[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2569-S2578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 395. A bill to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to 
sell the Alaska Power Marketing Administration, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  alaska power administration sale act

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduced 
legislation to sell the Alaska Power Administration's two hydroelectric 
projects, as well as a trailing amendment which would lift the Alaska 
North Slope crude oil export ban.
  Mr. President, title 1 of this legislation will authorize the sale of 
the Alaska Power Administration. The Alaska Power Administration is 
really different from the other Federal power marketing agencies of the 
Department of Energy. It has only two hydroelectric projects, Eklutna, 
near Anchorage, and Snettisham, near Juneau. These were never intended 
by Congress to remain indefinitely under Federal control.
  The Eklutna Project Act, for example, states that:

       Upon completion of amortization of the capital investment 
     allocated to power, the Secretary is authorized and directed 
     to report to the Congress upon the feasibility and 
     desirability of transferring the Eklutna project to public 
     ownership and control in Alaska.

  Moreover, these two projects were created specifically to promote 
economic and industrial development in Alaska, and they are not the 
product of a water resource management plan.
  I have been a strong advocate of ensuring that Alaskans control their 
own destiny, which is really what this bill is about. It will put the 
management of these two hydroelectric projects into the hands of those 
who best know Alaska. One project would be sold to the State of Alaska 
and the other will be sold to a group of three Alaskan public electric 
utilities.
  Equally as important, this legislation will relieve the Federal 
Government of the expenses of operating and maintaining these two 
projects. It also provides for the termination of the Alaska Power 
Administration once the sale is complete, further saving money for 
taxpayers.
  [[Page S2570]] It is important to note that this legislation provides 
necessary safeguards for the environment. It requires the State of 
Alaska and the Eklutna purchasers to abide by the memorandum of 
agreement they entered into regarding the protection and enhancement of 
fish and wildlife. This legislation makes this legally enforceable.
  Last year, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported 
Senate bill 2383, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Authorization 
Act. The administration testified in strong support of this 
legislation. Unfortunately, the committee acted too late in the year to 
allow for Senate action. With early introduction in this Congress, I am 
hopeful we will see this legislation enacted into law soon.
  There is one provision which needs to be included in the
   Alaska Power Administration legislation before it is sent to the 
President for signature. But I have not included it because it 
addresses the Internal Revenue Code. In order to indicate my strong 
desire that such a provision be included in the final bill, I have 
introduced it as a printed amendment.

  Title 2 of this bill will lift the Alaska North Slope crude oil 
export ban. Alaska is the only State that is subject to such an onerous 
plan. The 1.6 million barrels of oil transported through the 
TransAlaska pipeline is not forced into the lower 48 crude markets, 
creating artificially low crude oil prices on the west coast. The 
majority of this oil is tankered along our coast to Washington and 
California.
  Some of the oil is even shipped all the way down to Panama, pumped 
through the TransPanamanian pipeline, which is owned in large part by 
the Panamanian Government. The oil is then put back on smaller U.S.-
flagged tankers that transport it into the gulf States at exorbitant 
prices. This process is no longer economic with the decline in the 
price of oil.
  Now what we have seen is we have seen an increase in the supply of 
oil on the west coast. It has depressed the cost of crude oil in 
California by as much as $3 a barrel, and that has discouraged the 
exploration of development of oilfields in California and Alaska.
  The Department of Energy completed a study of the Alaskan North Slope 
crude oil ban in June 1994 and the Department of Energy concluded that 
the lifting of this ban would add as much as $180 billion in tax 
revenue to the U.S. Treasury, create some 25,000 jobs by the year 2000, 
preserve some 3,300 maritime jobs, inasmuch as some of the oil will 
probably be moving to the Far East in U.S.-flagged vessels that are 
crewed by U.S. sailors, and would require additional ships because, 
obviously, the transit is longer than moving that oil down to the west 
coast. It would also increase American oil production by as much as 
110,000 barrels a day, according to a DOE estimate. This study also 
found it would not significantly impact gas prices to consumers in 
California.
  Mr. President, this ban no longer makes any sense. Rather than 
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, it has decreased our domestic 
production, and made us more reliant on imported oil. Oil, like any 
other commodity, should find its own level and its own market. The 
exception of this has been the prohibition on allowing the export of 
Alaskan oil.
  Mr. President, all this legislation would so is to allow the market 
to determine the price and buyer of the crude oil. The TransAlaska 
pipeline would still supply the west coast with crude oil because it is 
simply the closest market for the oil. The excess crude that creates a 
glut in California and the oil that is forced through the 
TransPanamanian pipeline would probably be sold overseas and find a 
market there. But the market would primarily determine where it is 
sold.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and the 
associated amendment be printed in the Congressional Record and that my 
statement and the accompanying bill be addressed for referral as it 
appropriate.
  Mr. President, I neglected to announce that the senior Senator from 
Alaska [Mr. Stevens] joins me as a cosponsor on the bill.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 395

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

                                TITLE I

     SECITON 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Alaska Power 
     Administration Sale Act''.

     SEC. 102. SALE OF SNETTISHAM AND EKLUTNA HYDROELECTRIC 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to 
     sell the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project (referred to in 
     this Act as ``Snettisham'') to the State of Alaska in 
     accordance with the terms of this Act and the February 10, 
     1989, Snettisham Purchase Agreement, as amended, between the 
     Alaska Power Administration of the Department of Energy and 
     the Alaska Power Authority.
       (b) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to 
     sell the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project (referred to in this 
     Act as ``Eklutna'') to the Municipality of Anchorage doing 
     business as Municipal Light and Power, the Chugach Electric 
     Association, Inc., and the Matanuska Electric Association, 
     Inc., (referred to in this Act as ``Eklutna Purchasers'') in 
     accordance with the terms of this Act and the August 2, 1989, 
     Eklutna Purchase Agreement, as amended, between the 
     Department of Energy and the Eklutna Purchasers.
       (c) The heads of other Federal departments and agencies, 
     including the Secretary of the Interior, shall assist the 
     Secretary of Energy in implementing the sales authorized and 
     directed by this Act.
       (d) The Secretary of Energy shall deposit sale proceeds in 
     the Treasury of the United States to the credit of 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       (e) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary to prepare or acquire Eklutna and Snettisham 
     assets for sale and conveyance. Such preparations and 
     acquisitions shall provide sufficient title to ensure the 
     beneficial use, enjoyment, and occupancy to the purchasers of 
     the asset to be sold.

     SEC. 103 EXEMPTION.

       (a)(1) After the sales authorized by this Act occur, 
     Eklutna and Snettisham, including future modifications, shall 
     continue to be exempt from the requirements of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et. seq.).
       (2) The exemption provided by paragraph (1) does not affect 
     the Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the State of 
     Alaska, the Eklutna Purchases, the Alaska Energy Authority, 
     and Federal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the 
     protection, mitigation of, damages to, and enhancement of 
     fish and wildlife, dated August 7, 1991, which remains in 
     full force and effect.
       (3) Nothing in this Act or the Federal Power Act preempts 
     the State of Alaska from carrying out the responsibilities 
     and authorities of the Memorandum of Agreement.
       (b)(1) The United States District Court for the District of 
     Alaska has jurisdiction to review decisions made under the 
     Memorandum of Agreement and to enforce the provisions of the 
     Memorandum of Agreement, including the remedy of specific 
     performance.
       (2) An action seeking review of a Fish and Wildlife Program 
     (``Program'') of the Governor of Alaska under the Memorandum 
     of agreement or challenging actions of any of the parties to 
     the Memorandum of agreement prior to the adoption of the 
     Program shall be brought not later than 90 days after the 
     date of which the Program is adapted by the Governor of 
     Alaska, or be barred.
       (3) An action seeking review of implementation of the 
     Program shall be brought not later than 90 days after the 
     challenged act implementing the program, or be barred.
       (c) With respect to Eklutna lands described in Exhibit A of 
     the Eklutna Purchase Agreement:
       (1) The Secretary of the Interior shall issue rights-of-way 
     to the Alaska Power Administration for subsequent 
     reassignment to the Eklutna Purchasers--
       (A) at no cost to the Eklutna Purchasers;
       (B) to remain effective for a period equal to the life of 
     Eklutna as extended by improvements, repairs, renewals, or 
     replacements; and
       (C) sufficient for the operation, maintenance, repair, and 
     replacement of, and access to, Eklutna facilities located on 
     military lands and lands managed by the Bureau of Land 
     Management, including land selected by the State of Alaska.
       (2) If the Eklutna Purchasers subsequently sell or transfer 
     Eklutna to private ownership, the Bureau of Land Management 
     may assess reasonable and customary fees for continued uses 
     of the rights-of-way on land managed by the Bureau of Land 
     Management and military lands in accordance with current law.
       (3) Fee title to lands at Anchorage Substation shall be 
     transferred to Eklutna Purchasers at no additional cost if 
     the Secretary of the Interior determines that pending claims 
     to, and selection of, those lands are invalid or 
     relinquished.
       (4) With respect only to approximately 853 acres of Eklutna 
     lands identified in paragraphs 1.a., b., and c. of Exhibit A 
     of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement, the State of Alaska may 
     select, and the secretary of the Interior shall convey, to 
     the state, improved lands under the selection entitlements in 
     section 6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958 (Public Law 85-508) 
     and the North Anchorage Land Agreement of January 31, 1983. 
     The conveyance is subject to the rights-of-way provided 
     [[Page S2571]] to the Eklutna Purchasers under paragraph (1).
       (d) With respect to the approximately 2,671 acres of 
     Snettisham lands identified in paragraphs 1.a and b. of 
     Exhibit
      A of the Snettisham Purchase Agreement, the State of Alaska 
     may select, and the Secretary of the Interior shall convey 
     to the State, improved lands under the selection 
     entitlement in section 6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958 
     (Public Law 85-508).
       (e) Not later than 1 year after both of the sales 
     authorized in section 2 have occurred, as measured by the 
     Transaction Dates stipulated in the Purchase Agreements, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall--
       (1) complete the business of, and close out, the Alaska 
     Power Administration;
       (2) prepare and submit to Congress a report documenting the 
     sales; and
       (3) return unused balances of funds appropriated for the 
     Alaska Power Administration to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       (f) The Act of July 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 382) is repealed 
     effective on the date, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Energy, when all Eklutna assets have been conveyed to the 
     Eklutna Purchasers.
       (g) Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public 
     Law 87-874; 76 Stat. 1193) is repealed effective on the date, 
     as determined by the Secretary of Energy, when all Snettisham 
     assets have been conveyed to the State of Alaska.
       (h) As of the later of the two dates determined in 
     subsection (f) and (g), section 302(a) of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking our subparagraph (C); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) respectively;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``the Bonneville 
     Power Administration, and the Alaska Power Administration'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``and the Bonneville Power 
     Administration''.
       (i) The Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 618), concerning 
     water resources investigation in Alaska, is repealed.
       (j) The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham under this Act are 
     not considered a disposal of Federal surplus property under 
     the following provisions of section 203 of the Federal 
     Property and Administration Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     484) and section 13 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50 
     U.S.C. app. 1622).

                                TITLE II

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This Title may be cited as ``Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
     Amendment Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 202. TAPS ACT AMENDMENTS.

       Section 203 of the Act entitled the ``Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
     Authorization Act,'' as amended (43 U.S.C. 1652), is 
     amended--
       (a) by inserting the following new subsection (f): ``(f) 
     Exports of Alaskan North Slope oil.
       ``(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law (including any regulation), any 
     oil transported by pipeline over a right-of-way granted 
     pursuant to this section may be exported.
       ``(2) Except in the case of oil exported to a country 
     pursuant to a bilateral international oil supply agreement
      entered into by the United States with the country before 
     June 25, 1979, or to a country pursuant to the 
     International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of the 
     International Energy Agency, the oil shall be transported 
     by a vessel documented under the laws of the United States 
     and owned by a citizen of the United States (as determined 
     in accordance with section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 802)).
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the 
     authority of the President under the Constitution, the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.), or the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.) to prohibit exportation of the oil.''.

     SEC. 203. SECURITY OF SUPPLY.

       Section 410 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act 
     (87 Stat. 594) is amended to read as follows:
       ``The Congress reaffirms that the crude oil on the North 
     Slope of Alaska is an important part of the Nation's oil 
     resources, and that the benefits of such crude oil should be 
     equitably shared, directly or indirectly, by all regions of 
     the country. The President shall use any authority he may 
     have to ensure an equitable allocation of available North 
     Slope and other crude oil resources and petroleum products 
     among all regions and all of the several States.''.

     SEC. 204. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Section 103(f) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6212(f)) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``In the first quarter report for each new calendar year, 
     the President shall indicate whether independent refiners in 
     Petroleum Administration District 5 have been unable to 
     secure adequate supplies of crude oil as a result of exports 
     of Alaskan North Slope crude oil in the prior calendar year 
     and shall make such recommendations to the Congress as may be 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 205. GAO REPORT.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a review of energy production in California and Alaska and 
     the effects of Alaskan North Slope crude oil exports, if any, 
     on consumers, independent refiners, and shipbuilding and ship 
     repair yards on the West Coast. The Comptroller General shall 
     commence this review four years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act and, within one year after commencing the review, 
     shall provide a report to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources in the Senate and the Committee on Resources in the 
     House of Representatives. The report shall contain a 
     statement of the principal findings of the review and such 
     recommendations for consideration by the Congress as may be 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by it shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 397. A bill to benefit crime victims by improving enforcement of 
sentences imposing fines and special assessments, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               privatization of defaulted debt collection

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to improve collection of the staggering amount of delinquent debt that 
convicted criminals owe to crime victims and the Federal Government. 
The bill calls on the Department of Justice to contract with private 
firms to collect criminal fines and special assessments from offenders 
who are in default. These criminal fines and assessments are used to 
finance various programs to assist crime victims. The Department of 
Justice is responsible for making criminal debt collections, but DOJ is 
not getting the job done. Privatizing the effort will enable us to tap 
into the source of billions of dollars that otherwise might go 
uncollected.
  The Justice Department and the U.S. General Accounting Office 
reported an inventory of more than 110,000 overdue criminal debts 
valued at more than $2.3 billion at the end of fiscal year 1992. This 
money, if collected, would be deposited into the Crime Victims Fund--
for the counseling of victims of violent crime, for domestic abuse 
shelters, for many programs nationwide that help victims and their 
families cope with the devastation caused by these criminals.
  But the money cannot go into the Crime Victims Fund unless it is 
collected. And right now, many defaulted fines and special assessments 
go uncollected because there is such a tremendous backlog of cases. 
When convicts escape from jail, they are hunted down and forced to do 
their time. So it seems ridiculous that criminal debtors who escape 
payment are not hunted down with the same determination and forced to 
make good on their debts to their victims and the Federal Government.
  Currently, the Department of Justice is responsible for collecting 
past due debts, both criminal and civil. Within the Department of 
Justice, the Associate Deputy Attorney General plans and supervises the 
collections, while the U.S. attorneys in 94 judicial districts are 
charged with actually collecting the past due debts.
  The U.S. attorney offices are not always able to handle the huge 
volume of debt collection cases, however, because of a backlog of older 
cases, inadequate resources, and other priorities. In fact, from 1985 
to 1992, the number of criminal debts tripled while the time spent on 
collections declined. What effect can these fines possibly have, what 
good can they do for victims, if they are not strictly enforced?
  At a time when fiscal restraint is a top priority, it is absurd that 
we are not vigorously pursuing this multibillions-dollar source of 
funds and that we are letting convicted criminals compound their crimes 
by defying court orders to pay fines for these misdeeds.
  Mr. President, privatizing debt collection has proven to be 
effective. Public Law 99-578 authorized a pilot program that allowed 
the Attorney General to contract with 18 private law firms in 7 Federal 
judicial districts to collect past due civil debts, such as student 
loans as federally guaranteed mortgages. The General Accounting Office 
completed an evaluation of the pilot program in September 1994, and in 
its report to Congress, the GAO recommended expanding the pilot program 
because it was so successful.
  The GAO report concluded that the private law firms were cost 
effective, collecting $9.2 million in defaulted civil debts at a cost 
of $2.4 million. Further, the private firms closed more cases at a low 
unit cost than the collectors in 
[[Page S2572]] the U.S. attorney offices. The U.S. attorney collectors 
spend $422 to close each case compared to $243 for the private firms. 
Most important of all, the GAO study noted that the private firms 
worked cases and collected debts that the U.S. attorney collectors had 
given up on or may never have dealt with because of their ever-
increasing workloads.
  This pilot program is successful dealing with civil debt collection. 
We should apply this same approach to capturing the $2.3 billion in 
uncollected criminal debt.
  The legislation I am introducing today would require the Director of 
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to contract with private 
sector firms to collect defaulted criminal debts. The private firms 
would be paid on a contingent fee basis, which means that these firms 
would receive a set percentage of any amount that they collected. This 
approach would ensure that the Government will not pay for work unless 
it is completed and it would ensure that the private firms will be 
motivated to do the work.
  All of the defaulted criminal debt that would be collected, less the 
contingency fee, would be deposited directly into the Crime Victims 
Fund, in accordance with Federal law. I want to stress that this is 
money that would not otherwise be collected if it were not for 
privatized collection. Every dollar collected will provide additional 
resources to render desperately needed victim assistance.
  The Crime Victims Fund finances many vital programs across this 
Nation. In my home State of Arizona, the Brewster Center in Tucson 
annually depends on money from the Crime Victims Fund to provide 
shelter and counseling for more than 1,000 women and children living 
through the horror of domestic violence.
  In Phoenix, AZ, the Crisis Nursery is a lifeline for the youngest and 
most helpless victims of crime--children. Last year, money from the 
Crime Victims Fund sheltered and counseled 806 children at the Crisis 
Nursery--helping them endure the tragedy of physical and sexual abuse, 
the loss of a murdered parent, and neglect or abandonment. Victims 
assistance programs in Arizona received slightly more than $1 million 
from the Crime Victims Fund last year, but that amount is down for the 
third year in a row.
  Every dollar of defaulted criminal debt that is collected as a result 
of this legislation means continued funding for places like Brewster 
Center and the Crisis Nursery. And, remember, this is money that is 
coming directly from court fines on the convicted criminals who 
committed the crimes.
  Mr. President, I am amenable to discussion on the mandatory nature of 
this legislation. There may be some merit to considering an optional 
approach to contracting with private firms or, perhaps, a pilot program 
similar to the successful one that Congress created for privatizing 
civil debt collection.
  It is imperative, however, that we act swiftly because there is a 5-
year statute of limitations on collection of the criminal special 
assessments. Every day that we spend debating this issue is one less 
day spent tracking down and collecting from these deadbeat criminals; 
and when the statute of limitations passes, that money is gone forever.
  Mr. President, this legislation clearly empowers the Department of 
Justice to obtain much-needed help on an overwhelming task--collecting 
more than $2 billion in defaulted criminal debts, and I urge quick 
consideration and passage of this measure.
  I ask unanimous consult that several letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         National Organization for


                                            Victim Assistance,

                                Washington, DC, February 10, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I write to express the enthusiastic 
     support of the National Organization for Victim Assistance 
     for your proposed legislation to privatize the collection of 
     backlogged, uncollected penalty assessments and criminal 
     fines owed to the federal courts--and to the Crime Victims 
     Fund.
       As you know, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, as amended, 
     created the Crime Victims Fund, into which are placed 
     virtually all Title 18 federal criminal fines, the ``penalty 
     assessments'' created by VOCA, and forfeited bail bonds. 
     These revenues (which run about $150-$200 million a year) are 
     then expended on two small victim-oriented programs and two 
     major ones--one supporting the various states' crime victim 
     compensation programs, and the other thousands of local 
     programs of personal assistance and advocacy.
       Through these two programs, VOCA has become the ``Marshall 
     Plan of the victims' movement,'' a stimulator of huge growth 
     in victim compensation and assistance programs. Its 
     multiplier effects make all of us in the victims' movement 
     very protective of its funding base, and very supportive of 
     expanding that base wherever possible.
       We therefore applaud your many efforts to increase VOCA's 
     revenues, from trying to make the Federal Fine Center more 
     productive in its collection efforts to proposing the 
     doubling of the penalty assessments. But it is our estimation 
     that the privatization of delinquent fine collections, which 
     is your latest proposal, would prove to be by far the most 
     beneficial to the Fund and to the programs and victims it 
     supports.
       The reason for this is the much-discussed $4 billion 
     backlog in unpaid fines. We, like you, have heard it said 
     that much of this is uncollected and uncollectable, involving 
     everything from many small assessments against deported 
     aliens to a few fines against bigtime, white-collar offenders 
     who are now effectively destitute.
       To which we say, first, the financial services industry 
     that does collections for government agencies of every 
     description indicates that this is a worthwhile venture to 
     pursue--and second, we have heard of no plausible alternative 
     to the privatization option--and third, the delinquencies in 
     question are over $4 billion--and growing. A mere penny on 
     each of those dollars adds up to very real money in the 
     economy of VOCA.
       To put this concern about federal fines into perspective, 
     we believe very strongly that victims and their advocates 
     have no special, legitimate interest in the setting of fine 
     levels or the ordering of fines except that they meet one 
     test--that of just and proportionate punishment.
       But once that test is met, it is fair, indeed essential, 
     for victim advocates to demand more effective efforts to 
     collect the fines that are ordered. In our view, your 
     privatization proposal offers that needed progress in 
     improved collections, which makes it superior to every other 
     alternative brought to our attention.
       We therefore thank you for this newest expression of your 
     support for crime victims and the programs that help them.
           Sincerely,
                                    Marlene A. Young, Ph.D., J.D.,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                       National Victim Center,

                                 Arlington, VA, February 13, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the Board of Directors 
     and Staff of the National Victim Center, we wish to express 
     our support for your proposed measure to begin the 
     privatization of the Federal fine collection program which 
     secures delinquent penalties, fines and assessments destined 
     for the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund.
       The National Victim Center works with more than 8,000 
     victim and law enforcement organizations nationwide--a 
     substantial number of which benefit directly or indirectly 
     from VOCA funding through state administered compensation and 
     victim assistance programs.
       In preparation for last fall's hearing held by the Senate 
     Committee on Government Affairs, I spoke with dozens of VOCA 
     Administrators and VOCA sub-grantees in the field. When asked 
     about the importance of VOCA Funding to their program, the 
     unanimous response was that this source of financial support 
     was not only important but indispensable to the survival of 
     their programs. In fact, most made it clear that given 
     reductions in contributions from other private and public 
     sources, programs are being forced to rely more heavily than 
     ever on VOCA money to keep their doors open.
       While the resources available to assist crime victims 
     continue to shrink in these times of fiscal caution and 
     restraint, the demand for victim assistance and services 
     continue to grow. Let me provide some specific examples given 
     to me directly from State Administrators and victim service 
     organizations last fall.
       Typical is the case of the Jefferson County Domestic 
     Violence Shelter in Arvada, Colorado. In 1993 alone 524 
     domestic violence victims were turned away for lack of space, 
     including 222 children.
       Texas was forced to de-fund some of its victim service 
     programs like the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) 
     Program that provides child victims of abuse and sexual 
     assault with a volunteer advocate to protect their rights and 
     represent their interests before the court--particularly when 
     the offender is a parent. In many cases, CASA volunteers are 
     the only persons in the system who are performing such 
     services. Without them, children will be left to fend for 
     themselves in a system they cannot comprehend. Surrounded by 
     adults making demands, they are too frightened or simply 
     unable to fulfill.
       Washington State recently funded a program to provide 
     assistance to male victims of sexual assault (the most common 
     target of 
     [[Page S2573]] pedophiles). The program had resources to 
     serve about 50 clients. Within three months, it had 
     applications from more than 500 victims.
       Thus, every dollar collected in fines for the VOCA fund 
     makes a difference in the life of some crime victim. This 
     fact viewed in the shadow of $4 billion in outstanding fines 
     makes collection of Federal Fines an important priority of 
     the victims' movement. It is for this reason that the 
     movement generally supported the decision to use a portion of 
     the VOCA fund to aid in the collection. More than $6 million 
     per year is earmarked off the top of the VOCA Fund for that 
     specific purpose. A good portion of that money has been 
     dedicated to the creation of a ``Federal Fine Center'' as an 
     investment that would assure a far greater return in 
     increased collections.
       Unfortunately, reports raise serious questions concerning 
     the wisdom of that investment. After years in developing and 
     millions of dollars spent, crime victims and their advocates 
     are left with little alternative than to doubt the viability 
     of the Center and Federal Government's current collection 
     strategy.
       We feel your proposal to privatize a portion of that 
     collection process is an important first step in the pursuit 
     of an alternative and more effective collection strategy. The 
     challenge presented by the collection of fines is not 
     dramatically different than that faced by hundreds of 
     thousands of private firms seeking collection of debt. Yet 
     such private concerns seem to have far greater success in 
     meeting the challenge of debt collection than their counter-
     parts in the Federal Judicial System.
       We believe the time has come to look to the private sector 
     for solutions to our critical fine collection quandary. Given 
     current circumstances, we feel that crime victims, advocates 
     and service providers have little to lose and everything to 
     gain.
       Your proposal to allow private firms the opportunity to 
     collect unpaid fines after 120 days will be a challenging 
     test of private sector's proficiency. If they succeed in 
     collecting these relatively ``stale debts'', than expansion 
     of their role in the collection arena may be desirable.
       While the National Victim Center continues to believe there 
     is a need to overhaul the entire Federal fine collection 
     process, your proposed measure represent the first serious 
     step toward that undertaking.
       It is for this reason that the Board of Directors and staff 
     of the National Victim Center strongly urge your colleagues 
     to co-sponsor and support this measure of crucial importance 
     to our nation's crime victims.
       Thank you for your consideration and support.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David Beatty,
     Director of Public Policy.
                                                                    ____

                                             Arizona Department of


                                                Public Safety,

                                   Phoenix, AZ, February 10, 1995.
     Senator John McCain,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for providing us the 
     opportunity to respond to the proposed Privatization of 
     Defaulted Debt Collection Act.
       The Arizona Department of Public Safety administers the 
     federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) victim assistance grant 
     which supports private non-profit and governmental agencies 
     who serve victims of crime. For the past several years, the 
     level of deposits into the Crime Victims Fund has dropped due 
     to decreasing collections. This results in a reduction of 
     victim services during a time when victim services should be 
     significantly increased. Agencies who provide direct 
     assistance to victims of sexual assault, child abuse, 
     domestic violence and other violent crimes are dramatically 
     impacted.
       Therefore, the Arizona Department of Public Safety strongly 
     supports the proposed legislation which would ultimately 
     result in more funding for victims of crime.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lynn Pirkle,
                                 VOCA Grant Administrator.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Heflin, 
        Mr. Graham, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 398. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide 
congressional authorization for State control over transportation of 
municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                            Flow Control Act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the 
Flow Control Act. The Flow Control Act will overturn a 1994 Supreme 
Court decision and give State and local governments the authority to 
control the flow of solid waste under specific circumstances. The 
Supreme Court decision, if allowed to stand, could result in chaos in 
communities in virtually all of the States where flow control authority 
is currently in place and constitutes a critical component of 
strategies to manage waste. My legislation provides that State and 
local governments, not the Federal Government, will decide whether to 
use flow control authority.
  The bill I am introducing today contains the provisions of title II 
of S. 2345 which were negotiated by a House-Senate conference committee 
and passed the House. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Senate floor 
because of concerns regarding another issue in the bill on the last day 
of the Congress last October. It was endorsed last year by all those 
parties faced with the responsibility of disposing of solid waste. 
While there are technical problems with the bill, it incorporates the 
bulk of the agreement worked out last year. I intend to work with all 
of the parties to address these remaining technical issues.
  On May 16, 1994, in a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in the 
case of Carbone versus Clarkstown that a New York municipality could 
not require that garbage generated in the locality be sent to a 
designated waste management facility. The Court held that a Clarkstown, 
NY, flow control ordinance interfered with interstate commerce and 
deprived out-of-State firms access to the local trash market. The 
Constitution provides that only the Federal Government may regulate 
commerce among the States unless it specifically delegates this 
authority to them. The court's ruling held that this power had not been 
granted by Congress to the States.
  If not reversed, this decision will have a significant effect on the 
ability of State and local governments to manage garbage. Historically, 
State and local governments have had the responsibility for municipal 
solid waste management. This is recognized in the Nation's solid waste 
management law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA. In 
RCRA, the Congress found that collection and disposal of garbage is 
primarily a function for State and local governments. To foster this 
function, RCRA requires EPA to provide assistance in the development 
and implementation of State solid waste management plans. States are 
encouraged to develop statewide solid waste management plans. Before 
EPA approves a plan, it must find that the plan identifies the 
responsibilities of State, regional, and local governments and has 
provided for the establishment of such State regulatory powers as is 
necessary to implement the plan. It's clear from RCRA that Congress 
intended that State and local governments have the authority necessary 
to manage solid waste. My bill authorizes, but doesn't require, State 
and local governments to use flow control authority.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, 43 States, including 
New Jersey, either utilize flow control authority or have authorized 
local governments to use flow control for waste management. Flow 
control laws have been in place in New Jersey since 1979 and control 
all of the nonhazardous solid waste in the State's 567 municipalities 
and 21 counties. Flow control has been a significant part of New 
Jersey's ability to build an infrastructure to handle the 14 million 
tons of solid waste requiring disposal annually. Collectively, this 
infrastructure represents a capital investment of over $2 billion. New 
Jersey's recycling programs also are dependent on revenues received for 
use of New Jersey waste management facilities.
  The Supreme Court decision threatens this authority, undercuts the 
roles of State and local governments in solid waste management and 
negates the planning process contemplated by the Congress in RCRA. It 
would impose a radical change in the way solid waste is managed in the 
United States.
  The Carbone decision could hamper solid waste management efforts in 
three ways. First, the decision makes it impossible for cities to 
guarantee a steady stream of waste to waste disposal and processing 
facilities. Without this guaranteed steady stream of garbage, 
communities will be unable to secure financing to build solid waste 
management facilities. This threatens New Jersey's program to become 
solid waste self-sufficient by the end of the decade. It also threatens 
New Jersey's existing program to restrict exports of garbage without 
approval by the State.
  In addition, localities would lose the revenue generated by garbage 
disposal at municipal facilities as garbage flowed to other facilities. 
This would 
[[Page S2574]] eliminate the source of funding for related 
nonprofitable waste management activities such as recycling and 
household hazardous waste programs. We need to increase recycling 
efforts. But the loss of flow control authority threatens existing 
efforts and makes an expansion of recycling programs less likely. Local 
governments will be forced to increase taxes to pay for the costs of 
these imported solid waste programs.
  Finally, existing bonds used to finance waste management facilities 
are at risk if localities cannot send an adequate level of garbage to 
the facility to generate revenues to pay off the bonds. If localities 
cannot send an adequate level of garbage to a facility to generate the 
revenue needed to pay off the bonds, they face default and the affected 
communities face higher taxes.
  The Supreme Court decision already is having an adverse effect on 
local governments. Moody's Investors Services, a bond rating service, 
is reviewing the bond rating for 100 solid waste facilities dependent 
on flow control. Facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
Minnesota, and Wisconsin where flow control ordinances are facing court 
challenges are at particular risk of having their bonds devalued or 
degraded. The bond rating for the Lancaster County Pennsylvania Solid 
Waste Management Authority has been lowered and the rating for the 
Camden County Pollution Control Authority was placed on a credit watch. 
A number of solid waste facilities already have been cancelled or 
stalled because Congress has failed to act to authorize flow control.
  The flow control provision takes a balanced approach to addressing 
the concerns raised by the Supreme Court decision. It is intended to 
give State and local governments flow control authority under certain 
circumstances while requiring that local communities use a competitive 
designation process in making flow control decisions to ensure that 
free market competition is a component of flow control efforts. The 
provision has four major components.
  First, it protects all existing flow control arrangements where flow 
control had been used to designate solid waste management facilities 
prior to May 15, 1994.
  Second, it grants authority to States and local governments to 
institute additional flow control authority for: recyclables which have 
been voluntarily surrendered to the government, and municipal solid 
waste generated from household, commercial, industrial and 
institutional sources, as well as incinerator ash and construction and 
demolition debris if such waste had been flow controlled under a State 
or local law, ordinance, solid waste management plan or legally binding 
provision prior to May 15, 1994 or the local government had committed 
to the designation of one or more waste management facilities for the 
transportation, management or disposal of
 waste and had made a designation within 5 years of the enactment of 
this section.

  Third, it provides that flow control authority can only be used if 
the community has a program to remove recyclables from the solid waste 
stream in accordance with State law or a local solid waste management 
plan. Recyclable materials are materials which have been separated, or 
diverted at the point of generation, from municipal solid waste. This 
language does not require materials to be separated at the point of 
generation because some recycling operations have multiple sorting 
arrangements some of which may occur after the point of generation. The 
language in this bill ensures that such multiple sorting operations 
will be considered recycling.
  Fourth, it requires that when a local government decides to implement 
flow control authority, it undertake a competitive designation process 
which considers the facilities and services which the private sector 
can provide. Local governments in states other than New Jersey would 
also have to undertake a determination regarding whether they needed 
flow control to manage their waste.
  This competitive designation process requires the government to 
establish specific criteria to be used to select facilities and also 
compare alternatives when designating a facility for flow control. The 
process also provides for public participation during the selection 
process. At the same time, it allows State and local governments to 
retain final decision making authority over most waste disposal 
decisions. A process is established which allows a Governor to certify 
that the State has a competitive process which satisfies this 
requirement.
  Mr. President, I know some have expressed concern that flow control 
legislation will allow local governments to establish uneconomical 
monopolies on solid waste management. I believe that market competition 
can reduce the costs of solid waste management and, in turn, individual 
property taxes. That's why my legislation requires a competitive 
designation process. Municipal solid waste is a State and local 
government responsibility but doesn't have to be carried out by these 
governments. There are numerous examples of successful efforts to 
privatize government operations. This bill will bring the pressure of 
the free market to bear on solid waste decisions and hopefully lead to 
the most efficient operation providing relief to local taxpayers.
  I want to make clear what this bill does not do. It does not tell 
State and local governments how to manage waste. Decisions on how to 
manage garbage and where to cite management facilities are not Federal 
responsibilities. These decisions have been and continue to be issues 
for local governments to decide, subject to State permits. The 
provision does not require State and local governments to use flow 
control authority. Again, this decision is left to these governments. 
The provision leaves State and local governments with the same 
authority they've had other than dealing with flow control to address 
solid waste.
  Mr. President, many of my colleagues have expressed concern about the 
effect that unfunded mandates can have on State and local governments. 
I share this concern. But if we fail to act to overturn this Supreme 
Court decision, we could significantly increase the costs to local 
governments of solid waste management just as if the Congress had 
imposed a costly unfunded mandate on these governments. We should be 
giving State and local governments wide latitude to address solid waste 
management, particularly because the Federal Government does not 
provide assistance for State and local solid waste management programs.
  The legislation I have developed has been endorsed by a wide range of 
organizations including the Conference of Mayors, and National 
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National 
Association of Towns and Townships, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, and hundreds 
of local communities across the country.
  Mr. President, we cannot expect State and local governments to manage 
solid waste as contemplated by RCRA if we fail to provide those 
governments with the tools to ensure that properly sized facilities to 
manage the waste are constructed. My legislation merely overturns the 
Supreme Court decision and provides State and local governments with 
the tools they need to manage solid waste. It maintains the status quo 
and avoids the radical change in solid waste management which would 
result from the Supreme Court decision.
  The Congress must deal with the ambiguities that flow from the 
Supreme Court decision soon. State and local governments need to 
discharge their responsibilities for solid waste disposal.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Flow 
Control Act of 1995. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, 
an October 7, 1994 letter signed by all parties in support of the bill, 
and a number of articles discussing the adverse effect the Supreme 
Court decision is having on local communities be included in the 
Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 398

       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 ``Flow Control Act of 1995''.
     [[Page S2575]] SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE 
                   CONTROL OVER TRANSPORTATION, MANAGEMENT, AND 
                   DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

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

     ``SEC. 4011. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE CONTROL 
                   OVER TRANSPORTATION, MANAGEMENT, AND DISPOSAL 
                   OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       ``(a) Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State and each qualified political 
     subdivision may, in accordance with this section--
       ``(A)(i) exercise flow control authority for municipal 
     solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid waste incineration 
     unit, construction debris, or demolition debris generated 
     within the boundaries of the State or qualified political 
     subdivision if, before May 15, 1994, the State or qualified 
     political subdivision--
       ``(I) adopted a law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste 
     management plan, or legally binding provision that contains 
     flow control authority and, pursuant to such authority, 
     directs such solid waste, ash, or debris to a proposed or 
     existing waste management facility designated before May 15, 
     1994; or
       ``(II) adopted a law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste 
     management plan, or legally binding provision that identifies 
     the use of one or more waste management methods that will be 
     necessary for the transportation, management, or disposal of 
     municipal solid waste generated within such boundaries, and 
     committed to the designation of one or more waste management 
     facilities for such method or methods;
       ``(ii) after the effective date of this section, in the 
     case of a State or qualified political subdivision that 
     adopted such a law, ordinance, regulation, plan, or legally 
     binding provision that meets the requirements of subclause 
     (I) or (II) of clause (i), exercise flow control authority 
     over such solid waste from any existing or future waste 
     management facility to any other existing or future waste 
     management facility; and
       ``(iii) after the effective date of this section, in the 
     case of a State or qualified political subdivision that 
     adopted such a law, ordinance, regulation, plan, or legally 
     binding provision that meets the requirements of subclause 
     (I) of clause (i), exercise flow control authority over such 
     solid waste, ash, or debris from any existing waste 
     management facility to any other existing or proposed waste 
     management facility, and may do so without regard to 
     subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(B) exercise flow control authority for voluntarily 
     relinquished recyclable materials generated within the 
     boundaries of the State or qualified political subdivision.
       ``(2) Reasonable regulation of commerce.--
       ``(A) A law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management 
     plan, or legally binding provision of a State or qualified 
     political subdivision, described in paragraph (1), that 
     implements or exercises flow control authority in compliance 
     with this section shall be considered to be a reasonable 
     regulation of commerce and shall not be considered to be an 
     undue burden on or otherwise as impairing, restraining, or 
     discriminating against interstate commerce.
       ``(B) A contract or franchise agreement entered into by a 
     State or political subdivision to provide the exclusive or 
     nonexclusive authority for the collection, transportation, or 
     disposal of municipal solid waste, and not otherwise 
     involving the exercise of flow control authority described in 
     paragraph (1), shall be considered to be a reasonable 
     regulation of commerce and shall not be considered to be an 
     undue burden on or otherwise as impairing, restraining, or 
     discriminating against interstate commerce.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Limitation of authority regarding recyclable 
     materials.--A State or qualified political subdivision may 
     exercise the authority described in subsection (a)(1)(B) 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) Limitation of authority regarding solid waste or 
     recyclable materials.--
       ``(A) A State or qualified political subdivision may 
     exercise the authority described in subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     of subsection (a)(1) only if the State or qualified political 
     subdivision establishes a program to separate, or divert at 
     the point of generation, recyclable materials from 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.
       ``(B) A State or qualified political subdivision may 
     exercise the authority described in clause (i) or (ii) of 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) only if, after conducting one or more 
     public hearings, the State or qualified political 
     subdivision--
       ``(i) finds, on the basis of the record developed at the 
     hearing or hearings, that it is necessary to exercise the 
     authority described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection 
     (a)(1) 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 the management of municipal solid waste or 
     recyclable materials;
       ``(ii) finds, on the basis of the record developed at the 
     hearing or hearings, including an analysis of the ability of 
     the private sector and public bodies to provide short and 
     long term integrated solid waste management services with and 
     without flow control authority, that the exercise of flow 
     control authority is necessary to provide such services in an 
     economically efficient and environmentally sound manner; and
       ``(iii) provides a written explanation of the reasons for 
     the findings described clauses (i) and (ii), which may 
     include a finding of a preferred waste management methodology 
     or methodologies for providing such integrated solid waste 
     management services.
       ``(C) With respect to each designated waste management 
     facility, the authority of subsection (a) shall be effective 
     until completion of the schedule for payment of the capital 
     costs of the waste management facility concerned (as in 
     effect on May 15, 1994), or for the remaining useful life of 
     the original waste management facility, whichever is longer. 
     At the end of such period, the authority of subsection (a) 
     shall be effective for any waste management facility for 
     which subparagraph (B) and subsection (c) have been complied 
     with by the State or qualified political subdivision, except 
     that no facility, and no State or qualified political 
     subdivision, subject to subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(I) or 
     subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii) shall be required to comply with 
     subparagraph (B) for a period of 10 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     this paragraph, compliance with subparagraph (B) shall not be 
     required where--
       ``(i) a designated waste management facility is required to 
     retrofit or otherwise make significant modifications to meet 
     applicable environmental requirements or safety requirements;
       ``(ii) routine repair or scheduled replacements of existing 
     equipment or components of a designated waste management 
     facility is undertaken that does not add to the capacity of 
     the waste management facility; or
       ``(iii) a designated waste management facility expands on 
     land legally or equitably owned, or under option to purchase 
     or lease, by the owner or operator of such facility and the 
     applicable permit includes such land.
       ``(D) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this 
     section, paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) shall not apply to any 
     State (or any of its political subdivisions) that, on or 
     before January 1, 1984, enacted regulations pursuant to a 
     State law that required or directed the transportation, 
     management, or disposal of solid waste from residential, 
     commercial, institutional and industrial sources as defined 
     by State law to specific waste management facilities and 
     applied those regulations to every political subdivision in 
     the State.
       ``(3) Limitation to applied authorities.--The authority 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall apply only to the 
     specific classes or categories of solid waste to which the 
     authority described in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(I) was applied 
     by the State or qualified political subdivision before May 
     15, 1994, and to the specific classes or categories of solid 
     waste for which the State or qualified political subdivision 
     committed to the designation of one or more waste management 
     facilities as described in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(II).
       ``(4) Expiration of authority.--The authority granted under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(II) 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, one or more proposed or existing 
     waste management facilities within 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(5) Limitation on revenue.--A State or qualified 
     political subdivision may exercise the authority described in 
     subsection (a) only if the State or qualified political 
     subdivision limits the use of any of its revenues derived 
     from the exercise of such authority primarily to solid waste 
     management services.
       ``(c) Competitive Designation Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State or qualified political 
     subdivision may exercise the authority described in 
     subsection (a) only if the State or qualified political 
     subdivision develops and implements a competitive designation 
     process, with respect to each waste management facility or 
     each facility for recyclable materials. The process shall--
       ``(A) ensure 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 qualified political 
     subdivision;
       ``(B) set forth the goals of the designation process, 
     including at a minimum--
       ``(i) capacity assurance;
       ``(ii) the establishment of provisions to provide that 
     protection of human health and the environment will be 
     achieved; and
       ``(iii) any other goals determined to be relevant by the 
     State or qualified political subdivision;
       ``(C) identify and compare reasonable and available 
     alternatives, options, and costs for designation of the 
     facilities;
       ``(D) provide for public participation and comment;
     [[Page S2576]]   ``(E) ensure that the designation of each 
     facility is accomplished through an open competitive process 
     during which the State or qualified political subdivision--
       ``(i) identifies in writing criteria to be utilized for 
     selection of the facilities, which shall not discriminate 
     unfairly against any particular waste management facility or 
     any method of management, transportation or disposal, and 
     shall not establish qualifications for selection that can 
     only be met by public bodies;
       ``(ii) provides a fair and equal 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
       ``(iii) evaluates and selects the facilities for 
     designation based on the merits of the facilities in meeting 
     the criteria identified; and
       ``(F) base the designation of each such facility on reasons 
     that shall be stated in a public record.
       ``(2) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--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 paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Process.--In making a certification under 
     subparagraph (A), a Governor shall--
       ``(i) 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;
       ``(ii) 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 the laws and 
     regulations satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1);
       ``(iii) 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
       ``(iv) publish 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.
       ``(C) Appeal.--Within 120 days after publication of the 
     final certification under subparagraph (B), any interested 
     person may file an appeal of the final certification in the 
     United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     judicial district of the State, for a judicial determination 
     that the certified laws and regulations do not satisfy the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) or that the certification 
     process did not satisfy the procedural requirements of 
     subparagraph (B). The appeal shall set forth the specific 
     reasons for the appeal of the final certification.
       ``(D) Limitation to record.--Any judicial proceeding 
     brought under subparagraph (C) shall be limited to the 
     administrative record developed in connection with the 
     procedures described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(E) Costs of litigation.--In any judicial proceeding 
     brought under subparagraph (C), the court shall award costs 
     of litigation (including reasonable attorney fees) to any 
     prevailing party whenever the court determines that such 
     award is appropriate.
       ``(F) Limitation on review of certifications.--If no appeal 
     is taken within 120 days after the publication of the final 
     certification, or if the final certification by the Governor 
     of any State is upheld by the United States Circuit Court of 
     Appeals and no party seeks review by the Supreme Court 
     (within applicable time requirements), the final 
     certification shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(G) Limitation on review of designations.--Designations 
     made after the final certification and pursuant to the 
     certified laws and regulations shall not be subject to 
     judicial review for failure to satisfy the requirements of 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Ownership of Recyclable Materials.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on required transfers.--Nothing in this 
     section shall authorize any State or qualified political 
     subdivision, or any designee of the State or qualified 
     political subdivision, 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 of the recyclable materials voluntarily 
     made the materials available to the State or qualified 
     political subdivision and relinquished any rights to, or 
     ownership of, such materials.
       ``(2) Other transactions.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prohibit any person from selling, purchasing, accepting, 
     conveying, or transporting any recyclable materials for 
     purposes of transformation or remanufacture into usable or 
     marketable materials, unless a generator or owner voluntarily 
     made the materials available to the State or qualified 
     political subdivision and relinquished any rights to, or 
     ownership of, such materials.
       ``(e) 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 may 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.
       ``(f) Existing Laws and Contracts.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent consistent with subsection 
     (a), 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 or facility for recyclable materials) 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, or facility for recyclable materials, 
     for the transportation, management or disposal of municipal 
     solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid waste incineration 
     unit, construction debris or demolition debris, or recyclable 
     materials, 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, if, in the case of a contract or agreement relating 
     to recyclable materials, the generator or owner of the 
     materials, and the State or qualified political subdivision, 
     have met the appropriate conditions in subsection (b)(1) with 
     respect to the materials.
       ``(B) Any other contract or agreement entered into before 
     May 15, 1994, for the transportation, management or disposal 
     of municipal solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid waste 
     incineration unit, or construction debris or demolition 
     debris.
       ``(C)(i) 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 of 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, or incinerator ash from, a 
     solid waste incineration unit, or construction debris or 
     demolition debris, generated within the boundaries;

     if the law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management 
     plan, or legally binding provision is applied to the 
     transportation of solid waste described in subclause (III), 
     to a proposed or existing waste management facility 
     designated before May 15, 1994, or to the management or 
     disposal of such solid waste at such a facility, 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; and
       ``(II) that pertains to the transportation or management of 
     recyclable materials 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 of recyclable materials that are generated 
     within the 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, or to the management of such materials, 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 or recyclable materials 
     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) Effect on interstate commerce.--Any contract or 
     agreement described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph 
     (1), and any law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste 
     management plan, or legally binding provision described in 
     subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), shall be considered to be 
     a reasonable regulation of commerce by a State or qualified 
     political subdivision, retroactive to 
     [[Page S2577]] the effective date of the contract or 
     agreement, or to the date of adoption of any such law, 
     ordinance, regulation, solid waste management plan, or 
     legally binding provision, and shall not be considered to be 
     an undue burden on or otherwise as impairing, restraining, or 
     discriminating against interstate commerce.
       ``(4) 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 be made in compliance 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) Federal or state environmental laws.--Nothing in this 
     section is intended to supersede, amend, or otherwise modify 
     Federal or State environmental laws (including regulations) 
     that apply to the disposal or management of solid waste or 
     recyclable materials at waste management facilities or 
     facilities for recyclable materials.
       ``(2) State law.--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) Prohibition.--No political subdivision may exercise 
     flow control authority to direct the movement of municipal 
     solid waste to any waste management facility for which a 
     Federal permit was denied twice before the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section only, the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Committed to the designation of one or more waste 
     management facilities.--The term `committed to the 
     designation of one or more waste management facilities' means 
     that a State or qualified political subdivision 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) Obtained all required permits for the construction of 
     such waste management facility prior to May 15, 1994.
       ``(B) Executed contracts for the construction of such waste 
     management facility prior to May 15, 1994.
       ``(C) Presented revenue bonds for sale to specifically 
     provide revenue for the construction of such waste management 
     facility prior to May 15, 1994.
       ``(D) Submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency or 
     agencies, on or before May 15, 1994, administratively 
     complete permit applications for the construction and 
     operation of a waste management facility.
       ``(E) Formed a public authority or a joint agreement among 
     qualified political subdivisions, pursuant to a law 
     authorizing such formation for the purposes of designating 
     facilities.
       ``(F) Executed a contract or agreement that obligates or 
     otherwise requires a State or qualified political subdivision 
     to deliver a minimum quantity of solid waste to a waste 
     management facility and that obligates or otherwise requires 
     the State or qualified political subdivision to pay for that 
     minimum quantity of solid waste even if the stated minimum 
     quantity of solid waste is not delivered within a required 
     timeframe, otherwise commonly known as a `put or pay 
     agreement'.
       ``(G) Adopted, pursuant to a State statute that 
     specifically described the method for designating by solid 
     waste management districts, a resolution of preliminary 
     designation that specifies criteria and procedures for 
     soliciting proposals to designate facilities after having 
     completed a public notice and comment period.
       ``(H) Adopted, pursuant to a State statute that 
     specifically described the method for designating by solid 
     waste management districts, a resolution of intent to 
     establish designation with a list of facilities for which 
     designation is intended.
       ``(2) Designation; designate.--The terms `designate', 
     `designated', `designation' or `designating' mean a 
     requirement of a State or qualified political subdivision, 
     and the act of a State or qualified political subdivision, to 
     require that all or any portion of the municipal solid waste 
     that is generated within the boundaries of the State or 
     qualified political subdivision be delivered to a waste 
     management facility identified by a State or qualified 
     political subdivision, and specifically includes put or pay 
     agreements of the type described in paragraph (1)(F).
       ``(3) Flow control authority.--The term `flow control 
     authority' means the authority to control the movement of 
     solid waste or recyclable materials and direct such waste or 
     recyclable materials to one or more designated waste 
     management facilities or facilities for recyclable materials.
       ``(4) 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. `Industrial solid waste' does not 
     include municipal solid waste specified in paragraph 
     (5)(A)(iii).
       ``(5) Municipal solid waste.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the limitations of subsection 
     (b)(3), the term `municipal solid waste' means--
       ``(i) any solid waste discarded by a household, including a 
     single or multifamily residence;
       ``(ii) any solid waste that is discarded by a commercial, 
     institutional, or industrial source;
       ``(iii) residue remaining after recyclable materials have 
     been separated or diverted from municipal solid waste 
     described in clause (i) or (ii);
       ``(iv) any waste material or waste substance removed from a 
     septic tank, septage pit, or cesspool, other than from 
     portable toilets; and
       ``(v) conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste 
     under section 3001(d), if it is collected, processed or 
     disposed with other municipal solid waste as part of 
     municipal solid waste services.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' shall 
     not include any of the following:
       ``(i) Hazardous waste required to be managed in accordance 
     with subtitle C (other than waste described in subparagraph 
     (A)(v)), solid waste containing a polychlorinated biphenyl 
     regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2601 et seq.), or medical waste listed in section 11002.
       ``(ii)(I) A recyclable material.
       ``(II) A material or a product returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer or the agent of the 
     manufacturer for credit, evaluation, or reuse unless such 
     material or product is discarded or abandoned for collection, 
     disposal or combustion.
       ``(III) A material or product that is an out-of-date or 
     unmarketable material or product, or is a material or product 
     that does not conform to specifications, and that is returned 
     to the manufacturer or the agent of the manufacturer for 
     credit, evaluation, or reuse unless such material or product 
     is discarded or abandoned for collection, disposal or 
     combustion.
       ``(iii) 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.
       ``(iv)(I) Industrial solid waste.
       ``(II) Any solid waste that is generated by an industrial 
     facility and transported for the purpose of containment, 
     storage, or disposal to a facility that is owned or operated 
     by the generator of the waste, or a facility that is located 
     on property owned by the generator.
       ``(6) 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 
     area served by the governmental entity or political 
     subdivision.
       ``(7) 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.
       ``(8) 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.
       ``(9) Waste management facility.--The term `waste 
     management facility' means any facility or facilities in 
     which municipal solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid 
     waste incineration unit, or construction debris or demolition 
     debris is separated, stored, transferred, treated, processed, 
     combusted, deposited or disposed.
       ``(10) Existing waste management facility.--The term 
     `existing waste management facility' means a facility under 
     construction or in operation as of May 15, 1994.
       ``(11) Proposed waste management facility.--The term 
     `proposed waste management facility' means a facility that 
     has been specifically identified and designated, but that was 
     not under construction, as of May 15, 1994.
       ``(12) Future waste management facility.--The term `future 
     waste management facility' means any other waste management 
     facility.''.

     SEC. 203. 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 
     after the item relating to section 4011 the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 4011. Congressional authorization of State control over 
              transportation, management and disposal of municipal 
              solid waste.''.
              
                                                                    ____
     Support the Flow Control Consensus Bill: Final Passage--Today

                                                  October 7, 1994.
       Dear Congressperson/Senator: We, the undersigned, have been 
     negotiating in good faith over the past several days to craft 
     a waste flow control proposal which is acceptable to 
     stakeholders on both sides of the issue. The attached 
     document represents our best efforts at reaching consensus on 
     this complex and, at times, difficult issue.
       Negotiators on both sides have made significant 
     concessions. Each of us, if true to his/her own self-
     interest, would make changes to the attached legislative 
     draft. 
     [[Page S2578]] However, we are united in our belief that 
     Congress must take action to provide a stable municipal solid 
     waste regulatory environment for communities and businesses 
     in light of the Carbone Supreme Court decision. If Congress 
     fails to act in the wake of the Carbone decision, it will 
     leave many facilities in financial jeopardy.
       The attached document addresses the need to protect 
     existing flow control arrangements and the facilities that 
     are financially dependent on waste flow control, and allows a 
     competitive, free-market process to continue. While 
     imperfect, this proposal meets the immediate needs of public 
     and private entities, and is far more preferable to the 
     uncertainty which will result if no bill is passed.
       We urge you to support enactment of this compromise in this 
     session of Congress.
       Respectfully submitted,
         Browning-Ferris Industries, Public Securities 
           Association, National Association of Counties, WMX 
           Technologies, Environmental Transportation Association, 
           Laidlaw, Inc., Chambers Development Company, Inc., 
           Ogden Projects, Inc., National League of Cities, U.S. 
           Conference of Mayors, Solid Waste Management 
           Association of North America, Southern Pacific 
           Transportation Company.

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to speak today about flow 
control authority--an issue that is vital to the public safety and 
fiscal soundness of States and localities. I commend Senator Lautenberg 
and the coalition of local government officials, waste management 
groups, and public security interests for working to craft this 
important legislation.
  I feel so strongly about the need for action that I was prepared to 
introduce my own legislation this Congress. Frankly, I would have liked 
to see more authority given to municipalities. State and local 
governments have a vested interest in how solid waste produced within 
their borders is transported and disposed. However, I recognize that a 
hard-fought consensus has been reached, and I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor of this important legislation.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], approximately 
35 States were adversely affected by the May 1994 Supreme Court Carbone 
decision, which invalidated local flow control authority. It is 
important to note that Justice O'Connor, while siding with the 
majority, did in fact state that it was within Congress' purview to 
authorize local imposition of flow control. It is my feeling that if 
Congress does not enact legislation, States will continue to suffer 
environmentally and financially.
  Flow control is essential to the implementation of Connecticut's 
integrated waste management plan. Many localities have made significant 
capital investments to move away from outdated landfills to construct 
efficient, yet costly, waste disposal centers. Approximately 86 percent 
of Connecticut's waste is now disposed of in these state-of-the art 
facilities. The State, and ultimately the taxpaying citizens, are 
backing $500 million in bonds that were used to finance the 
construction of regional waste disposal centers and recycling transfer 
stations. Profits from the facilities, used to pay off the bonds, were 
to be ensured by flow control authority.
  Almost 75 percent of Connecticut municipalities entered into ``put-
or-pay'' contracts, and will be forced to pay penalties for the 
shortfall created by trash moving elsewhere. At a time when Congress is 
trying to ease the tax burden on working families, it is highly likely 
that their taxes could increase, if towns are unable to meet their 
garbage quotes. If transporters choose to deliver waste to landfills 
out of State, then citizens will in effect pay twice--first, to have 
their waste transported away, and again to cover the put-or-pay 
requirement. Finally, municipal bond ratings could plummet, increasing 
the cost of future local projects.
  This legislation strikes an appropriate balance. Only those 
communities that have already relied on flow control authority or have 
detailed plans to do so, are protected. This legislation is proconsumer 
and probusiness because it preserves competition and levels the playing 
field. This bill is also proenvironment because it encourages the 
further construction of recycling and composting facilities as a 
byproduct of a successful revenue bond financing program.
  The legislation that we are introducing today is identical to what 
passed the House of Representatives last fall. It was most unfortunate 
that in the Senate, flow control legislation fell victim to the 
stalling tactics employed by some members on the other side of the 
aisle on the last day of the session. This compromise legislation died, 
despite strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, I hope that this year we will be successful. It is 
clear that this issue is not going away and it is important to the 
people on my State and in many others that we deal with this problem. I 
urge my fellow Senators to join me in moving forward on this vital 
piece of legislation.


                          ____________________