[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             [[Page E291]]

          NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS FLOW CONTROL

                                 ______


                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, February 8, 1995
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, the National 
Governors' Association passed an important resolution in support of 
congressional restoration of flow control authority to State and local 
governments.
  When the Supreme Court rejected such authority in its May 1994 
decision in Carbone versus Clarkstown, New York, it struck a 
devastating blow to the financial stability of thousands of communities 
nationwide. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reminded Congress of its part 
in developing these circumstances. You see, although Congress had 
implied that States and localities had the authority to use flow 
control; Congress had never granted the authority explicitly. We now 
have not only the opportunity, but the responsibility to finish what we 
started.
  It is imperative that we do so with all due speed because communities 
nationwide have amassed an outstanding debt of more than $10 billion 
purely by meeting its traditional responsibilities of picking up the 
trash.
  Congress held hearings and markups and debates on this issue 
throughout 1994. The divergent interests of local governments, the 
private sector waste companies, and Wall Street came together through 
months of intense negotiations. The product of these efforts was a 
compromise proposal which passed the House by unanimous consent on 
October 7, and nearly passed through the Senate before it adjourned the 
next day.
  On January 4, I reintroduced this exact text as the Community 
Solvency Act (H.R. 24) with a bipartisan group of cosponsors. I 
encourage my colleagues to read the persuasive and well-reasoned 
arguments of the Governors' resolution and to join them in their fight 
to meet the public health and safety needs of our constituents in a 
cost-effective and environmentally sound way. In short, I encourage my 
colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 24.
               National Governors Association Resolution

       3.4.1 Each State, Alone or in Cooperation with Other 
     States, Should Manage the Waste Produced Within Its Borders 
     in an Environmentally Sound Manner. This goal requires states 
     to take responsibility for the treatment and disposal of 
     solid waste created within their borders to eventually 
     eliminate the transportation of unwanted waste sent over 
     state lines for treatment or disposal.
       It should be the national policy for each state to promote 
     self-sufficiency in the management of solid waste. States 
     should be allowed to use reasonable methods to achieve their 
     goal of self-sufficiency, including the use of waste flow 
     control. Self-sufficiency is a reliable, cost-effective, 
     long-term path and generally reflects the principle that the 
     citizens ultimately are responsible for the wastes they 
     create.
       As states phase in programs to ensure self-sufficiency, 
     Congress should require the federal government to pursue 
     aggressively packaging and product composition initiatives 
     and to identify and foster creation of markets for recyclable 
     or recycled goods. Federal assistance in these waste 
     reduction endeavors is critical to developing national waste 
     reduction and recycling programs to achieve self-sufficiency.
       Similarly, the federal government must mandate national 
     minimum performance standards for municipal solid waste 
     disposal facilities. Otherwise, some states may resolve 
     capacity crises brought about by export limitations by 
     keeping open landfills that otherwise should be closed. Also, 
     the lack of minimum standards may encourage exports, because 
     it might be cheaper, even taking into consideration 
     transportation costs, for a community in a state with 
     stringent regulations to ship to nearby states that do not 
     have the same requirements.
       The development of solid waste management plans should be 
     the primary responsibility of the states and local 
     governments, and the Governors urge EPA to assist states in 
     the development of comprehensive and integrated planning and 
     regulatory programs through financial and technical 
     assistance. Such plans should include a ten-year planning 
     horizon and should be updated at least every five years. 
     These plans should include a description of the following:
       The waste management hierarchy that maximizes cost-
     effective source reduction, reuse, and recycling of 
     materials;
       The planning period;
       The waste inventory;
       The relationship between state and local governments;
       Municipal solid waste reduction and recycling programs;
       A waste capacity analysis for municipal solid waste (which 
     in no way should resemble a capacity assurance requirement 
     similar to Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA);
       The state's regulatory program;
       The process for citizen participation; and
       Self-certification that the state has necessary authority 
     to implement these program elements.
       EPA review of plans should be limited to a check for 
     completeness based on elements specified in this policy and 
     raised by EPA during the public comment period of the draft 
     plan. EPA does not have the ability or the resources to take 
     on the solid waste planning and management responsibilities 
     that fall under the historical and rightful domain of state 
     and local governments. Moreover, EPA's intrusion into the 
     planning process (in a manner similar to Subtitle C of the 
     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA) would 
     frustrate and impede the planning process already underway in 
     many states.
       States should retain authority to implement and enforce 
     Subtitle D programs upon passage of legislation reauthorizing 
     RCRA, and new program elements in this legislation should be 
     automatically delegated to states. Should a state fail to 
     submit a complete plan, EPA should assume responsibility for 
     the permitting and enforcement portion of a state solid waste 
     management program after the state is given the opportunity 
     to appeal and correct any deficiencies.
     

                          ____________________