[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.

                          ____________________