[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6419-S6423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I call up S. 534.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending business.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from New
Hampshire, Senator Smith, in presenting S. 534 to the Senate. This is
legislation dealing with interstate waste and flow control authority.
I want to acknowledge Senator Smith's efforts as chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Superfund,
Waste Control, and Risk Assessment. Senator Smith has taken the lead in
drafting this legislation, targeting issues that went unresolved last
year.
I also want to acknowledge the work of the distinguished ranking
member of our committee, Senator Baucus, for his help in the framing of
this legislation which we will now be discussing over the next day or
so.
Mr. President, this legislation is straightforward and attempts to
deal with the issues of interstate waste and flow control, balancing
the interests of the States that import waste, trash that comes into
States for disposal, and the exporters, States that do not have
landfills or incinerators and thus ship it out. We try to deal with
communities with outstanding revenue bonds as they deal with the issues
of construction of waste facilities the local individual who dispose of
his or her garbage.
This bill includes three titles. Title I deals with interstate waste
and is similar to the bill approved by the Senate last year. I would
like to stress that. The interstate waste portion is one that was
approved unanimously by this Senate last year.
Title II focuses on flow control, which we will discuss in a few
minutes. And title III reinstates the ground water monitoring exemption
for small landfills in the municipal solid waste landfill criteria.
Let me turn to title I. This is a very contentious area. Indeed, I
guess we have dealt with this, on and off, over the past 5 years. And
no one has been more ardent in trying to get this problem solved than
the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats.
Now, on interstate shipments, the bill before us, as I say, is
similar to S. 2345, which was approved unanimously last year by the
Senate.
I want to make it clear that the bill before us deals exclusively
with the transport, across State borders, of municipal solid waste.
That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about
restrictions on hazardous waste or industrial waste or even
construction and demolition debris. Those items involve an entirely
different set of problems and would require different approaches than
we are dealing with here.
We are dealing here with municipal solid waste, sometimes referred to
as MSW; what the rest of us, in layman's terms, would call garbage or
trash.
Specifically the bill provides the following. There is an import ban.
A Governor may, if requested by the affected local community, as
designated by the Governor, ban out-of-State municipal solid waste at
landfills or incinerators that did not receive out-of-State waste in
1993.
Now, this gets a little bit complicated, but these are provisions
that we have worked out with Governors and municipalities, particularly
the ones that cross borders.
So the first point is there can be an import ban that the Governor
can impose, if he is requested by a local community and if that
community did not receive out-of-State waste in 1993. Or he can impose
this same ban at those facilities that received municipal solid waste
in 1993 but are not in compliance with applicable Federal or State
standards. So there is a power in the Governor. Now that is an import
ban.
Further, a Governor may unilaterally freeze out-of-State waste at
1993 levels at landfills and incinerators that received waste during
1993 and are in compliance. In other words, the Governor can put a
clamp on limiting it to the amount that came in in 1993, at those
levels.
Now, there is an export ratchet, likewise. A Governor may
unilaterally ban out-of-State waste from any State exporting more than
3.5 million tons in 1996. This declines to 3 million tons in 1997 and
1998, drops to 2.5 million tons in 1999 and the year 2000, 1.5 million
tons in the year 2001 and 2002, and 1 million tons in 2003 and every
year thereafter. So the Governor has this power to ban out-of-State
waste coming from a State that is exporting very substantial amounts.
That is the power in the importing State Governor.
There is also another ratchet. A Governor may unilaterally restrict
out-of-State waste imported from any one State in excess of certain
levels.
There is a cost recovery surcharge provision. States that imposed a
differential fee on the disposal of out-of-State waste on or before
April 3, 1994, are allowed to impose a fee of no more than $1 per ton.
So there is that $1-per-ton limitation, a differential that a State
can impose, as long as the differential fee is used to fund solid waste
management programs.
What we are dealing with all through here are the limitations that
are imposed by the commerce clause of our Constitution. The bill we are
dealing
[[Page S6420]] with today explicitly prohibits a Governor from
limiting or prohibiting solid waste imports to landfills or
incinerators that have a host community agreement to receive out-of-
State waste.
In addressing the problem of interstate waste, I, as chairman, and
Senator Smith, likewise as chairman of the subcommittee, have tried to
find a solution that will reduce unwanted imports yet give exporting
States some time to reduce the amount of waste generated, to increase
recycling, and to site new in-State capacity.
What we are trying to do is to take into account the large exporting
States' problems, but we are not going to let them export forever.
What can they do? As I say, they can reduce the amount of waste
generated, they can increase recycling, and they can set up their own
sites in their States to deal with the problem--incinerators,
landfills, or whatever they might be.
Title II deals with what is known as flow control. Flow control
refers to the legal authority of States or local governments to
designate where waste must be taken for processing or treatment or
disposal. Over the past 20 years, State and local governments have used
flow control as a financing mechanism for the development of municipal
solid waste disposal facilities.
What am I talking about? I am talking about incinerators and
landfills, for example. A municipality says, ``We have to have an
incinerator to take care of the waste within our municipality.'' So
they say, ``Well, we'll build one. And where do we get the money? We
issue bonds. All right, but how are we going to make certain that we
are going to have the waste flowing in and the so-called tipping
fees?'' So the municipality passes an ordinance which says: Everybody
in this municipality must take trash to this central facility, and
there they pay a tipping fee and you are not allowed to ship it
elsewhere. BFI or other commercial firms cannot come in and say, ``I'll
take your waste for a lower price.'' No.
The way it works is the locals say you can only take it here, because
that is the way we can pay off our bonds.
Flow control guarantees that a projected amount of waste will be
received at a designated waste facility. Thus, a predictable revenue
stream is generated for the retirement of the cost of the facility, the
capital cost, and the operating expenses.
Flow control, as you can see, distorts the waste market by creating
State or municipally controlled waste monopolies. Obviously, it becomes
a monopoly. If the city of St. Louis says that no trash can be taken
elsewhere but to the city incinerator, that is a monopoly. But the city
of St. Louis might say, well, we spent a lot of money to build this
incinerator and the only way we can pay off our bonds is with a
guarantee flow from our municipality so when the big trucks, private
trucks pick up, they can only take it to the city of St. Louis
incinerator.
Communities across the country have made investments predicated on
flow control, but I, and likewise Senator Smith and Senator Baucus, do
not believe in perpetuating that kind of system into the future.
Designating where waste must go will only drive up the cost of waste
disposal for our citizens.
Not unlike the interstate transport of municipal solid waste and its
implications on interstate commerce, flow control has emerged as a
controversial legislative issue because of several recent Federal court
decisions. Over the past 5 years, Federal courts have ruled that flow
control laws in no fewer than four States violate the commerce clause
of the U.S. Constitution. Similar to restrictions on interstate waste,
flow control undermines the commerce clause by barring States and
political subdivisions by placing undue burdens on interstate commerce.
This case all came up May 16, 1994, just a year ago. It was called
the Carbone case, Carbone versus Town of Clarkstown, NY, which the
Supreme Court decided just a year ago. The Supreme Court's ruling in
the Carbone case has made it clear that absent congressional action,
the exercise of flow control by States and political subdivisions is
unconstitutional; it interferes with interstate commerce. The city of
St. Louis no longer can say to all its citizens, ``You must bring your
trash to this central facility.'' That is interfering with interstate
commerce and is unconstitutional, unless Congress decides otherwise.
So we are here today to override the constitutional provisions on
State laws that interfere with interstate commerce and so as to provide
new authority to the States. We are beset with communities, such as the
illustrative one I gave of St. Louis, that has invested substantial
sums of money in their incinerators and are counting on paying off
those bonds through the fees that come in and suddenly the whole ground
rules are changed by the Supreme Court decision. So they come to us and
say, ``Grandfather us. We issued those bonds dependent upon this flow
of trash.''
The Supreme Court has said Congress can do this. We can provide new
authority to the States by declaring that the impact of such laws on
interstate commerce is reasonable.
Should we move in this direction? I say yes, but a qualified yes. We
should tread carefully, and this bill does that.
This Senator believes that Congress was granted the power to regulate
commerce in order to ensure the free flow of goods and to protect
against economic warfare among the States. We must not create a system
that builds walls around our States and our communities. The economy of
our country has been successful over the past 200 years because of the
free flow of goods and services among our States. Let us not go
overboard today loading up this bill with discriminatory amendments.
Unnecessarily restricting the interstate transport of waste and
providing unlimited flow control will limit competition in the waste
market. It will discourage the selection of less costly waste disposal
options, and it will force duplicative infrastructure investments in
our communities.
The intention of the bill before us today is to provide States and
political subdivisions with flow control authority in order to meet
financial obligations with respect to solid waste management facilities
and to maintain their creditworthiness.
Title II provides limited flow control authority under certain
conditions to States and subdivisions that have embarked on these
commitments, these financial investments that, rightly or wrongly, were
predicated on the expectation or implementation of flow control. They
built these facilities and issued the bonds believing that what they
were doing was right, was legal and was dependent upon restricting
where the trash within their communities could go. It could only come
to the municipal landfill or incinerator.
We are not, in grandfathering these provisions, reflecting any
position on the appropriateness of flow control as a policy option. In
each instance in which flow control authority is granted under this
legislation, that grant is predicated on meeting debt obligations.
The final part is title III, which is called groundwater monitoring.
In it, we reinstate a groundwater monitoring exemption for small
landfills in the municipal solid waste landfill criteria. All of this
reflects back on the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, section
4010(c). One of the most significant issues raised during the revision
of the criteria was the impact on small community landfills.
As a result, the October 9, 1991, final rule for the criteria
included a groundwater exemption of owners and operators of certain
small landfills.
In January 1992, petitions were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for review of the new landfill criteria. The court, in its review,
vacated the small landfill exemption as it pertained to groundwater
monitoring.
The purpose of title III of the reported bill is to reinstate the
exemption.
As many of us remember from the debate on interstate waste in 1992,
the flow of garbage raises intense local and regional concerns. In some
areas of the country, this seemingly mundane issue is politically
potent. Who would have thought that so much heat could be generated by
garbage disposal?
Mr. President, I believe this legislation represents a good-faith
effort to bring the various parties together on the issues of
interstate waste and flow
[[Page S6421]] control. It provides additional authority to waste
importers without overriding the needs of waste-exporting States.
It protects past community financial investments with respect to flow
control; yet, it provides opportunities for the private sector. I
commend the Senator from New Hampshire and look forward to working with
him and other Members of the Senate to approve this legislation in an
expeditious fashion.
Now, Mr. President, I would like to yield the floor, without losing
the same, to Senator Baucus for his opening statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. I am pleased to be here considering legislation to give
our States and communities the right to say ``no'' to out-of-State
trash. That is basically what the major portion of this bill is all
about--that is, enabling States to say, ``We do not want this stuff and
we have the right to say, no, we do not want the garbage.'' We need
this legislation to allow States to do that, and that is basically
because of the U.S. Constitution, commerce clause, article I, which
basically states that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce,
States cannot. So we are now acting in Congress.
Mr. President, we have been working on this issue for a long time--6
years. We have explored a lot of options, we have held many hearings,
and we have debated this issue frequently. We passed interstate waste
bills in each of the last three Congresses here in the U.S. Senate. I
believe it is finally time to finish the job.
I will have more to say on that subject later. Let me say a little
bit about this legislation.
Garbage is big business. Each year, the United States throws out more
than 200 million tons of municipal waste. That is enough to build a 30-
foot wall of trash from Los Angeles to New York. About 1 ton in 14 goes
to a landfill or incinerator in another State. Nearly every State is a
seller or a buyer in the municipal waste market; 47 States export some
garbage, and 44 States import some garbage.
Some interstate movement of garbage makes sense. In Montana, for
example, two towns have made arrangements to share landfills with
western North Dakota towns. Some trash from Wyoming areas of
Yellowstone Park is disposed of in Montana. These arrangements save
money for the communities involved. And the establishment of shared
regional landfills can be a policy that does make sense.
But it only makes sense when the communities involved agree to it. No
place should become an unwilling dumping ground. Nobody should have to
take garbage they do not want from another community.
The legislation before us takes us a step closer to preventing
Montana and other rural States from becoming a national dump. It lets
Governors freeze imports at 1993 levels, and stop new imports if
affected communities want them stopped. It is not perfect, but it is a
good start.
Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senators who have worked so
hard over the years on this issue trying to develop a balanced bill.
Senator Coats has been particularly helpful and particularly committed
to enacting interstate legislation. Senators Lautenberg, Moynihan, and
our new chairman, Senator Chafee, and many others have worked
tirelessly.
This issue has been around Congress long enough. I think it is time
to stand up for the small towns and finish the job.
Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee,
is now in the Budget Committee and is not able to be here. He worked
hard, along with Senator Smith, and at a later time he will want to
make a statement.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Chafee.
Mr. President, this bill is a compromise bill. It is not going to
please everyone, and maybe that is the reason why it is a good piece of
legislation, I do not know. But a little more than 2 months ago, the
Superfund Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which I
chair, held a hearing to consider proposals to regulate the interstate
transportation of solid waste and whether to provide local control
authority to State and local governments.
The controversy here surrounding the interstate transportation of
municipal solid waste is one that the Senate has been considering since
1990. Today, 47 States export approximately 14 to 15 million tons of
municipal solid waste per year for disposal in other States--14 to 15
million tons.
While short-distance waste exports have been occurring for some time,
the development of a long-haul waste transport market has been a more
recent development. With tipping fees as high as $140 per ton in some
large cities, compared with the national average of between $30 and $50
a ton, there is an incentive, obviously, from municipalities to
transport these wastes by truck and rail to distant States for some
permanent disposal.
That is a pretty big incentive. Anywhere from $30 to $50 to $140 a
ton is a huge disparity.
Those States that have recently been the recipients of large amounts
of long-haul waste have raised a concern that their limited capacity
for solid waste is being filled and that they have become a dumping
ground for somebody else's waste problems. So over the last few years,
37 States have passed laws to prohibit, limit, or severely tax waste
that enters their jurisdiction. However, almost all of these laws have
been struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the commerce clause
of the Constitution.
So while there has been a recent easing of disposal and the capacity
to dispose nationwide, there is still significant concerns about the
future consequences of this long-haul system. Congress needs to define
what the future is, whether we are going to honor the interstate
commerce clause or not, or whether we are going to adjust it or
micromanage it, or do something with it. But there are people out there
who are impacted, as we speak, by the fact that this decision is still
in limbo.
So to address these concerns, Congress--specifically the Environment
and Public Works Committee--has been attempting to strike a balance
between importing and exporting States. Last year, the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, of which I am a member, unanimously
reported S. 2345 to address this problem. A number of Members, both on
and off of the committee, including very prominent Members who will be
involved in this debate over the next couple of days, like Senators
Coats, Specter, Lautenberg, Moynihan, and others, took a very active
role in attempting to develop a compromise that importing and exporting
States could live with. While the Senate easily passed this compromise
by a voice vote on September 30, 1994, it was the end of the session
and time ran out before this issue could be finally resolved.
So this legislation has been a balancing effort, a real balancing
effort. In regard to the interstate transportation of municipal solid
waste, we have tried to carefully balance the issues of both the
importers and the exporters, and nobody is happy with the interstate
language. Perhaps that indicates to me, as I said earlier, that we
might be on to something.
The bill that Senator Chafee and I introduced incorporates the
interstate waste bill that unanimously passed the Senate last year.
Let me repeat that, because I think in the debate, as the chairman,
Senator Chafee, knows, it is getting lost. What Senator Chafee and I
are offering in the area of interstate waste transfer unanimously
passed the Senate last year. That is what we put in our bill. That is
simply all we are offering this year.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, could I ask a question to make a point?
When it passed unanimously last year, that was when the other party
was in charge, had the majority. So not only did all of the Democrats
vote for it in a bill that was drafted by a majority of the Democrats
in the committee and approved on the floor, but every Republican
likewise voted for it.
So two different parties have worked on this legislation over 2
separate years and come to exactly the same result. Having passed
unanimously last year, I certainly hope we can get on with the same
language, get the same
[[Page S6422]] approval this year of the same language.
Mr. SMITH. I thank Senator Chafee for making that point. He is
correct. This is not a partisan issue. It is a carefully crafted
compromise to try to accommodate some genuine concerns out there among
many individuals.
Again, in the Senate, controlled by the Democratic Party last
session, it was passed unanimously. The Republicans are now under
control, and we are offering the same language again on interstate
transfer. There is not any reason why we should have a huge fight here,
unless people, for whatever reason, are trying to capitalize on
something or take unfair advantage.
We felt it was fair and we continue to feel that now. Senator Chafee
and I are in agreement on that, and I know there will be Senators from
both the importing and exporting States that will try to weaken or
strengthen, depending on their position, the interstate portions of
this bill. The bill is in two sections--both interstate as well as flow
control. There are two sections to the bill.
My response is, we struck this compromise last year, all parties
agreed, and there have been no significant changes. What would be the
fight?
Let me move to the issue of flow control, because we have heard
statements from a variety of individuals before our committee, very
prominent individuals. Senator Bill Cohen, Governor Christine Whitman
of New Jersey and others, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who
asked Members to move quickly to address the issue of flow control. And
we did. We moved very quickly at the behest of those individuals.
Frankly, ever since we moved quickly at their behest, we have been
getting beat about the head and shoulders by some who asked Members to
move at their behest. A number of witnesses expressed a strong concern
that without prompt congressional action to provide for continued
authority in this area, many communities would be in danger of having
their bond ratings lowered. That is true.
For those of my colleagues who may not have heard me speak to this
issue on the subject of flow control, let me be clear. This bill is in
my subcommittee, the Superfund Committee, which I chair. It is in my
jurisdiction.
I tried to craft a compromise, which I think we did successfully, to
get the bill to the floor and help those people who did have a problem.
I oppose flow control. I think it is wrong. I do not support walking
away from the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. I believe
that we ought to stand firm on that.
There is a situation that has developed, as Senator Chafee has
already outlined, where individuals--municipalities--have let bonds,
and there are people who stand to lose on this. So we tried to craft a
compromise. In that compromise, we basically grandfathered, with
reasonable grandfathering provisions, those communities.
I do not believe that flow control is necessary to deal with the
problem of solid waste. We do not--I think the private sector can do it
just fine. I do not believe the free market is broken. There is no
evidence that the free market is broken in this area.
There are many people who are involved in the transport of this
material, and I refuse to believe that recycling cannot be accomplished
without flow control. I simply do not believe it. I do not think there
is any evidence to say that. But some States and some communities got
themselves in a bind, and we are trying to help them out of that bind.
Instead, we are being attacked for trying to help them, in many ways
by those who wanted it and now have dramatically changed or moved their
position. That is the reason why nothing has happened, because
everybody wants their position.
This is a compromise. That is the point. I am sympathetic to the
communities that feel they need congressional assistance on this
matter. There are some. If we are starting from ground zero and there
were no bonds let, no contracts signed, Mr. President, I would be here
on the floor saying no flow control, period.
However, it was because of this plea, that Senator Chafee and I moved
forward to introduce this legislation, S. 534, that would provide the
flow control authorities to those municipalities that imposed flow
control and either constructed or began construction of facilities
prior to May 15, 1994, the Carbone decision.
While our bill provides limited grandfather protection for flow
control, it also--and this is the key issue--it gives finality. This is
final. At the end of 30 years it is over. There is no flow control
anymore. We now have the free market kick in. We have help during this
30-year period which I think is more than ample. There are not any
bonds I am aware of beyond the 30-year period. So precisely 30 years
after the legislation is adopted, no further flow control measures will
be allowed--none, zero, zilch.
Both my subcommittee as well as the full committee moved very quickly
to mark up this legislation. We did so primarily to help those
communities whose bond ratings are endangered as a result of the
Supreme Court's recent action. They are. We agree they are. They should
not have gotten themselves in that position, but they did. Rather than
get into whether or not they should not have gotten into that decision,
we did not use that as a criteria. We simply said for whatever reason,
they made some decisions that maybe they should not have made, but they
are in that position so we will help them out.
Speaking for myself, I am very uncomfortable with providing flow
control authority. I do not want flow control authority. I felt that
the bill of Senator Chafee and myself struck a fair balance in
accommodating those who are strong proponents of States rights and
those who are strong proponents of the free market. It is a compromise
for both of those positions.
During the course of the last 2 months, I have continued to work to
accommodate Senators who had concerns about various proceedings in the
bill. Everyone wants a fix. We are now hearing from the sublime to the
ridiculous. ``Well, we might have a contract in 5 years, we are
thinking about it. Could we be exempted?'' No, absolutely not. We are
not going to exempt them, if I have anything to say about it. That is
wrong. It defeats the spirit and intent of what we are trying to do.
We cannot satisfy everyone. We have tried. We tried hard to address
the legitimate concerns, and we will address those concerns. Some of
the amendments we will accept. Some we will not.
As a result of our efforts, the EPW Committee ordered this reported
as amended on March 23 by a rollcall vote of 16-0. Again, the whole
sequence of events here: Last year it was unanimous, no objection by
Republicans or Democrats in the Senate in a Democrat Congress. We have
a Republican Congress, it passes the committee 16-0.
That says something about this bill. It says that those people out
there who are trying to dramatically alter the bill are simply on a
course that is not going to be in the best interest of those people who
are sitting out there right now waiting for help, which is why we mark
this bill up.
I have to say if we ask Senator Smith, ``What are your priorities in
the subcommittee of the Superfund?'' It is Superfund reform. That is
what we are working on. We have had six hearings on it. We have another
hearing tomorrow. We had one yesterday. We will try to draft a bill in
the next 6 weeks to 2 months, and that is a high priority.
Because people came to me, including the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, and outlined these problems, we
agreed--Senator Chafee and I and others--- that we would bring this
bill to the floor as quickly as possible.
We have done that and, frankly, with great difficulty, simply because
we have been focused on the Superfund issues. I did not anticipate the
amount of amendments and the amount of opposition that would be
generated on this bill.
But let me just make this very clear to my colleagues. I believe this
is an emergency bill for those communities or individuals or entities
that have let those bonds. There are communities in a number of States
that need quick passage of this legislation to provide them with the
financial relief for their previously flow-controlled facilities. If
this bill gets bogged down because of amendments, everyone trying to
get
[[Page S6423]] their way--they want total flow control or no flow
control or no grandfathering or we move into the interstate waste
transfer and they want no exporting or total exporting or the Governor
having the total right to make decisions and communities having no
rights or whatever--whatever the position may be, if they insist on
that, this bill will get bogged down. It will not get passed by the end
of this week, this legislative week, on Friday. And the budget will be
up next week.
After that, I cannot imagine where there will be a window of time to
deal with this again. So I appeal to my colleagues who desperately want
this bill to help them and their communities in their States with this
flow control to not hold this bill up by adding amendments or trying to
add amendments that may in fact derail it. Because once it is derailed,
in my opinion, it is going to be a long time until it gets back here.
It is the leader's decision, of course, when it comes up. But the
point is there is so much on the table after Monday when the budget
comes up, any discussion of flow control, with all due respect, is
going to be way down here when the budget and the numbers in that get
out and the American people begin to interact with their Senators and
Congressmen on that.
So I think there is going to be a lot of discussion. If Members
choose to oppose this or dilute it or whatever they choose to do, or
even--maybe they would like to strengthen it--they will do it at their
own peril. This issue, which has been simmering for the last 6 or 7
years, will continue to remain on the back burner during the 104th
Congress.
I hope that does not happen, but the choice is clear. Either vote to
pass this bill which has the overwhelming majority support, maybe
unanimous support, in the Senate and protect those facilities that come
within the scope of this bill, or risk it all to protect a small
handful of communities that do not fit within this legislation, who are
trying desperately to create a situation where, if they want to have
flow control at some point in the future, they can have it, or if they
have let a little bit of money out there somewhere, a relatively
insignificant amount, and they are not sure what they are going to do--
that violates the spirit and intent of this bill and I hope it does not
happen.
We will be down here as long as it takes to deal with the amendments.
I appeal to colleagues, if they have amendments, let us try to work
them out. We will try to work out the ones we agree with, and if we can
agree with them, we will accept them. If they violate the spirit and
intent of what we tried to do in drafting this bill, we will oppose
them forcefully on the floor of the Senate.
Let me conclude with a brief summary as follows. Communities out
there, as far as flow control is concerned, are in a tough situation.
According to the public securities situation, $20 billion in bonds have
been issued to pay for flow-controlled facilities. That is not the
fault of the U.S. Senate. The interstate commerce clause, I believe,
was in effect when that happened. But somehow it got ignored and they
got into this bind and they have $20 billion in let bonds.
We are going to try to help them and we do help them with this
legislation. We grandfather them, we protect them. We protect the
investors, the bondholders, the taxpayers, the individuals out there
who have in whatever way participated in these bonds.
As a result of the Carbone decision, the Supreme Court invalidated
flow control, so it is in limbo. Here we are in limbo. Nobody knows
what to do. They do not know whether to proceed or not to proceed,
because they do not know what Congress is going to do in regard to the
interpretation of that decision.
Six incinerators in New Jersey have had their bond ratings lowered,
and I am sure that is the case in other States, because flow control
was invalidated. Again, we are trying to help those communities. That
is the goal. Dozens of incinerators and landfills are in immediate
danger if flow control is not reauthorized immediately, and every bond
based on flow control authority is threatened, every one. Every single
bond out there is threatened unless we do something soon. The longer it
goes on the worse the threat gets.
So the bill provides a narrow flow control authority to protect those
bonds. Again, it is a compromise. It is a fair compromise. It is not my
position totally. I would be for no flow control. That is not my
position. But it is a compromise position to help those individuals.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and indicate I hope we
could get some time agreements and some reasonable information
regarding these amendments. If Members who have amendments could come
to the floor and offer them in a timely manner so we do not get bogged
down and not pass this bill by the end of the week.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
____________________