[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6426-S6433]
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. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today has 
turned its attention relatively early in the session to a bill of 
primary importance to my State of Indiana and to many other States in 
this Nation. It is a bill that the Senate is very familiar with, one to 
allow States to limit the importation of out-of-State waste. We have 
discussed it on numerous occasions.
  I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Smith of 
New Hampshire, and the chairman of the full committee, Senator Chafee, 
for bringing this bill to the floor, as well as the ranking member, 
Senator Baucus, and, of course, Senator Dole for scheduling this 
legislation.
  Early in my Senate career, which has not been that long, I observed a 
phenomenon in Indiana as I was driving through the State. All across 
the State homemade signs posted on telephone poles or stuck in the 
ground appeared that said, ``Don't dump on us.''
  I began to inquire what the subject was. We checked into that and 
found that the citizens throughout Indiana, many small towns in 
particular, found that, instead of the local garbage dump which 
received a truck or two of local community waste, garbage, a day, 
suddenly they discovered that 18-wheelers were lined up for blocks 
waiting to enter the local dump to dump their waste. And people said, 
``Where is all this coming from?''
  You really cannot call these facilities landfills, because they were 
designed for receipt of small amounts of everyday household trash, 
waste, that was picked up maybe a couple of times a week at most and 
delivered to the local dump.
  In a little more than a year, our State saw negligible volumes of 
out-of-State trash that were coming into the State explode to more than 
20 percent of our total waste disposal. Virtually overnight, the State 
of Indiana became a target for out-of-State trash.
  The statistics do not begin to tell the story. Because, as I said, 
the trash parade targeted many small communities in rural areas in 
Indiana.
 So the magnitude of the change was dramatic for the citizens of those 
communities.

  Let me just tell you one story, the story of Center Point. This small 
town in Indiana, a town of 250 people, had a local garbage dump. Not a 
landfill, it was not certified as a big landfill. It was just a place 
where the local citizens were able to dispose of their local trash. A 
couple of trucks picked up the trash in the community and surrounding 
areas and disposed of it in this area.
  In 1989, the local landfill was purchased by out-of-State investors, 
and the site was doubled. Ads began appearing in national magazines 
that said: ``Send us your trash.'' Narrow country lanes were clogged 
with 18-wheelers loaded with trash and garbage from other States. Local 
citizens, rightfully so, I believe, began to keep a watch on a daily 
basis, on a 24-hour-a-day basis. They would log in the license plates 
of the trucks coming to bring the trash, 
 [[Page S6427]] and we found that most of it was coming from just a few 
States.
  I heard about the incident. I asked my staff to take me there. We 
went early one morning, and we stood on a hill overlooking the 
landfill, which now had been expanded considerably. I saw on this 
narrow, unpaved country lane a whole long line of 18-wheeler trucks 
that had driven all night to bring east coast waste to Indiana because 
the disposal fees were so much less than they were at the point of 
origin.
  Suddenly, this little town of Center Point was overwhelmed, as its 
fragile country roads were torn up by the weight of the 18-wheelers, as 
signs and posts were knocked over as the 18-wheelers tried to negotiate 
the narrow turns, and as a landfill facility, a garbage disposal 
facility designed to take care of the needs of that community for many, 
many years in the future suddenly was the subject of unwanted and 
extraordinary volumes of trash, which became obvious were going to 
quickly fill up that local community's disposal site, leaving its local 
citizens with no local option to deal with their own waste problem.
  Capacity that was sufficient to meet local needs for years was 
suddenly being used up in months. Hoosiers were understandably angry, 
and I was angry. We had a very clear message we wanted to deliver, and 
I delivered that on this Senate floor: That our State, which had 
mustered the political will to site landfill capacity in our own State 
borders, within those borders, to dispose of our own generated waste, 
were overwhelmed by trash flowing from States that were unwilling to 
responsibly handle their own waste.
  Today, Mr. President, over 15 million tons of trash cross State 
lines. Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan have borne a 
disproportionate share of receiving that capacity. We happen to be on 
an interstate route that runs east to west, Interstate 70. Interstate 
70 has become the trash corridor for the flow of east coast trash to 
lower fee landfills in the Midwest.
  Americans throw away about 180 million tons of solid waste yearly. 
That is enough trash to spread 30 stories high over 1,000 football 
fields. The question that confronts us is where are we going to put all 
this? Some communities have been pretty creative. Ten miles from 
downtown Detroit, there is an old landfill accommodating 21 years' 
worth of the city's garbage. It rises 150 feet into the sky. It no 
longer receives trash, but city officials have covered it with some top 
fill and they make snow in the winter and they declared it a ski area. 
It is colloquially called ``Mount Trashmore,'' and it attracts 
thousands of visitors a year. But for most, trash is not a recreational 
resource; it is a municipal nightmare. Landfills fill up, and there is 
nowhere else to take the waste.
  So our Nation's heartland is becoming our Nation's wasteland as trash 
increasingly moves across State lines following the route of cheap 
disposal from the East to the West.
  Of the 15 million tons of trash crossing State lines, Indiana, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan have borne, as I said, a 
disproportionate share. This rising tide of trash wreaks havoc with our 
planning efforts which, by our own State law, must ensure local 
capacity for 20 years.
  Some States have reacted to this influx of out-of-State trash by 
forbidding all new landfill sites. Others have taken measures which 
amount to the nationalization of the trash industry by banning for-
profit disposal facilities in order to give States control over this. 
Because public facilities may discriminate between in-State and out-of-
State, one method of eliminating unwanted out-of-State trash is to 
restrict the commercial sector altogether.
  These are not feasible solutions. These do not go to solving the 
problem. Our own legislature has tried to take care of the problem, but 
has found that its ability to act effectively is extraordinarily 
limited. We had a discussion of that this morning. The Senator from 
Rhode Island, and others, talked about the fact that under the commerce 
clause of the Constitution, garbage waste is considered a part of 
interstate commerce, and unless the Congress affirmatively acts to 
grant States and local jurisdictions the authority to control the flow 
of waste, they do not have the power to do so. That is why we are here. 
That is why we have been pursuing for these last several years the 
prospect of giving these States and these local communities the 
authority to regulate the flow of out-of-State trash.
  We passed laws in Indiana, for instance, that would impose additional 
fees, that allowed us to check the content of the material coming in. 
The statute that we passed was on the books 4 days before it was 
challenged in the court as a violation of the commerce clause, and that 
case eventually was lost by the State.
  Frustrated by the court decisions, Indiana has turned to bilateral 
agreements. Our Governor and the former Governor of New Jersey agreed 
to cooperate in stopping illegal waste from New Jersey. They agreed to 
share information and to pursue joint investigations.
  Mr. President, the vast majority of waste shipped across State lines 
is not illegal waste, it is just ordinary garbage. It is the coffee 
grounds and eggshells and orange peels, discarded Dr. Pepper bottles, 
the newspaper, unless it is recycled--just the ordinary waste that each 
of us carries out to the trash bin in the garage and puts out once or 
twice a week in front of the house.
  In addition, we have no way to accurately count the amount of trash 
we are receiving illegally to determine what that is. Many shipments 
are sent indirectly through collecting points in other States. To 
determine what came from a particular State to Indiana that might be 
legal or illegal requires a procedure that is an investigative 
nightmare.
  As our own Governor has indicated, and as many other Governors have 
indicated, and as I believe a solid majority of Senators and 
Representatives have indicated, the only hope for a solution lies with 
Federal legislation.
  In November 1989, my first year in the Senate, the 101st Congress, I 
introduced the first bill in the Senate which would allow States to 
ban, regulate, or impose fees on the interstate transportation of solid 
waste. After a strenuous debate, this bill passed by a very significant 
and, I think, surprising vote of 68-31. Unfortunately, in the 
conference with the House of Representatives, the bill which was passed 
here was stripped from that bill and the legislation died before 
becoming law.
  In the very next Congress, I again introduced legislation and again 
forced the issue on the Senate floor. And, again, the Senate acted 
decisively on the interstate issue, now by a vote of 89-2. The Senators 
became aware of the problem and realized that their States may not have 
been the current target of out-of-State waste, but a little bit further 
down the road they were going to become targets. Many realized that the 
problem we identified in Indiana in 1989 was now a problem in their 
State. Senator Exon came to me and said, ``Since you raised this issue, 
I have discovered communities in my own State that are becoming the 
recipients of out-of-State trash and they are overwhelming our efforts 
to deal with this.''
  That bill I introduced in the 102d Congress operated on three basic 
principles: First, it allowed communities that did not currently 
receive out-of-State trash to prohibit new shipments without express 
authorization. Second, it grandfathered facilities that were receiving 
trash from other States in order to give the exporting States time to 
site their own State capacity. It recognized that States in the crowded 
east coast corridor had significant waste disposal problems, and that 
to simply slam the door and say that, as of this date forward, you 
cannot export any trash whatsoever was simply not going to be a 
solution to the problem. So in recognizing that, we grandfathered a 
certain amount of shipment of out-of-State waste.
  Third, it allowed Governors the authority to freeze volumes at 
current levels at the grandfathered facilities, because we wanted to 
give the Governors of the importing States the ability to say we can 
continue to take so much with this capacity but no more. Again, that 
legislation, while it passed the Senate 89-2, did not pass the House of 
Representatives and it died in that Congress.
  In the next Congress, the 103d Congress, I used those principles to 
craft 
 [[Page S6428]] legislation that the Senate again positively addressed 
and the House positively addressed, but unfortunately it died in the 
last hours of the session coming very close to being enacted into law.
  Now, here we are in the 104th Congress and I indicated back in 1989 
that this issue was not going to go away. They can kill it in 
conference; the House can kill it; it can die by procedural methods, 
but I was not going to give up. I was like a dog who had his teeth sunk 
deep in the bone and I was not going to let go; I was going to come 
back and back and back until we got this thing passed. And here I am in 
the 104th Congress, and I hope this time we will be successful. I am 
getting lockjaw from keeping my teeth locked onto this issue. I would 
like to release that grip, send it to the President, get it signed into 
law, and move on to some other legislation.
  Now, the bill before us today recognizes the principles upon which we 
have operated. The bill, I think, is a reasonable compromise that 
grants States and local communities the authority that they need to 
plan for their own needs, to say ``no'' to out-of-State trash. It 
recognizes the problems of exporting States, and it gives them methods 
and ways in which to reduce significantly the amount of trash they send 
out of State. It balances a lot of different needs. As has been 
described here, it deals with flow control and ground water monitoring.
  The heart and soul of this bill, however, is the question of 
interstate trash shipment. We are working now on some areas of the bill 
that we feel may need some adjustment, as it has come out of committee. 
There are negotiations underway, and I trust they will be successful 
and will allow us to avoid offering some amendments to clarify some of 
these provisions.
  We will talk a little bit more about that later.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if I can ask a question.
  Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CHAFEE. First, I want to confirm that indeed the Senator has sunk 
his teeth and jaws deep into this issue. I will second everything he 
said about his determination on this whole project. He has been at it 
for, I guess, 5, 6 years, whatever.
  Mr. COATS. Six years.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator mentioned he had some amendments which I 
guess he is going to discuss now.
  Mr. COATS. Actually, I plan to defer discussion of those amendments 
now because we are in negotiation with the Senator from Rhode Island, 
and other Senators of affected States, to try to reach a resolution on 
these amendments, which we can hopefully put into a package that would 
be acceptable and offer them as a package rather than as individual 
amendments. So I would be premature in offering those amendments at 
this particular time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am caught in kind of a bind in that I want to be here 
when the Senator makes his remarks and offers his amendment. But I may 
have to step out for a minute or two. Who is working with the Senator 
in connection with his amendments? You mentioned ``we.'' Is it several 
of you?
  Mr. COATS. I say to the Senator from Rhode Island that it is 
virtually all of the affected parties, both from the exporting States 
as well as the importing States that are working together to try to 
resolve these issues.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Fine.
  Mr. COATS. I will not bring up any amendments in the immediate time 
period ahead of us here, and certainly the Senator will have an 
opportunity to leave the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. OK. Because there is going to come a time when we are 
going to want amendments brought forward. If the Senator feels he is 
not quite ready, we will try and complete any negotiations. As the 
leader has indicated, he wants to finish this bill by the end of the 
week. My hope is that we can finish it tomorrow. So we will work with 
your folks and see if we cannot come to some conclusion at least by the 
time we go to work tomorrow.
  Mr. COATS. I appreciate that very much. Obviously, the Senator's 
cooperation and input is necessary for this. I am anxious, also, to 
move forward on this. I would be delighted if we can finish this bill 
tomorrow and not have to carry it over until Friday. We are working as 
we speak on this matter and hope to have some answer to the Senator 
shortly.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COATS. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me just say that we have 
tried several approaches. We have tried the path of patience. We have 
waited our turn and bided our time. We have agreed to continue to 
accept some levels of out-of-State waste in exchange for having 
realistic controls over how much waste we will receive from other 
States. There is simply no other way for States to realistically plan 
for their own future capacity, unless we can enact legislation that 
gives them the authority to regulate the volume of out-of-State trash 
which that State receives.
  The problem here is very basic. There is no negotiation; there is no 
arm's length or both-parties-at-the-table negotiation that takes place, 
because States are virtually powerless to sit at the table with the 
exporters and sit down and say, let us establish some reasonable 
volumes, let us make sure that we have the capacity to receive what you 
are sending in; let us negotiate the fees on which this will be shipped 
back and forth; let us determine the terms of the contract.
  Because of the Constitution's commerce clause, it is possible--and it 
is a practice that has been used over and over again--for someone 
outside the State, or even inside the State, to purchase a landfill and 
suddenly open up that landfill, which was designed originally for local 
needs, to massive volumes of out-of-State trash, which fills up the 
landfill in a very short period of time and leaves the local citizens 
few, if any, alternatives. In fact, it forces them to ship their waste 
out of State in order to find a place to dispose of it.
  So we end up with a game of pass the trash. Everybody is passing it 
on down the highway, generally from east to west. Not always. 
Metropolitan areas to rural areas, across State lines, it is pass the 
trash.
  As the landfills get filled up, no new ones get built, no new efforts 
put in place to dispose of out-of-State waste, to reduce the amount, to 
recycle, to reduce the amount generated initially, to find other ways 
to dispose of the waste. So we just are moving it around the country to 
different locations, filling up the cheapest hole in the ground that is 
available for a certain fee for out-of-State trash.
  In the 5 years that Congress has debated the issue, the trucks 
continue to roll. The garbage continues to mount. The changes that we 
are proposing here are not an attack on any particular State. They are 
a defense of our own States. They are not rooted in bitterness, but 
they are rooted in urgent need.
  Again, I want to commend my colleagues on the Environmental Committee 
for moving expeditiously in this new Congress on this legislation. I 
look forward to working with them, to strengthening the bill to ensure 
that we afford real protection to importing States while allowing 
exporters sufficient time to get their house in order.
  That is our goal, Mr. President. I am confident that we can 
accomplish that goal in the time that we have in the next day or two. I 
am very, very hopeful that within 48 hours or so we will be able to 
report that the U.S. Senate has, once again, taken action to deal with 
this problem and that we will work carefully and closely with the House 
of Representatives, which in my understanding is moving forward on this 
expeditiously also, and finally resolve this issue and send the 
legislation to the President's desk for his signature, which in the 
past he has indicated he will sign.
  Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take to the floor to discuss the 
provisions of S. 534, the legislation to address the issue of 
interstate transportation waste and flow control authority. Very often 
when one mentions flow control authority, I sense that heads 
 [[Page S6429]] begin to drop because of the rather arcane subject but 
a very important one.
  If I can just take a moment to say that flow control--and perhaps it 
has been discussed on the floor and I missed it but I think the 
importance of the issue will bear some repetition--gives the States the 
ability to control the flow of household trash, particularly trash 
within State borders. And while that does not sound like very much to 
ask, the fact is that demands are being placed on external facilities' 
availability so that it can simply be trucked, often out-of-State to 
other States, where in many cases there is an objection to receiving 
volumes of trash. Though there was a Supreme Court case decision not 
too long ago that dealt with this and said you cannot stop this, it 
directs the Congress to resolve the problem and allowed the parameters 
under which they were to operate to do just that.
  So if it begins to inhibit the trucking or the transportation of 
waste outside the State, then within a State, they have to have some 
way of controlling where it goes. Again, though the subject seems a bit 
arcane, the fact is that it has enormous influence on States like my 
own who are trying to resolve the need, the ability to deal with their 
waste in an orderly fashion.
  Without significant changes to S. 534, my State is going to 
experience a severe financial crisis precipitated by the Senate's 
failure to delegate waste management decisions to the States. I am 
hoping through the amendment process that we can improve the bill so 
that States can continue to handle their waste the way they deem 
appropriate.
  Title I of the legislation, which addresses interstate restrictions, 
which I was talking about earlier, is essentially identical. Title I of 
S. 2345, which was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee last year, overturns the decision of the Supreme Court in the 
case of New Jersey versus Philadelphia. The Supreme Court's decision 
said that interstate restrictions are unconstitutional because a State 
cannot discriminate against a commodity--in this case out-of-State 
trash--from being transported. The court said that States cannot give 
unfair competitive disadvantage against out-of-State haulers, those who 
are trucking the material from one State to the other who are out of 
State, for example, Pennsylvania to New Jersey, who want to dispose of 
trash where it makes the most economic sense.
  So the first title will allow the Governors in each State to restrict 
imports of trash into their States. I have supported this title in the 
past and will support it in the future if States are given the 
authority to find an alternative to this obstructive commerce to find 
in State solutions that now out-of-State exports would restrict.
  Unfortunately, S. 534, while giving States new power over interstate 
shipment of waste, actually reduces the authority that they have 
enjoyed within a State to properly handle their waste. That is a 
principal problem that I have with title II of S. 534, the title that 
deals with flow control authority within the State. Once again, I will 
take a moment to explain why States use flow control.
  Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. 
The acronym is RCRA. RCRA made standards and improved solid waste 
disposal methods and practices. Under subtitle (d) of that law, State 
and local governments developed comprehensive waste management plans 
that meet minimum standards that are set by EPA. Although the law 
created national standards imposed through the solid waste management 
plans, Congress recognized that solid waste was a problem traditionally 
managed at the local level. Under the philosophy of local control, 
subtitle (d) gave State and local governments the flexibility they 
needed to determine the best way to meet the national standards.
  In response to the Federal mandate that waste should be disposed of 
in an environmentally sound manner, it is hard to disagree with that. 
Many local governments constructed modern, state-of-the-art recycling 
systems, waste-to-energy facilities, and sanitary landfills. Integrated 
waste management systems were implemented to promote recycling, 
consumer education and proper management and disposal of household 
hazardous waste.
  While necessary and desirable, these facilities were also very 
costly. The Federal Government does not share the cost of municipal 
solid waste management disposal at the State and local level. States 
and local governments, therefore, adopted various means to finance 
municipal solid waste management services and facilities. The general 
approach taken by State and local government was to issue revenue 
bonds. These bonds were secured by long-term contractual promises which 
rely on a steady, dependable, and consistent quantity of waste for 
disposal in new facilities. It was their revenue streams, necessary to 
pay off the bonds and to meet the financial obligations, that were 
incurred in financing these facilities.
 To ensure guaranteed quantities of waste, cities and towns enact laws 
requiring that trash generated within their borders be disposed of in 
these recently financed facilities. Those laws are the ones we commonly 
call flow control laws.

  Now, these flow control laws were consistent with Congress' 
instruction in subtitle D that State and local governments endeavor to 
secure long-term contracts for supplying resource recovery facilities 
and other environmentally responsible waste disposal facilities. It is 
also consistent with several courts of appeal and State supreme court 
decisions. However, on May 16, 1994, the legal basis for flow control 
was overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of Carbone versus 
Clarkstown. In the 6-to-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a 
New York municipality could not require that garbage generated in the 
locality be sent to a designated waste management facility.
  And again, though the language is common, I think it is important to 
understand what the outcome was, that is, if a community suddenly 
elected to abandon its responsibility to provide trash for a disposal 
facility, then it left that facility, already financed, with 
insufficient resources, insufficient revenues to continue to meet the 
financial obligations, as well as keeping the facility operating. They 
had a choice in many cases. They could ship it out of State. But 
interstate commerce, as we now know it, looks as if it is going to be 
obstructed by the first part of the law being proposed here, the bill 
that is before the Senate.
  The Court held that the Clarkstown, NY, flow control ordinance 
interfered with interstate commerce and deprived out-of-State firms 
access to the local trash market. Again, out-of-State firms are those 
that cart the material to landfills that are licensed in other States.
  As in the New Jersey versus Philadelphia case, States could not 
discriminate against out-of-State haulers. In other words, if New 
Jersey did not want that garbage, that trash brought into their State, 
it would have been a violation of law, so said the Court in the case of 
New Jersey versus Philadelphia.
  The Court held that since Congress had not specifically delegated 
this power to the States, these flow control laws violated the 
interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
  The May 1994 decision in Carbone invalidated the historic right of 
local and State governments to manage solid waste. The case overturned 
almost 20 years of sound solid waste management policy and is 
jeopardizing the solid waste management systems of the over 40 States 
that rely on flow control authority to manage their solid waste.
  The Carbone decision makes it difficult for cities to guarantee a 
steady stream of waste to disposal and processing facilities. Without 
this guaranteed steady stream of revenues, it will be virtually 
impossible for the communities to get financing to build solid waste 
management facilities.
  Second, this decision could result in localities losing the revenue 
generated by having garbage sent to municipal disposal facilities.
  This would eliminate their ability to subsidize nonprofitable waste 
management activities such as recycling and household hazardous waste 
programs, which have been very effective in many communities, 
especially in New Jersey. As we have seen in the District of Columbia, 
the loss of flow control authority threatens existing recycling 
programs. This article, entitled ``District to Suspend Curbside 
Recycling,'' from the Washington Post of April 12, about a month ago, 
clearly makes the case 
 [[Page S6430]] that private haulers taking trash to out-of-State 
locations to avoid the recycling fees led to this financial crisis.
  Finally, the Supreme Court decision puts existing bonds used to 
finance waste management facilities at risk. If localities cannot send 
an adequate level of garbage to a facility to generate the revenue 
needed to pay off the bonds, those communities face default. Citizens 
in the affected communities could find the possibility of 
extraordinarily high taxes and the inability to go to the financial 
markets for any of their needs.
  The Public Securities Association estimates that $23 billion of bonds 
are in jeopardy because of the Carbone decision and every citizen, 
every taxpayer in almost every State, has to worry about this because 
suddenly they could be faced with having to make up the revenue that is 
lost as a result of the decision to ship the material out of State 
because there is no flow control on this.
  In last year's bill, in difficult negotiations with importing States, 
exporting States, and the waste industry, accommodation was reached. S. 
2345 overturned both the Philadelphia case and the Carbone case. It 
recognized that trash was a local issue and one where States should 
make the rules, not the Supreme Court and not the Congress.
  Some amendments were made to assure the maximum amount of competition 
was included in any flow control program, competition between simply 
shipping it out of State and the need to furnish the local facility 
with appropriate revenue opportunities. Certain restrictions were 
placed on Governors' ability to overturn existing contractual 
relationships. Because of concerns of the waste industry, flow control 
could not be expanded to States that had not used it before the Carbone 
decision. Unfortunately, at the last minute, the bill failed to win 
unanimous support.
  Instead of starting from last year's compromise, this year's bill 
goes in two different directions. Almost identical to last year's bill, 
Governors are given the power to shop interstate shipment of waste. 
However, the bill goes in the other direction as far as waste within 
States. Title II, the flow control title, only allows existing flow 
control where default is likely. The title is based on the philosophy 
that flow control is wrong and anticompetitive, and that protection 
should be provided for only those communities that are in immediate 
financial jeopardy because of the Supreme Court decision in Carbone.
  Title I, the interstate title, discriminates against free market 
solutions by allowing States to say no to economically viable 
interstate shipments. Title II, however, attempts to enshrine the free 
market by preventing States from considering long-term social goals in 
addition to short-term economic benefits. Indeed, in its present form, 
I find the bill internally inconsistent. Without flow control authority 
denied to them in title II, States will find it more difficult to meet 
the self-sufficiency goal that is virtually required by title I. Title 
II says turn waste control over to free enterprise. It sounds like a 
good idea. However, title I says if you do allow free enterprise to 
take over, other States can close the market to you. It is a catch-22 
situation.
  It is interesting to note that additional amendments are expected to 
further limit the free flow of trash over State lines. Title I, the 
interstate restriction title, gives new powers that conflict with the 
interstate commerce clause to Governors that they have not enjoyed 
since the Philadelphia case was decided in 1972. Title II takes powers 
away from the States and municipalities that they enjoyed since the 
1970's, powers that they have used to keep the trash flowing within 
their States to local facilities.
  My colleague from New Hampshire, the chairman of the subcommittee on 
Superfund, philosophically believes that flow control is wrong, and I 
understand his position.
 But his position conflicts with a concern of my Governor and many 
Governors who believe that, after the last election, more authority 
would be put in their hands rather than in the hands of Congress.

  Limiting the bill as the sponsors have intended has not been easy.
  Since flow control has been a tool to solve the waste disposal 
problems, the States and towns across America have been a laboratory of 
unique and creative solutions to their waste problems. These non 
Federal solutions to the waste problem have led to nonuniform statutes 
and nonuniform problems that were inadvertently not fixed by S. 534.
  At subcommittee markup, over 50 amendments were filed. Changes were 
accepted to respond to specific problems in five States. Two of those 
States need additional clarifying language.
  A colloquy was entered into for another State and one other State was 
promised consideration before floor action. These seven State-specific 
amendments have one thing in common--each of these States are 
represented by Senators who sit on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  It is a complicated issue. I wish we had been able to resolve these 
issues before we got to the floor here. But it was necessary to get 
this bill on the agenda for all kinds of reasons and, as a consequence, 
we are where we are. But we still have a lot of work to do.
  Because many States have delegated waste control authorities to lower 
levels of government that do not employ Washington counsel, many 
communities are still reviewing the committee's reported product, still 
looking at what is being offered. And we always have that from the 
States when they have an interest or when they have a particular 
problem with a piece of legislation. They have not had time enough yet 
to deal with it.
  New situations that seem consistent with the intent of the authors 
but not exactly fitting the language of the bill, are still being 
discovered.
  Mr. President, flow control is not necessary or even preferable for 
every State. Each State is different. It has its own unique needs. But 
this bill, as written, is not acceptable by my Governor, Christine Todd 
Whitman, and neither is it acceptable to many others. As those who have 
been involved in the flow control discussions over the years, New 
Jersey has the most sweeping and encompassing system and it has been a 
success.
  In the 1980's, New Jersey's environmental initiatives to close 
substandard landfills drastically reduced the State's disposal 
capacity. New Jersey's waste quickly became a burden for other States 
as the need to export our waste grew.
  The high cost and market volatility associated with exporting waste 
triggered a garbage crisis and strained municipal resources. It was at 
this time that elected officials of both parties in New Jersey accepted 
the responsibility to develop a solid waste management system that 
would provide long-term stability and ultimately, self-sufficiency.
  ``Self-sufficiency'' simply meaning that we could take care of all of 
our waste disposal needs within our State's borders. It could not 
happen overnight. We tried to stop it when it came from other places, 
and we were turned down by the courts. As I have said now several 
times, we could not stand to have our shifting of material suddenly cut 
off from other States when now we are an exporter.
  It was clear to the State that other States would not accept New 
Jersey's waste forever and Federal legislation to eliminate waste 
exports was inevitable. To meet the goal of self-sufficiency, flow 
control laws have been in place in New Jersey since 1979 and control 
all of the nonhazardous solid waste in the State. Flow control has been 
a significant part of New Jersey's ability to build an infrastructure, 
mostly landfills, to handle the 14 million tons of solid waste 
requiring disposal annually.
  Since 1988, exports of municipal solid waste from New Jersey have 
decreased 50 percent. If the flow control authority from last year's 
bill is included in legislation that passes this body, New Jersey will 
be self-sufficient by the year 2000, only 5 years away.
  New Jersey's recycling programs are also dependent on revenues 
received from use of New Jersey waste management facilities. Today, New 
Jersey recycles over 53 percent of its waste.
  Despite New Jersey's system, it is not a system that leaves out the 
private sector. The private sector has built and operates most of the 
waste facilities in the State. Through competitive bidding, the 
authorities within 
 [[Page S6431]] the State ensure services will be provided at the 
lowest cost. The collection, transportation, construction of disposal 
facilities, and their operations, are all services for which bids are 
sought.
  Governor Whitman testified that ``every major waste management firm 
in America, and a laundry list of smaller waste companies, operate in 
New Jersey today, and we are in the 17th year of a flow control system. 
That is not a Government monopoly.''
  Because of New Jersey's unique system where all the wastes are now 
flow controlled, without additional amendments, a waste crisis will 
inevitably occur. Once part of our system is no longer flow controlled, 
wastes will flow out of State.
  New, in-state replacement facilities will be impossible to finance or 
justify economically although the supply of trash will be there, the 
trash will flow out-of-state. Even BFI, the company leading the fight 
against flow control, acknowledges that new private facilities in the 
State would not be practical without flow control, without the ability 
to direct where this trash flows.
  Even without the recycling fees, it is and will continue to be 
cheaper to dump garbage in a landfill in Pennsylvania or other States 
than to handle it anywhere in New Jersey. This is appealing, in the 
short term, for some of the mayors and some of the communities and 
towns in New Jersey.
  But the free market available over the border is subject to 
governmental closure by title I of this very bill. Without flow 
control, what is now a decreasing waste problem will again become a 
garbage crisis. Without flow control, communities will again give their 
garbage to low-cost haulers and hope it ends up in certified RCRA 
facilities, as opposed to being dumped casually someplace in an 
unlicensed facility that they do not have control over.
  Without flow control, communities will select haulers on the basis of 
only one factor, and that is price. But all of us know that the 
cheapest alternative is not always the best or the legal one.
  Without flow control, we will see more illegal midnight dumping.
  Mr. President, to protect my State, I will be offering an amendment 
to protect the flow control system in existence in New Jersey. With 
this amendment, I can state that New Jersey will not be sending garbage 
out-of-state after the year 2000. We just need that window of time to 
deal with it.
  Another alternative is to not fix State problems one by one, but to 
have a generic fix that was the essence of S. 2345 last year.
  Depending on the amendment process we are going to be using in this 
debate, I will be considering offering such amendment based on that 
agreement and which I introduced in this Congress as S. 398.
  Mr. President, the Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, 
testified before the committee on this important issue. She said:

       It has been argued by some, and may be said again, that 
     flow control legislation is at odds with the goals and 
     philosophy of the new Congress. The contrary is true. A flow 
     control bill that ensures private sector competition while 
     allowing local governments to make long-term waste management 
     plans is entirely consistent with the goals of this Congress. 
     If Congress denies flow control authority to New Jersey, it 
     essentially mandates that States like Pennsylvania and Ohio 
     take trash from my State, only because land cost in those 
     States are lower than in New Jersey.

  Mr. President, the interests of the exporting States and importing 
States are not in conflict. New Jersey does not want to send its waste 
out-of-State. It wants to be self-sufficient. But to be self-
sufficient, it needs to protect its flow control system and it needs 
several years to be totally self-sufficient. Without that protection, 
the fears of the proponents of interstate restrictions, will be 
realized and wastes will again flow out of states looking for cheap 
places to send their garbage.
  In March of this year, the National Governors unanimously passed a 
resolution reaffirming a mutual commitment to each State's management 
of waste within its borders and endorsed the use of flow control in the 
pursuit of self-sufficiency.
  Because title II is so much more restrictive that last year's bill, 
it will be necessary for New Jersey to send more of its waste out-of-
State. Unless title II is corrected, I must strongly oppose the 
existing title I and any amendments that further limit the State's 
options of going out of State.
  Mr. President, I know that my dissertation just now does not compare 
with some of the most important declarations delivered on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate nor in this great city of Washington. However, without 
trivializing the problem, I just want to make the case once more that 
it cannot exist both ways: We cannot say to the States you are not 
allowed to control the flow of trash within your State and, on the 
other hand, face the very high risk of having a law created that says, 
``Uh-uh, you can't ship it to my State or any other State that now or 
in the future may import trash.''
  So we have to arrive at a balance. That is what I have been saying 
through that flood of words that I have been issuing for the last 25 
minutes or so. The subject is not an easy one. It is not a pleasant 
one. Garbage never is. But the fact of the matter is that it is our 
garbage and it is our problem and there is not a State exempt from the 
problem. Today's importer may be tomorrow's exporter, which we bitterly 
discovered in the State of New Jersey over 23 years ago.
  So I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will comply with our 
request to give the States the authority that they need to handle their 
garbage within the State with the same authority they will have to keep 
waste out of their States.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I promise there will not be a second 
speech similar to the one I just delivered. This is a simple request, 
Mr. President. And that is, I ask unanimous consent that Douglas 
Johnson, of Senator Wellstone's office, and Jill Schneiderman, of 
Senator Daschle's office, be given the privilege of the floor during 
the consideration of S. 534.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, I remind my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle that S. 770 is still at the desk and will be there until 
the close of business today. If colleagues on either side are 
interested in cosponsoring the bill which would ultimately move the 
embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, we hope you will take 
advantage and cosponsor the measure.
  Second, we are on the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid 
Waste Act of 1995, and we have not been on it long, only since about 1 
o'clock. I know a lot of good opening statements have been made. I 
understand there are a lot of amendments. I urge my colleagues who may 
not be on the floor, or their staffs who may be listening in their 
offices, if Members have amendments, we would like to have some votes 
here this afternoon. We would like to keep this bill moving.
  I am tempted to file cloture on the whole bill this afternoon and 
have a cloture vote on Friday. I would rather not do that. I would 
rather have Members come to the floor and offer their amendments. But I 
am certain the managers are here and they are prepared to do business. 
I know there is one amendment under discussion now. I have heard there 
are dozens and dozens of amendments. If we are going to complete action 
on this bill by Friday, we need to move quickly.
  I say to all of my colleagues that if you have an amendment, come to 
the 
 [[Page S6432]] floor and let us enter into a time agreement of 30, 40 
minutes, whatever, and dispose of some of these amendments this 
afternoon. Senator Smith is here, Senator Chafee is here, Senator 
Baucus has been here, so I think you are prepared to do business, 
right?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes. If the majority leader will yield, the majority 
leader is correct. I think if the bill does not get completed this week 
because these amendments do not get offered, they are jeopardizing the 
things we are trying to accomplish. We are here, and if those who have 
amendments get them here, we can finish this by this week.
  Mr. DOLE. We may be on the budget resolution as early as Tuesday of 
next week. So the window is not very broad here. This is important 
legislation that affects everybody all over the country. Tonight we 
cannot stay in as late as I would like to because we have the Senate 
spouses annual dinner this evening. We will have to probably stop about 
7. So tomorrow night we can go late and late Friday afternoon.
  I urge my colleagues again to cooperate and help us move the business 
of the Senate so that we can move on to something else.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to say to the majority leader 
and to the managers that I appreciate wanting to move forward. We are 
trying to work out something on an amendment right now. I think it is 
an important piece of legislation. I hope we are close.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 750

 (Purpose: To clarify the continuation of flow control authority where 
           such authority was imposed prior to May 15, 1994)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for being kind enough to defer to me. I am hoping that we will be able 
to go forward with an amendment, if we can do it in a very brief period 
of time. I asked the Senator from West Virginia for his permission to 
do so. I will wait for a moment, if the Senator would be patient.
  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 750.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 56, line 10, strike ``is imposed'' and insert ``had 
     been exercised prior to May 15, 1994, and was being 
     implemented on May 15, 1994,''.
       On page 56, line 12, insert ``;' after ``subdivision'' and 
     strike ``in effect on May 15, 1994''.
       On page 60, lines 4-5, strike ``was in effect prior to'' 
     and insert ``such authority was imposed prior to May 15, 1994 
     and was being implemented on''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to a subject that 
is of the greatest importance to many communities in my State of 
Minnesota, and indeed to communities across the country.
  The topic is flow control, and particularly as it relates to S. 534, 
the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. For 
those Senators who may not be familiar with the subject of flow 
control--although you are likely to be very familiar with it once we 
all finish with this bill--you should take a moment and talk to the 
people in your communities who are responsible every day of the week 
for picking up the trash, finding a way to dispose of it, and doing so 
in an affordable and ecologically sound manner. People like Mr. Rob 
Dunnette, the plant manager at the Olmstead County Waste-To-Energy 
facility in Rochester, MN.
  Mr. President, in 1980 my State of Minnesota, the cost of disposing 
of solid wastes in municipal landfills was on the rise * * * and the 
amount of available landfill space was on the decline. ``At that 
time,'' says Mr. Dunnette, ``our landfills were filling up, and there 
was a lot of material going into landfills that shouldn't have.'' The 
Minnesota State legislature responded by passing the Solid Waste 
Management Act of 1980, an act which sought to give local communities 
the tools they needed to deal with the landfill problem. One of those 
tools was the ability to take on for themselves the authority to 
control the flow of municipal solid waste. Says Mr. Dunnette, ``The 
Feds and the State told us to do something different, do something 
better * * * so we did.''
  Mr. President, what Olmstead County did was to adopt flow control. It 
obtained $27 million in municipal bonds for the construction of three 
disposal facilities--one for hazardous waste, one for recyclables, and 
one to convert the remaining solid waste into steam, which was used to 
heat neighboring buildings and generate electricity.
  The entire plan was based on what the State and Federal Government 
had been encouraging communities to do for years--namely, to adopt flow 
control authority to integrate and consolidate the disposal of 
municipal solid wastes.
  And it worked. In fact because of the many counties--like Olmstead 
County--that began to engage in flow control, my State of Minnesota 
became a national example of how flow control could be an effective 
tool in managing our local solid waste streams in an economically and 
ecologically sound manner.
  That is until May 15, 1994, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 
flow control authority was unconstitutional unless explicitly granted 
by Congress. This is largely why all of us are here on the floor today, 
talking about flow control.
  Mr. President, the issue is simple. The bill before us today, as it 
is written, excludes many Minnesota communities that have floated 
millions of dollars in municipal bonds to build facilities under the 
presumption that they could engage in flow control. But there is a 
solution to this problem.
  Mr. President, I have prepared an amendment, which would ensure that 
all of the Minnesota counties that had engaged in flow control and had 
invested money into facilities would be allowed to continue doing so. 
It clears up a possible misunderstanding, and I thank my colleagues for 
accepting it.
  Let us be clear: My amendment would not authorize flow control for 
any new communities. Some communities have had good experience with it; 
clearly, however, it is not right for everyone. What I am saying is 
that this is a decision that should not be made here in Washington, but 
rather in the communities directly affected.
  My amendment would not require anybody to use flow control. It would 
only allow those that had been encouraged to engage in flow control 
since 1980 by the State and Federal Governments, to continue to do so. 
However without my amendment, millions upon millions of dollars in 
municipal bonds in Minnesota could be put at risk. As Mr. Dunnette 
said, ``We're 8 years into our 20-year bond * * * without this fix, it 
is possible, if not probable, that we may default on those bonds.''
  Mr. President, it is as simple as that. If ever there was a clear 
example of a States-rights issue, this is it. We need to address this 
issue now, but we need to do so in a manner that is responsive to our 
communities. Our communities are telling us loud and clear what they 
need. I hope my colleagues will listen to them.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that really just clears up a 
possible misunderstanding. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, the 
Senator from Montana, and the Senator from New Hampshire for accepting 
this amendment.
  This amendment makes it clear that when a county has gone forward 
with its own flow control, has bonded, and is implementing this, that 
they clearly will be covered by this bill. I believe the managers have 
accepted this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota is correct, 
this is acceptable to this side.
  [[Page S6433]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 750) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from 
Vermont, makes a motion to lay that amendment on the table.
  The motion to table is agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I again would like to thank my 
colleagues.
  This was, for a good many counties in Minnesota, a very, very 
important question. For all Senators, whether Democrats or Republicans, 
it always feels good to come through for people in your State. I worked 
hard at this. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________