buffer 
     zones and facility units to be acquired by the owner or 
     operator of the facility.
       ``(C) A description of the existing environmental 
     conditions at the site, and any violations of applicable laws 
     or regulations.
       ``(D) A description of environmental controls to be 
     utilized at the facility.
       ``(E) A description of the site access controls to be 
     employed, and roadway improvements to be made, by the owner 
     or operator, and an estimate of the timing and extent of 
     increased local truck traffic.
       ``(b) Exceptions to Authority To Prohibit Out-of-State 
     Municipal Solid Waste.--(1) The authority to prohibit the 
     disposal of out-of-State municipal solid waste provided under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to landfills and 
     incinerators in operation on the date of enactment of this 
     section that--
       ``(A) received during calendar year 1993 documented 
     shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste; and
       ``(B)(i) in the case of landfills, are in compliance with 
     all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations 
     relating to operation, design and location standards, 
     leachate collection, ground water monitoring, and financial 
     assurance for closure and post-closure and corrective action; 
     or
       ``(ii) in the case of incinerators, are in compliance with 
     the applicable requirements of section 129 of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7429) and applicable State laws and 
     regulations relating to facility design and operations.
       ``(2) A Governor may not prohibit the disposal of out-of-
     State municipal solid waste pursuant to subsection (a)(1) at 
     facilities described in this subsection that are not in 
     compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and 
     regulations unless disposal of municipal solid waste 
     generated within the State at such facilities is also 
     prohibited.
       ``(c) Additional Authority To Limit Out-of-State Municipal 
     Solid Waste.--(1) In any case in which an affected local 
     government is considering entering into, or has entered into, 
     a host community agreement and the disposal or incineration 
     of out-of-State municipal solid waste under such agreement 
     would preclude the use of municipal solid waste management 
     capacity described in paragraph (2), the Governor of the 
     State in which the affected local government is located may 
     prohibit the execution of such host community agreement with 
     respect to that capacity.
       ``(2) The municipal solid waste management capacity 
     referred to in paragraph (1) is that capacity--
       ``(A) that is permitted under Federal or State law;
       ``(B) that is identified under the State plan; and
       ``(C) for which a legally binding commitment between the 
     owner or operator and another party has been made for its use 
     for disposal or incineration of municipal solid waste 
     generated within the region (identified under section 
     4006(a)) in which the local government is located.
       ``(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted or construed--
       ``(1) to have any effect on State law relating to 
     contracts; or
       ``(2) to affect the authority of any State or local 
     government to protect public health and the environment 
     through laws, regulations, and permits, including the 
     authority to limit the total amount of municipal solid waste 
     that landfill or incinerator owners or operators within the 
     jurisdiction of a State may accept during a prescribed 
     period, provided that such limitations do not discriminate 
     between in-State and out-of-State municipal solid waste, 
     except to the extent authorized by this section.
       ``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1)(A) The term `affected local government', used with 
     respect to a landfill or incinerator, means--
       ``(i) the public body created by State law with 
     responsibility to plan for municipal solid waste management, 
     a majority of the members of which are elected officials, for 
     the area in which the facility is located or proposed to be 
     located; or
       ``(ii) the elected officials of the city, town, township, 
     borough, county, or parish exercising primary responsibility 
     over municipal solid waste management or the use of land in 
     the jurisdiction in which the facility is located or is 
     proposed to be located.
       ``(B)(i) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     section, a Governor may designate and publish notice of which 
     entity listed in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall 
     serve as the affected local government for actions taken 
     under this section and after publication of such notice.
       ``(ii) If a Governor fails to make such a designation, the 
     affected local government shall be the elected officials of 
     the city, town, township, borough, county, parish, or other 
     public body created pursuant to State law with primary 
     jurisdiction over the land or the use of land on which the 
     facility is located or is proposed to be located.
       ``(C) For purposes of host community agreements entered 
     into before the date of publication of the notice, the term 
     means either a public body described in subparagraph (A)(i) 
     or the elected officials of any of the public bodies 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(2)(A) The term `host community agreement' means, with 
     respect to any agreement entered into on or after June 23, 
     1994, a written, legally binding document or documents 
     executed by duly authorized officials of the affected local 
     government that expressly authorizes a landfill or 
     incinerator to receive specified amounts of municipal solid 
     waste generated out of State.
       ``(B) The term `host community agreement' means, with 
     respect to any agreement entered into before June 23, 1994, a 
     written, legally binding document or documents executed by 
     duly authorized officials of the affected local government 
     expressly authorizing a landfill or incinerator to receive 
     municipal solid waste generated out of State, but does not 
     include any agreement to pay host community fees for receipt 
     of waste unless additional express authorization to receive 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste is also included. For 
     purposes of a host community agreement entered into before 
     June 23, 1994, such agreement may use a term other than `out-
     of-State', provided that any alternative term or terms 
     evidence the approval or consent of the affected local 
     government for receipt of municipal solid waste from sources 
     or locations outside the State in which the landfill or 
     incinerator is located or is proposed to be located.
       ``(3) The term `out-of-State municipal solid waste' means, 
     with respect to any State, municipal solid waste generated 
     outside of the State. To the extent that the President 
     determines it is consistent with the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade, the term shall include municipal solid waste generated 
     outside of the United States.
       ``(4) The term `municipal solid waste' means refuse (and 
     refuse-derived fuel) generated by the general public or from 
     a residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial 
     source (or any combination thereof), consisting of paper, 
     wood, yard wastes, plastics, leather, rubber, or other 
     combustible or noncombustible materials such as metal or 
     glass (or any combination thereof). The term `municipal solid 
     waste' does not include--
       ``(A) any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous 
     waste under section 3001, or any solid waste containing 
     polychlorinated biphenyls regulated under the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.);
       ``(B) any solid waste, including contaminated soil and 
     debris, resulting from a response action taken under section 
     104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604 or 
     9606) or a corrective action taken under this Act;
       ``(C) any metal, pipe, glass, plastic, paper, textile, or 
     other material that has been separated or diverted from 
     municipal solid waste (as otherwise defined in this 
     paragraph) and has been transported into a State for the 
     purpose of recycling or reclamation;
       ``(D) any solid waste that is--
       ``(i) generated by an industrial facility; and
       ``(ii) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, 
     or disposal to a facility that is owned or operated by the 
     generator of the waste, or is located on property owned by 
     the generator of the waste, or is located on property owned 
     by a company with which the generator is affiliated;
       ``(E) any solid waste generated incident to the provision 
     of service in interstate, intrastate, foreign, or overseas 
     air transportation;
       ``(F) any industrial waste that is not identical to 
     municipal solid waste (as otherwise defined in this 
     paragraph) with respect to the physical and chemical state of 
     the industrial waste, and composition, including construction 
     and demolition debris;
       ``(G) any medical waste that is segregated from or not 
     mixed with municipal solid waste (as otherwise defined in 
     this paragraph); or
       ``(H) any material or product returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer for credit, evaluation, or 
     possible reuse.
       ``(5) The term `compliance' means a pattern or practice of 
     adhering to and satisfying standards and requirements 
     promulgated by the Federal or a State government for the 
     purpose of preventing significant harm to human health and 
     the environment. Actions undertaken in accordance with 
     compliance schedules for remediation established by Federal 
     or State enforcement authorities shall be considered 
     compliance for purposes of this section.''.

     SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.

       The table of contents in section 1001 of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by adding at 
     the end of the items relating to subtitle D the following new 
     item:

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

                          ____________________