[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6489-S6494]
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.
Amendment No. 789
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send a manager's amendment to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] for himself, Mr.
Chafee, and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 789.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 38, line 18, strike the phrase ``the Administrator
has determined''.
On page 39, after line 8 insert the following: ``For
purposes of developing the list required in this Section, the
Administrator shall be responsible for collating and
publishing only that information provided to the
Administrator by States pursuant to this Section. The
Administrator shall not be required to gather additional data
over and above that provided by the States pursuant to this
Section, nor to verify data provided by the States pursuant
to this Section, nor to arbitrate or otherwise entertain or
resolve disputes between States or other parties concerning
interstate movements of municipal solid waste. Any actions by
the Administrator under this Section shall be final and not
subject to judicial review.''
On page 38, after the ``.'' on line 16 insert the
following: ``States making submissions referred to in this
Section to the Administrator shall notice these submissions
for public review and comment at the State level before
submitting them to the Administrator.''
On page 33, line 20, strike ``(6)(D)'' and insert
``(6)(C)''.
On page 34, line 13, strike ``determined'' and insert
``listed''.
On page 34, line 13, strike ``(6)(E)'' and insert
``(6)(C)''.
On page 36, line 16, strike ``(6)(E)'' and insert
``(6)(C)''.
On page 50, strike line 18 and insert the following: ``in
which the generator of the waste has an ownership
interest.''.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to by both
sides. It is a managers' amendment, a very technical amendment that has
been requested by EPA, and it applies to tracking interstate waste
pursuant to title I of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
New Hampshire.
The amendment (No. 789) was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from
Arizona, moves to table the motion.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 769
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to address the pending
amendment which is, indeed, the Kyl amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would just like to say a few words about
the amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
In our Environment and Public Works Committee, there are 16 members:
9 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The bill that is before the Senate today
that the Senator from Arizona seeks to amend was approved in the
committee by a vote of 16 to 0. Every Democrat and every Republican
voted for it.
Now, this bill before the Senate represents a delicate balance. There
are two sides to this issue. On one side is the following: The State
and local governments say, why should we not be allowed to designate
that all municipal solid waste, all solid waste within this entity, be
it the city of Detroit or be it some small town in Michigan or town or
city in Rhode Island, whether it is in the Nation--why should we not be
able to designate that all of the municipal waste within that community
go to a facility that we designate--we, the town fathers; and in that
fashion, we, the town fathers and the community, will be able to afford
a proper disposal facility, be it an incinerator or be it a licensed
proper landfill?
If our citizens do not like this arrangement, if they think they can
have their solid waste hauled away by some private entrepreneur in a
different fashion, then they can vote Members out of office and we will
be gone and the citizens can have a separate system, if that is what
they want. At least we ought to have that power.
Now, on the other side of the equation is the view espoused by
Senator Kyl, which is that flow control is anticompetitive and is
against the U.S. Constitution, in addition to all that. The
Constitution has said that flow control is against the commerce clause
and it should not be permitted.
However, the Senator in his amendment recognizes that there are some
facilities that have been built pursuant to the belief that flow
control will be there in perpetuity and, therefore, he has arranged
under his amendment that those investments made by those communities
can be paid off. In other words, his amendment is tailored to the life
of the outstanding bonds.
Once they are paid off, then that ends it regarding flow control
existing in that community. In other words, he has kept the flow
control limited to a minimal period to provide for the payment of the
bonds. Now, he has put a lot of thought into that argument, and as I
say, an argument can be made for it, as indeed he has made.
In crafting this view, we balanced these two views. The ones who say
on
[[Page S6490]] one side, we do not want to have anything that inhibits
competition; and on the other side those who say, why should we, in our
communities, not be able to do what we want to do? If it is wrong we
will be voted out of office. Leave that to the citizens. Do not have
Big Brother in Washington, DC, saying how to do things.
We had those views vigorously brought to our attention both in the
committee and on the floor of the Senate and in our conversations with
other Senators.
What did we say? We set limits. We said, ``We are going to give
broader flow control possibilities than that suggested by the Senator
from Arizona in his amendment.'' However, we are going to set an
outside limit. This is going to end at a certain time under our bill.
It ends at 30 years. That does it. But we did not want to cut it off
immediately, for the same reasons the Senator from Arizona has
suggested. We go a little beyond him because there are communities here
that are tied up in contracts that are different from just paying off
the bonds. They have different situations.
Indeed, they feel very strongly about the arrangements they have made
within their communities, within some States. They do not want this
limitation. If we are going to have this legislation passed, then it
seems to me we have to recognize the views on both sides to a greater
extent than is recognized by the Senator from Arizona in his amendment.
Therefore, Mr. President, when the proper time comes I will move to
table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona--not that I think it is
totally out of line. I can see the rationale that is behind his
amendment.
The truth of the matter is it will upset this delicate arrangement
that we have put together here over the past several weeks. I might say
this was not just created by the imagination of this Senator or that
Senator. It came as a result of hearings we had in connection with flow
control and trying to craft a bill that is very, very difficult.
Indeed, what has been going on today and yesterday? We were on this
bill starting at 12 o'clock yesterday, going up until something like
6:30. Today we have been on it since 9:30, with very little action on
the floor.
Why? Because we are trying to compromise and recognize and deal with
these various forces that are tugging in exactly opposite directions
here. That is difficult to reconcile.
Therefore, Mr. President, I would hope that our colleagues would
support the efforts of the committee in trying to meet this very, very,
difficult compromise.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island
would engage in a colloquy with me regarding this legislation?
Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate his characterization of my
remarks. They are precisely as he described them. I appreciate the
difficult dilemma that a chairman always has in trying to get
legislation which is not uniformly agreed to and, therefore, requires
some compromise.
Having conceded that much, first I want to make a very quick point,
because there is some misinformation, I think, being conveyed, and that
is that our amendment does not permit refinancing.
This is not something that the Senator from Rhode Island addressed
but was addressed earlier. Under our amendment, I make it clear, that
refinancing is committed so you are not bound by the original
financing. Entities can refinance, and however long it takes for either
the original bond issue or the refinanced bond issue to be repaid, that
would be the length of time that this exemption under my amendment
would pertain.
Mr. CHAFEE. In your bill--in other words, you refinance and you could
extend beyond the period of the original bond?
Mr. KYL. I believe that is correct, yes.
Mr. CHAFEE. It was my understanding that refinancing was permitted
but it could not extend beyond the date of the original financing. I
may be wrong there.
Mr. KYL. I am sorry, yes. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct.
In subsection (B):
(A) shall not be construed to preclude refinancing of the
capital costs of a facility, but if, under the terms of a
refinancing, completion of the scheduled for payment of
capital costs will occur after the date on which completion
would have occurred. * * *
Then the authority expires at the earlier of those two dates. The
Senator is correct. With respect to the issue generally that a
community should have the right to grant a monopoly, and that the
remedy is to vote them out of office--the argument posited against
this--I ask my colleague this question:
It is true that if a municipality, a county government or whatever,
creates this monopoly they could be voted out of office. But is it not
true that the U.S. Congress, by this legislation, will have created the
situation where despite these people being voted out of office, the
contract, under the bill as written--the contract term, or as long as
it takes to refinance, or even the point at which the useful life
ceases to exist, after it has been extended, up to 30 years--would
still allow the monopoly to continue? So the candidates themselves may
be defeated but that which they constructed, because we protected it,
would continue to exist?
Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.
Mr. KYL. I think that makes my point. We ought to be very, very
careful when we are seeking ways to get around the U.S. Supreme Court
decision interpreting the Constitution; that we should do so in the
narrowest way possible. I think what we have done here is, in order to
accommodate the special desires of different Senators from different
States to go beyond just the repayment obligations but to actually
continue to act as a monopoly so they will have a competitive advantage
over others who might wish to provide the same kind of service, that in
constructing the compromise we have, I think, gone too far and acted
beyond the principle which justifies the more limited grandfathering,
if you will, more limited exemption which I provided for in my
amendment.
That is why, while I certainly recognize the difficulties the
chairman has in cobbling together a compromise in something of this
nature, I suggest colleagues may wish to support my amendment. I hope
they would support my amendment. If that means we then have to go back
and do some more working of the bill, then at least it might be done
from a better basis.
I might ask the Senator from Rhode Island another question here. I
can understand, under a very limited circumstance, why we might want to
recognize a contract term which extends beyond the term for refinancing
or financing bonds. There are basically three reasons why the monopoly
is being granted here. One, to allow the refinancing to occur--both of
us have agreed on that. Two, in order to extend the exemption to the
point that contracts are outstanding. And, three, to extend it when
something has been done to the plant to extend its useful life. I can
understand a limited rationale in the second situation and we both
provided for the first.
What I cannot understand is a rationale for the third aspect of the
exemption whereby, simply because it makes economic sense to do so, or
the jurisdiction in question decides to do something to the plant to
extend its useful life, that fact ought to occasion us to grant an
additional exemption.
At that point there is no longer contract obligation that might be
more difficult to fulfill. There is no more investor interest out
there. This is simply, perhaps, a very rational decision to extend the
life of the plant, but not one which creates in my mind any rationale
for extending the grant of authority here.
Would the Senator from Rhode Island care to respond to that?
Mr. CHAFEE. That is a good question. But the answer is--and we have
had this raised, obviously, not only on the floor here but in calls
from Governors that come to us. The original plea of the Governors is,
``Why can't we do what we want to do? Who are you in Washington, always
telling us, yes/no?''
As the Senator has pointed out, it is the Supreme Court that said no.
It is not us who said ``no.'' Indeed, what we
[[Page S6491]] are doing is in effect coming to the rescue, if you
would, of those communities that want to extend flow control or have
flow control because, as the Senator knows, it was declared
unconstitutional. So we are stepping in, trying to fill a void, fill a
problem that exists.
But you say, OK, if you step in just step in for this limited period
which is, as you say, the length of the bonds that are outstanding or
what the contract requires between the facility and the community--
whatever it might be. But the answer is that in many of these States
and communities they set up arrangements based on flow control
continuing to exist. In other words, they pass statutes that flow
control be there. So we have some occasions where the length of time of
the contract is not necessarily going to cover all the expenses and is
going to be renegotiated for a variety of reasons, but all with the
anticipation that the flow control statute that the municipality had
entered into was going to continue to be there.
So they say, ``We made arrangements.'' The arrangements might be the
original bonds, for example, and did not cover the total construction
cost of the facility. Or that they were dependent upon flow control to
provide the flow of waste and the tipping fees for the rather high
maintenance costs. They had it all worked out and they say, ``Why can't
we continue to do that?''
That is the rationale that we have, when we have State A, or B, or C,
or Governor A, B, or C, calling us and saying this is what we want. So
we have tried to juggle it around, leaving not everybody happy, as is
apparent today.
Mr. KYL. If I could respond, I appreciate that fact. And I suspected
that basically was the rationale for it. But it does seem to me that
just because the operators of the plant want a monopoly does not
necessarily mean that is good public policy or that we ought to go
along with it. By definition, if at the time bonds have been paid off--
since I doubt seriously these plants are constructed by anything other
than bond issues--but once the bonds have been paid off, they have been
built. They may continue to have high operating costs. But at that
point it is the citizens of the State and the community whose interests
we ought to have in mind, which is the rationale behind the interstate
commerce clause in the first place, that a State should not grant a
monopoly to either a private business or a State enterprise to extract
more money from the taxpayers of the community than is necessary.
And if a private investor or some other competitor can build a plant,
can come up with the capital to do so and compete favorably with an
institution that has already been totally financed by public funds and
had that financing repaid, then at that point public policy would
suggest that the people are more benefited by the lower prices and the
competition because, by definition, they are the ones who are getting
the contract rather than the older, outmoded or very expensive facility
that we have been protecting in the meantime.
So I guess I can recognize that the owners or operators of the plants
may wish to stay in business without competition. I still am not clear
as to why that should occasion us to grant an exemption from an
otherwise constitutional prohibition here.
As I say, I can understand the rationale as to the first point as to
the bonds, and to some extent on the contracts, but on this third area
here--and what I am searching for here is a possible accommodation with
the chairman and others who would be involved in this--I just really
fail to see the rationale for the third. Perhaps that is something we
could explore an agreement on.
Mr. CHAFEE. I think the Senator made a rather telling point. He
pointed out that if they enter into these contracts and the town
fathers say, ``Look, if you do not like it you can vote us out of
office,'' you say, ``What good does it do to vote you out of office,
you have locked us in for 20 years? It is little satisfaction for us
that you are gone but we are stuck with the contract.''
But I would like to say this. Here we are in a situation where if
this Senate does nothing or this Congress does nothing, there will be
no flow control at all.
Yet we have publicly elected servants, Governors, Senators, coming to
us and say, ``Extend this in perpetuity.'' That is what many of them
want. These are people who are saying this before it is a done deal. In
other words, the public knows their position, should know it, and many
Governors--it has been no secret--do not say, ``Don't tell anybody, I
am urging you to do this.''
So there are a lot of factors involved. But pursuant to the wishes
and the views of the Senator from Arizona, and our own views likewise,
we have set a sunset. We said this is all over with. We do not care
what your arguments are. At the end of 30 years, there is not going to
be any more flow control. You did give us arguments about bonds, this,
that, but that is it. You may say 30 years is a long time. It is not
just some people on the floor of the Senate who are after us to change
that.
Mr. KYL. Unlike Strom Thurmond, we are going to be gone by the end of
30 years. But I see the point.
If the Senator will just yield for one final comment, I appreciate
the arguments the Senator has made. I think what I am suggesting is
something that is correct on principle. I would not want it to impede
good legislation. I tried to suggest a couple of areas of possible ways
of dealing with the issue and would be happy to continue to pursue
those areas should anyone be interested.
On my behalf, I am not doing this for anybody in my State, because we
do not have this. But I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and
enable us perhaps with a little stronger leverage to go back and
construct something that would make a little more sense.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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 find this a rather distressing
moment because the amendment that is proposed, frankly, will do much to
undo a lot of hard work that was done in a consensus fashion in trying
to arrive at a way to accommodate the need for States to dispose of
their trash in a sensible way. When you say ``trash, garbage,'' et
cetera, immediately it sounds like the subject is on the trivial side
of things. It is hardly that because there are a few States that do not
have a problem. As a matter of fact, this country of ours, and this
world of ours is filled with problems created by the excess creation of
trash by its citizens.
It is a serious problem when you come from a State like mine, the
most crowded State in the country. We still value the quality of life
that we can develop. We like our hills. Some call them mountains. It
depends on whether you have seen mountains or not. But they are our
hills and they are our forests, they are our woodlands, and our
streams. And we try to make as good use of those as we can. We want for
our children nothing different than those who live in Montana or
Wyoming or in the other places, the wide open places. As a matter of
fact, population growth in this country is much more toward the crowded
areas because young people like to be where other young people are, and
as a consequence there has to be a national cooperation on efforts like
this to help us deal sensibly with the problem.
Now, this bill is carefully crafted--the bill itself; I am not
talking about the amendment of the Senator from Arizona--to give States
the power to restrict in some form or fashion the amount of trash that
comes to their States from other States. This is not a simple
calculation because within States there is often enormous disputes
between those who govern the local community--mayors, councils--those
sometimes who are responsible for county government and State
government because the mayor in a town may very well be able to find a
way to get rid of their trash from the community by shipping it to the
nearest, cheapest out-of-State facility.
To give you an example, in my own State we have created some waste
disposal facilities, and in order to build
[[Page S6492]] those facilities we had to go out and arrange for
financing, indebtedness, and that indebtedness, like any other
business, was calculated on a particular revenue or financial stream
that was going to permit them to pay their bills and also to pay off
their indebtedness.
So lots of communities across this country developed something called
a flow control program that says a State may regulate where the trash
is going to go, not simply permit a mayor, even though it looks on its
surface to be in the best interests of the residents of the community,
to simply say OK, tipping fees, which are the fees associated with the
disposal of garbage, to send it to State X nearby are one-third or 40
percent of what it might cost to send it to a nearby waste processing
facility. That can be true on a particular day at a particular moment.
However, Mr. President, what happens if suddenly the opportunity to
ship to State X, Y, or Z is terminated by laws that are pending in this
body that say look, we are not going to take your garbage. We are not
going to permit our communities to take it even though it is a revenue-
producing source, even though it is clean, even though it has met all
of the standards under RCRA for being a sanitary landfill where there
is no possibility of leaching into the water supply, there is no danger
to the community, even though we know it is great politics to keep the
garbage out of the contract State. The fact is we have a contract and
the Supreme Court says you cannot interfere with interstate commerce--
unless, of course, laws are drawn to permit obstructing it in an
ingenious way so that it gets around the constitutional question.
Well, what happens is those of us who live in exporting States are
very nervous about the future, of what happens if suddenly the export
possibility is cut off. And I repeat, though I have said it on this
floor several times, the New Jersey story. When we were an importing
State for garbage--Philadelphia used to ship its trash to my State--we
tried through the courts to stop it. We went as far as the Supreme
Court, and the Supreme Court said no, you cannot stop it. Well, we
learned something. We were a net importer, and now as fate would have
it we are an exporter. And in order to protect the solvency of our
State, it was determined that my State would have a flow control
structure, and they tried to direct the trash to the facilities that
can accommodate it not just now, not just next year but in much of the
next century as well.
That is the thought that went into this bill. Do not cut us off at
the border and at the same time not permit us to control the flow
within our States. My State of New Jersey wants to be independent. We
do not want to depend on anybody else, to be gracious and fair and all
that kind of stuff. We know that we have to take care of ourselves, so
as a consequence we wrote the law to permit us to do that.
Well, now, after all of the deliberations that have gone on--and the
distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee
from Rhode Island is in the Chamber. He worked very hard to get a
consensus. He supports the flow control notion because he knows how
important it is to the States that are concerned. Forty States in this
country of ours have flow control authority, and they will be adversely
affected by this amendment.
The amendment makes it difficult to expand landfills. For example,
there are many landfills that need to be improved. If a 10-year bond
was taken out for the original landfill 8 years ago, then that landfill
operator will have little incentive to make improvements because he
does not know how much waste will be coming in after 20 years. How good
business is going to be he does not know because we are liable to cut
off the opportunity for him to continue financing.
So we have an amendment now which I frankly believe would be very
disruptive, and I want all the Senators from all the States that have
flow control authority to pay attention because they could be losing a
valuable asset, the sensible management of their trash problems.
We are going to have a vote on this amendment, I understand, at 2:30,
and I would caution those offices where there is any interest at all in
what happens with flow control to make sure that those Senators are
alerted to the problems that might be created for them.
This amendment, by the way, is opposed by the National Association of
Counties. They know what the problems are. It would be difficult to
finance equipment, to finance new facilities because the amendment
limits very specifically the financing of facilities to those that are
presently in operation; would limit them to 30 years of life even if 25
have gone by. That means only 5 more. And the State may not have any
other solution to its problems.
So I hope our colleagues will listen very carefully to what is being
discussed, to note that the chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund,
under whose jurisdiction this is, will be opposing this amendment and
that others will take leave from them.
With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from
Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will submit an amendment to the
pending bill. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 867
(Purpose: To provide flow control authority to certain solid waste
districts)
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself and
Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 867.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(f) State Solid Waste District Authority.--A solid waste
district of a State may exercise flow control authority for
municipal solid waste and for recyclable material voluntarily
relinquished by the owner or generator of the material that
is generated within its jurisdiction if--
``(1) the solid waste district is currently required to
initiate a recyclable materials recycling program in order to
meet a municipal solid waste reduction goal of at least 30
percent by the year 2000, and uses revenues generated by the
exercise of flow control authority strictly to implement
programs to manage municipal solid waste, other than
development of incineration; and
``(2) prior to May 15, 1994, the solid waste district--
``(A) was responsible under State law for the management
and regulation of the storage, collection, processing, and
disposal of solid wastes within its jurisdiction;
``(B) was authorized by State statute (enacted prior to
January 1, 1990) to exercise flow control authority, and
subsequently adopted the authority through a law, ordinance,
regulation, contract, franchise, or other legally binding
provision; and
``(C) was required by State statute (enacted prior to
January 1, 1992) to develop and implement a solid waste
management plan consistent with the State solid waste
management plan, and the district solid waste management plan
was approved by the appropriate State agency prior to
September 15, 1994.''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as
a cosponsor with the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, hopefully we will be able to reconcile
our differences that we have right now with respect to the pending
bill.
Vermont, I think, is a pioneer in this area. Some years ago, it set
up a methodology of trying to reach what we believed were national
goals as well as our own State's goals, and that was to try and develop
recycling to reduce the amount of solid waste that enters into our
waste system. Thus, we organized districts throughout the State. And
also to try to enhance the ability to recycle, we have allowed some
tipping fees to be exacted in order to take care
[[Page S6493]] of the costs that are involved with recycling.
If my memory serves me right, when I was on the committee that is
handling this legislation, we had set or were going to set national
goals that we ought to try to reach a 30-percent goal of recycling.
Vermont right now is over 25 percent and moving toward 30 percent.
What would happen, if this bill passes and if the existing Supreme
Court decision is not changed, is that Vermont will have to move away
from what is a very desirable situation, and that is to be able to
reduce our flow of trash by over 25 percent.
Mr. President, in 1987 the State of Vermont passed a solid waste
management act which allowed small rural towns and cities to band
together to solve their solid waste problems. Building a landfill which
complies with EPA standards under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act is not cheap. Recognizing that landfills out of compliance
would be shutting down, and facing the reality that landfill space was
dramatically declining, Vermont acted to assist small communities in
their effort to handle their solid waste. The 1987 solid waste
management law allows Vermont towns the ability to band together.
Passage of Vermont's solid waste law and the implementation of the
State's solid waste plan has been incredibly successful to date in
achieving this goal. But we are not finished yet.
Mr. President, Vermont has spent over $20 million developing its
district waste management plans. The vast majority of these plans rely
on flow control. Without this ability, many small towns and cities
would not have been able to plan for the future, reduce their
production of waste or implement far reaching recycling and waste
reduction programs. The communities in my State need to be able to
count on the results of their investments. They need to continue to
work to solve their solid waste problems together, in coordination with
the State.
The loss of local authority over solid waste planning would be
disastrous. These solid waste districts have developed comprehensive
waste reduction plans, in order to reduce the costs of disposal and
remove the need to
continually open new and costly landfills. Since 1992, there has been
a dramatic increase in the number of households and businesses
participating in local waste reduction and recycling programs. And it
is working. Currently, Vermont recycles approximately 25 percent of its
solid waste and over 40 percent of Vermont's towns have recycling
programs in place. And these are rural towns. Recycling in rural areas
is not easy, nor cheap. I am proud of what these Vermont communities
have achieved and want to ensure the continued growth of this trend in
the future.
Mr. President, Vermont is among the most rural States in the Nation.
Our solid waste districts generally have not financed disposal
facilities, such as landfills, nor recycling infrastructure through the
issuance of revenue bonds. Therefore, the exemptions in the bill will
not hold. But the financial health of these communities necessitates
the continuation of their ability to direct flows of waste. And these
waste districts are just beginning to fully implement their waste
management plans, which may include the sighting of safe, but
expensive, waste disposal facilities.
My State has chosen to manage its waste in this manner. Now, in this
time when the theme is to reduce mandates from Washington, are we going
to impose a Washington solution on Vermont and other States who are
properly managing their waste? Essentially, Washington will be removing
Vermont's ability to implement their solid waste management plan.
Washington will dismantle Vermont's recycling program. Washington will
increase Vermont's waste generation, thereby increasing costs
associated with waste disposal. Washington will end Vermont's ability
to safely manage its waste, waste which without my amendment can go to
out-of-State incinerators and less preferable landfills.
I ask my colleagues to let Vermont manage its waste as it chooses,
not as Washington dictates. Do not impose a Washington mandate on
Vermont. Let us maintain our extremely successful waste reduction and
recycling programs.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join with Senator Jeffords on this,
because I think it is extremely important to our State. S. 534, as it
is presently written, trashes Vermont's solid waste management plan, I
might say literally and figuratively.
What we want to do is let the Vermont solution work in Vermont. We
hear a lot about States' rights these days, but we are about to
undermine our State's right to manage waste in Vermont. We hear a lot
about how States could find the best solutions to their problem, but
this bill says the States' solutions are wrong. We hear a lot about not
forcing States to adhere to national environmental standards, but when
my own State goes and exceeds the national standard within the borders
of our own State, we are told we cannot do that.
Now here we have a bill that says States can control what comes
across their borders, but they cannot control what is within their
borders. That is absurd.
My State uses flow control to reduce the leakage of household
hazardous waste into the environment. That is something that benefits
all Americans. My State uses flow control to increase recycling in
rural areas.
Vermont manages waste better than Federal statutes, like the Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act require. If a State like Vermont wants
to go above and beyond the call of duty in addressing solid waste
problems, then the Federal Government ought to stand out of its way. We
are not suggesting we do less. We are just saying give us the right to
do more if that is what we want.
The opponents of this amendment say the free market will take care of
our solid waste management. Well, the fact is in a rural State like
Vermont the free market will not increase recycling nor separate and
collect household hazardous wastes or address a number of the other
things that we are doing in Vermont.
When the State legislature or an individual waste management district
chooses to pursue the policy suggested by Senators from other States,
they will have the opportunity to do so. Until then, they ought to be
allowed to pursue the policies they have set up themselves, especially
when everybody agrees the policy goes beyond any national standards. We
ought to be able to do what we want within our own borders in a case
where we are not only not harming anybody else, but we are actually
making the environment better.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would also point out that this does
not interfere in the sense of competition. There are bids that go out
for those who want to bid. The only problem that is created is the
tipping fee, which has to eventually, of course, be paid by the people
that are getting the advantage of the waste disposal. And that helps in
paying for the recycling programs.
In rural areas where you do not have large amounts of trash that is
recyclable in the sense that it can be sold, you have to make up that
cost some way. The question is, is it not better to put that cost on
those that are getting the advantages of the waste disposal system? I
think everyone would agree, the answer is yes. And if the answer is
yes, then why should we not be allowed to do it? It is not in any way
interfering with the problems that the Supreme Court handled, which was
interfering with respect to fair and open competition
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, am I correct in believing that 2:30 is the
time set for the vote on the Kyl amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. That is the pending amendment, right?
[[Page S6494]] Amendment No. 769
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of amendment No. 769 offered by the Senator from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to table the Kyl amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 769. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 21, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]
YEAS--79
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
NAYS--21
Ashcroft
Brown
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Domenici
Feingold
Gramm
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
McCain
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Rockefeller
Stevens
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 769) was agreed
to.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, seeing no other Members of the Senate
seeking recognition at this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent
that I may be allowed to speak as in morning business, not to exceed 12
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________