[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E495-E496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FLOW CONTROL ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 2, 1995
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 28, Mike 
Oxley and I introduced the Local Governments Flow Control Act of 1995 
(H.R. 1085) with the bipartisan support of several of our colleagues. 
This is the latest step toward providing relief for hundreds of 
communities nationwide who face enormous financial and long-term waste 
management burdens as a consequence of the Supreme Court's Carbone 
versus Clarkstown, New York decision.
  As you know, that court decision interpreted the dormant Commerce 
Clause of the U.S. Constitution in such a way that it invalidated flow 
control laws which local governments 
[[Page E496]] have used over the past decades as an effective waste 
management tool. In fact, flow control has enabled communities in more 
than 40 States to meet the Federal mandates of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in a cost-effective, safe, and 
efficient manner.
  Since the Court decision, these communities have found themselves 
seriously overburdened. Because they needed to secure revenue bonds to 
finance costly, but highly advanced waste technologies, these 
communities now face a total outstanding debt of more than $10 billion. 
Several communities have already seen their credit ratings downgraded 
as a result of this debt--including five counties in my home State of 
New Jersey. And they are likely to be joined by others as investment 
services weigh the consequences of Congress' inability to swiftly 
grandfather their flow control authority.
  You may recall that I introduced legislation on the first day of the 
session as a legislative remedy. That bill--the Community Solvency Act 
(H.R. 24)--is the identical text of legislation approved by the House 
by unanimous consent on October 7, 1994. The substance of H.R. 24 and 
that which Mr. Oxley and I have now introduced (H.R. 1085) is largely 
the same; but the 11th-hour drafting style of H.R. 24 has been 
enormously improved in the Local Governments Flow Control Act of 1995.
  This new bill represents the same strong commitment to local 
governments as its predecessor. Those communities which had practiced 
flow control or had made significant commitments of time, resources, 
and money--as specifically defined in both bills--toward implementing 
flow control are still grandfathered. They will be able to maintain the 
integrated waste systems which they have labored to establish in an 
effort to meet the waste treatment and disposal needs of their 
residents in a cost effective, safe, efficient, and environmentally 
sound manner.
  This new bill also represents our dedication to the principles of 
competition and a free and open market. All communities will be 
required to meet strict needs test analyses--to prove that flow control 
can meet the needs of the community better than an entirely unfettered 
market--and detailed competitive designation processes--to ensure that 
there is no unfair discrimination against any private or public sector 
market participant.
  Finally, where the Local Governments Flow Control Act represents a 
vast improvement over its predecessor is in its simplicity. The 
numerous cross references and redundant phrases have been eliminated 
and replaced with definitions and well-ordered sections making this 
bill far easier to read and comprehend. Furthermore, those sections of 
the bill which had been ambiguous and a possible invitation to future 
litigation have been clarified.
  This fine-tuning has brought the substance of the bill even closer to 
the position which several private sector waste companies are now 
supporting. Both Mr. Oxley and I believe that this bill is truly a 
compromise which can benefit all parties at the negotiating table--
local governments, Wall Street, private sector waste companies, and 
recycling interests.
  Yesterday, I presented this bill to the Senate Subcommittee on 
Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment during a hearing held on 
this matter and interstate waste control. I pointed out in my testimony 
that, particularly for my home State of New Jersey, the two issues are 
linked. Within the span of two decades, New Jersey went from the top 
importer of other States' waste to the No. 2 exporter. Twenty-five 
years ago, the State instituted a carefully designed waste management 
statute based on the premise of flow control. This statute places a 
strong emphasis on recycling efforts and integrated waste systems which 
are managed by the counties of the States, either individually or 
through interdistrict agreements.
  One of the key objectives of New Jersey's waste management laws is 
self-sufficient waste management by the year 2000. The State is well on 
the way to its goal. Recycling is close to 60 percent in parts of the 
State and averaging 50 percent overall. Upon completion of two projects 
already in the works when the Carbone decision was handed down, the 
State expects to be capable of treating and disposing approximately 88 
percent of its waste within its own boundaries. When the plan has been 
fully implemented, the State expects to export only 5 percent of its 
solid waste; thereby addressing through its own initiative the concerns 
of Midwestern States which are seeking to close their borders to other 
States' waste.
  However, as I previously noted, flow control is the linchpin to the 
success of the New Jersey system. Without that authority, we can no 
longer be confident of meeting our worthy goals.
  I urge you to join Chairman Oxley, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Minge, Mrs. 
Roukema, Mr. Saxton, and me in cosponsoring the Local Governments Flow 
Control Act of 1995 and in the effort to provide prompt passage through 
the Congress of this important and necessary relief for local 
governments.


                          ____________________