[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6499-S6505]
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. SPECTER. Mr. President, a vote has been scheduled at 6 o'clock by
the managers on an amendment which has been offered by Senator Craig,
Senator Grassley, Senator Brown, Senator Kempthorne, and myself which
would establish a sense of the Senate that hearings should be held on
Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX, on or before June 30.
The purpose of the amendment is to set a date where there may be an
inquiry by the full Judiciary Committee on those events because of the
widespread reports of public unrest as to what occurred there.
I have attempted to get a hearing on the Waco incident since mid-
1993. The incident there happened on April 19, 1993. It has always
seemed to me that it is not sufficient to have the executive branch
investigate itself when there is so much concern as to the propriety of
the action which was taken there, with the assaults and with the rush
and with the gases which were used.
There have been numerous reports and there is very substantial
evidence of public unrest on what has happened there. It is speculative
to an extent, or it may not be speculative, as to a connection between
the Oklahoma City
[[Page S6500]] bombing on April 19, which is 2 years to the day after
the events at Waco, TX. The subcommittee has held a series of hearings
and had planned to have an inquiry scheduled for April 18, and the full
committee did convene on the first date which was set back on April 26.
And I think it is entirely appropriate for the full committee to handle
the matter as opposed to the terrorism subcommittee.
But after having a series of hearings--we had our third hearing
today--I am more convinced than ever that there is real public tension
as to the events in Waco, TX, and Ruby Ridge, ID. I think it is just
inappropriate for the Senate to wait an indefinite period of time.
Senator Hatch has proposed that there be hearings in the near future,
as he categorizes it, and has further articulated the near future to
mean sometime in the current session, which would be at the end of the
year. If there is unrest, and if there is a causal connection, or if
there is any connection, however slight or however tenuous, between the
incident at Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, I suggest it is our
duty to proceed to clear the air to the maximum extent possible and to
demonstrate that ranking public officials at whatever level will be
held accountable. It seems to me this is something which is very
important to do.
In establishing the date of June 30, I would be prepared to be
flexible until the August recess, to extend the time for another period
until August 4, which would be acceptable from my point of view. There
has been an issue raised as to the completion of the FBI investigation,
and that certainly could be done by August 4.
Mr. President, I think I will relax the language and ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be modified so that the date August 4 would
be inserted in place of the date June 30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment (No. 754), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear
in the U.S. over international terrorism for many years;
(2) There has been enormous public concern, worry and fear
in the U.S. over the threat of domestic terrorism after the
bombing of the New York World Trade Center on February 26,
1993;
(3) There is even more public concern, worry and fear since
the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995;
(4) Public concern, worry and fear has been aggravated by
the fact that it appears that the terrorist bombing at the
Federal building in Oklahoma City was perpetrated by
Americans;
(5) The United States Senate should take all action within
its power to understand and respond in all possible ways to
threats of domestic as well as international terrorism;
(6) Serious questions of public concern have been raised
about the actions of federal law enforcement officials
including agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms relating to the
arrest of Mr. Randy Weaver and others in Ruby Ridge, Idaho,
in August, 1992 and Mr. David Koresh and others associated
with the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas, between
February 28, 1993, and April 19, 1993;
(7) Inquiries by the Executive Branch have left serious
unanswered questions on these incidents;
(8) The United States Senate has not conducted any hearings
on these incidents;
(9) There is public concern about allowing federal agencies
to investigate allegations of impropriety within their own
ranks without congressional oversight to assure
accountability at the highest levels of government;
(10) Notwithstanding an official censure of FBI Agent Larry
Potts on January 6, 1994, relating to his participation in
the Idaho incident, the Attorney General of the United States
on May 2, 1995, appointed Agent Potts to be Deputy Director
of the FBI;
(11) It is universally acknowledged that there can be no
possible justification for the Oklahoma City bombing
regardless of what happened at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, or Waco,
Texas;
(12) Ranking federal officials have supported hearings by
the U.S. Senate to dispel public rumors that the Oklahoma
City bombing was planned and carried out by federal law
enforcement officials;
(13) It has been represented, or at least widely rumored,
that the motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing may have
been related to the Waco incident, the dates falling exactly
two years apart; and
(14) A U.S. Senate hearing, or at least setting the date
for such a hearing, on Waco and Ruby Ridge would help to
restore public confidence that there will be full disclosure
of what happened, appropriate congressional oversight and
accountability at the highest levels of the federal
government.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that hearings should be held before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on countering domestic terrorism in all possible
ways with a hearing on or before August 4, 1995, on actions
taken by federal law enforcement agencies in Ruby Ridge,
Idaho, and Waco, Texas.
Mr. SPECTER. I do that, Mr. President, so that there may be a little
more lead time as to the completion of the investigation by the FBI. I
make that modification because of my discussion with the FBI Director
that, as he put it, 8 to 10 weeks would give ample latitude for that to
be completed. So I am prepared to move at that time. I think that it is
important that a specific date be set so that there is an
acknowledgement by the Senate that we do plan to move forward on a date
and the date has been established.
I understand we are to vote at 6 o'clock, Mr. President. I yield the
floor and 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment, which is the Jeffords amendment, be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 754
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to table the Specter 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. 754, offered by the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr.
Warner] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 23, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]
YEAS--74
Abraham
Akaka
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--23
Ashcroft
Baucus
Brown
Cohen
Craig
Faircloth
Gramm
Grassley
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Jeffords
Kempthorne
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Santorum
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--3
D'Amato
Dole
Warner
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 754) was agreed
to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page S6501]] Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to inform all my
colleagues--I do not need to take much time on this bill, but just a
few minutes--that I called for hearings last year. I have only been
chairman for a little over 4 months.
Every Member knows the Judiciary Committee has had a lot on its
plate, and we have a lot more on our plate. However, there are very few
things that I feel more deeply about than what happened at Waco and at
Ruby Ridge.
These are people in States that I admire and love. Many of the people
I know--at least in Idaho. I admire and love them. I have said that we
will hold hearings on these important issues, and I will do so as
expeditiously as I can.
Everybody does know that to do it properly, we are going to have to
spend some time investigating this. We are already in the process of
that. Recently, I lost my chief investigator who moved to another
office.
We will do this as expeditiously as we can. We will do it in the best
interests of the Senate. I want to tell my dear friend from
Pennsylvania that his desires here are not going to go ignored. It is
just that I want to do it the right way. I want to make sure that all
of the issues are aired and that they are aired fairly and in front of
the full committee, because no hearings could be held unless they are
Department of Justice oversight hearings. That is what they will have
to be.
I certainly committed the other day, and I will again reaffirm my
commitment that these hearings will be held. Therefore, there was no
reason to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I understand the
sincerity of my colleagues. I hope that they will not feel badly with
this vote.
I also want to say that I am very concerned about making sure that
every available agent, every available leader of the FBI, every person
in law enforcement that we can bring to bear on the Oklahoma situation,
is out there doing that, rather than up here testifying on Capitol
Hill.
We want to get that solved, and I want it solved. I speak almost
daily with members of the Justice Department, including the FBI. We are
on top of this. We will do what has to be done here. I want to reaffirm
that to the Senate.
I think when we do it, it will be done right, and I think people will
be pleased with it in the end. I hope my colleague from Pennsylvania
will be particularly pleased with it and, as a distinguished member of
the committee, will have every opportunity to participate. And I expect
him to do so. In fact, I invite him to do so and will work with him to
see what we can do to bring this to a fruition that is satisfactory to
everybody.
Having said that, I can say more. There are some things that have
been very irritating to some of us with regard to what has gone on
here, but we will forget all that and just go forward and make the
commitment to do this as expeditiously as we can, in good faith and in
a good manner that hopefully will please everybody.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had, frankly, hoped to avoid the
necessity of a rollcall vote to spare my colleagues a vote on the
matter. But I felt, and continue to feel very, very strongly, that it
is incumbent upon the U.S. Senate and the Congress to have oversight
hearings in order to show the American people--a lot of people think
there has been a coverup on Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX--and to show
those people we are willing to air all of the matters, let the chips
fall where they may, and demonstrate that people at the highest ranks
of Government will be held accountable.
No one is second to Arlen Specter in concern that the FBI have a full
opportunity to complete its investigation. I talked to Director Freeh,
who said if he had 8 to 10 weeks more there would be ample time and the
FBI would be in a position to cooperate. And this is more than the 8 to
10 weeks that Director Freeh asked for when the amendment was modified
beyond the June 30 date, to provide for a date of August 4.
I believe that the potential for violence is enormous. We have had a
number of wake-up calls. And it is no coincidence that the Oklahoma
City bombing occurred on April 19, 2 years to the day after the
incident at Waco, TX. If anything happens in the interim, if we have
not had the ventilation, the safety valve, then there is a real issue
as to whether the U.S. Senate is doing its job.
We have a lot of hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We have a lot
of hearings in other committees. And there is not a single hearing
being held which is more important than to air the public concern about
Waco and about Ruby Ridge. I have been conducting hearings in the
Subcommittee on Terrorism; I finished the third one today. It is an
overwhelming problem.
The first hearing which was scheduled became a full committee
hearing, which I thought was entirely appropriate, to allow more
Senators to participate. But what I intend to do is to continue my own
inquiry and my own speaking out on the facts as to what happened. I
talked at length with Director Louis Freeh, and I have talked at length
with Mr. Spencer, who is the attorney for the Weavers, and I intend to
talk to the Weavers and I intend to review all the facts and to make
periodic reports to the American people about what I find. Because I
think it is totally inadequate to have an inquiry--a hearing sometime
in the near future.
I felt strongly enough about it to bring the matter to the floor and
I respect the conclusion of my fellow colleagues. But I intend to carry
on this inquiry myself and to make these periodic reports.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Pennsylvania is on
the floor I want my colleagues to know that in the good old days, when
I was chairman of the committee and the Democrats were in charge, the
Senator from Pennsylvania shared the same view. I want the record to
show that this is nothing new the Senator from Pennsylvania is
suggesting. I have read some accounts that suggest that because the
Senator from Pennsylvania may have other aspirations, this is
propelling his interests. I want to vouch for the fact that I know that
not to be true.
The fact of the matter is that when Waco occurred, shortly after
Waco, the Senator did repeatedly talk to me about it and thought that,
although I believe that we did have oversight hearings and everybody
had an opportunity to ask about Waco--and a few did--that the Senator
thought then, thinks now, and is totally consistent, whether he is
seeking another office or not, in his view that this issue should be
ventilated.
For those of us on this side of the aisle, this has been a little
like watching a family quarrel. Both the Senators are my friends but I
do not think I have a closer friend in the Senate than the Senator from
Pennsylvania, and because a number of press people have come to me, and
my colleagues have come to me, to ask me about issues relating to
motivation--I can assert with absolute certainty, without any
equivocation, that there has been absolutely no change in the intensity
of the interest of the Senator from the time the matter occurred when I
was chairman of that committee to the time I am the ranking member of
that committee.
I just want that to be made clear, notwithstanding the fact I voted
the other way. I voted to table the Specter amendment because of my
consistent view as to how this should be handled.
The Senator may be right in terms of the value of the ventilation and
when, and sooner than later. I have a slight disagreement with him on
when. But I do not have any--any--any doubt, and I can confirm for my
colleagues and anyone who is listening, that there is an absolute,
total, unequivocal consistency to his position on this from the moment
the tragedy in Waco occurred through this day.
I just want the record to reflect that. Not that anyone in particular
has suggested otherwise, but I get a number of inquiries because people
are looking to make press outside this institution. I just want the
record to reflect it.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
[[Page S6502]] Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to bring this to
a head. I would like to put into the Record, just so everybody
understands, a letter we received today from Louis J. Freeh, Director
of the FBI, to me.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your inquiry concerning my
views about congressional hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. I
have no hesitancy about testifying on the issue.
And that is the position he has always taken with me.
I have often stated that a full and open hearing will
provide an excellent forum for the Department of Justice and
the FBI to bring all the facts before the American public. It
undoubtedly would serve to debunk some of the ``conspiracy''
theories being discussed and provide the FBI with an
opportunity to explain and distinguish our role in these
incidents as well as provide our views concerning the proper
role of federal law enforcement.
It is Congress' prerogative as to timing. It would be
helpful, however, to remove any hearing from such close
proximity to the Oklahoma bombing. All of our attention is
focused on this heinous crime as we continue to investigate
and prepare for prosecution. While I am looking forward to
the opportunity, I believe to schedule the hearing in the
immediate future will distract from our Oklahoma efforts and
could preclude us from discussion of issues relevant both to
Oklahoma and Waco.
Sincerely yours,
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
I just want to put that in the Record because that is one of the
things that has caused me great concern. We will hold hearings and we
will do it in an expeditious and good way and hopefully to the
satisfaction of all concerned, including my friend from Pennsylvania.
I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, May 11, 1995.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your inquiry concerning my
views about congressional hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. I
have no hesitancy about testifying on the issue.
I have often stated that a full and open hearing will
provide an excellent forum for the Department of Justice and
the FBI to bring all the facts before the American public. It
undoubtedly would serve to debunk some of the ``conspiracy''
theories being discussed and provide the FBI with an
opportunity to explain and distinguish our role in these
incidents as well as provide our views concerning the proper
role of federal law enforcement.
It is Congress' prerogative as to timing. It would be
helpful, however, to remove any hearing from such close
proximity to the Oklahoma bombing. All of our attention is
focused on this heinous crime as we continue to investigate
and prepare for prosecution. While I am looking forward to
the opportunity, I believe to schedule the hearing in the
immediate future will distract from our Oklahoma efforts and
could preclude us from discussion of issues relevant both to
Oklahoma and Waco.
Sincerely yours,
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a word or two. The letter which
Senator Hatch has just read is entirely consistent with the
representation I made earlier that I had talked to Director Louis Freeh
this afternoon, who told me, as I said earlier, that if he had 8 to 10
weeks that would be ample time. And that is why, as I had said earlier,
I modified the amendment from the date of June 30 to August 4, which
would give more than the 8 to 10 weeks.
So, when Senator Hatch cites a letter about the immediate future, the
8 to 10 weeks was accorded to the Director and the hearings could have
been held within the timeframe of the resolution as framed.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Order Of Procedure
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for my colleagues I will just outline what
in my judgment will take place this evening.
We will have a vote on the Jeffords amendment and I do not know how
long that will take. If the Senator could give us some indication, that
will be helpful.
But following the Jeffords amendment there will be no more rollcall
votes. However, tomorrow it is my belief we will have a series of
rollcall votes. There will be a cloture vote at 10 o'clock and there
will be some other votes after that.
I would very much hope we could finish this bill tomorrow. I hope,
with the negotiations that take place tonight, we will be able to do
so. But there will be no votes after the Jeffords vote.
Amendment No. 867, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his
amendment.
The amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 867), as modified, is as follows:
On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(f) State Solid Waste District Authority.--A solid waste
district or a political subdivision 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 political subdivision or
municipality within said 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 2005, 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
political subdivision or municipality within said 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, 1992) to exercise flow control authority, and
subsequently adopted or sought to exercise the authority
through a law, ordinance, regulation, regulatory proceeding,
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. CHAFEE. I wonder if we could enter into a time agreement?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I had several people who asked to speak. I do not see
them present, but I think we could finish in 15 minutes on our side.
Mr. CHAFEE. Would the Senator be willing to agree to 10 minutes on
that side and no more than 10 minutes on this side?
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is agreeable to me.
Mr. CHAFEE. Is there any objection to that agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not take very
long. I think it is a very sensible one. I will explain to my
colleagues what the amendment does, and I believe they will find it
acceptable.
I understand the position of the chairman of the committee, who is
reluctant to grant any exceptions to the bill because there would be
two other exceptions. But to my knowledge the exceptions are that the
State of Vermont and some municipalities in two other States have a
situation which I think this body would agree deserves an exception.
Let me review very briefly what we are talking about here.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which said the States
themselves had no right to be able to control the flow of solid waste,
that this has to be approved by the Federal Government because it was
an interference with interstate commerce. That decision by the Supreme
Court created a serious problem for the State of Vermont and some
political subdivisions in West Virginia and Michigan.
The purpose, and what we are trying to accomplish in this Nation with
respect to solid waste, is to do three things, basically. First of all,
we are trying to reduce the amount of solid waste that we have. Second,
we are trying to improve the ability to recycle and to build a system
in this Nation which will recycle and, therefore, reduce the demand on
resources and reduce costs. Third, to find an equitable way to do it
looking toward those that
[[Page S6503]] create the problem to have to pay for it; that is, those
who create the trash ought to pay for it.
So Vermont, in view of these national purposes--and I was a member of
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I know we were trying
very desperately to set standards for recycling to try to get this
country to move up gradually. Vermont, in pursuant of that, passed a
plan and program statewide that sets up districts for solid waste. In
these districts, the system is set up which allows for haulers to get a
tipping fee in order to take care of the additional costs of recycling
the materials that were delivered to them. The only way it will work is
if we have that ability. There is no other way they can do it other
than to require the State of Vermont to provide the tipping fees and to
take care of those people that are in those districts, and not others.
And it would be very cumbersome. There are districts in West Virginia
and Michigan that have a similar problem.
So all we are trying to do here is to make sure that this national
goal, which everyone agrees ought to be reached, can be reached by the
State of Vermont, which is leading the way in this. Right now we have a
system which is recycling 25 percent of our waste. This amendment is
limited and says that we might continue forward in pursuance of that
goal, and we may continue with our present system, and, if we reach the
goal, that we be permitted to do so. We have established a goal of 30
percent, which was the national goal which was in RCRA which was never
passed.
Why should a State be penalized which has done what everyone in the
Nation believes should be done, and then to turn around in an amendment
by the committee to try to help those who have made investments but
limit it to those on a temporary basis? In Vermont there are only two
areas which qualify when the whole State is doing it. It makes no sense
at all. I can understand the committee saying, if we give you an
exception, then somebody else is going to come in for an exception.
I say if other communities have an exception like we do and like we
are talking about which furthers the national goal, reduces waste,
takes care and improves recycling, then sure, maybe they ought to have
that. However, I do not know of any in that category.
So I would like to say that I hope the body will recognize that
people who are trying to do what is right in this country should not be
forced to buy onto a bill which is attempting to help in this area but
just by the nature of things makes it impossible for those who are
really leading out front doing what is in the national interest, and
who would be foreclosed, destroys their system, and makes it impossible
for the States to continue to pursue those goals.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senators from
Vermont for the amendment that they have offered and to suggest, just
as the junior Senator from Vermont has said, that this is an example of
federalism at its best. Vermont has some special concerns. It is a
State with a very high level of environmental consciousness. It wants
to be able to meet those needs in a manner that is appropriate to the
specific circumstances of that beautiful State.
Yesterday, I spoke at some length about some of the special concerns
that we have in our State of Florida, which are quite different from
Vermont. Vermont is a mountainous State. We are a State where anything
above 20 or 30 feet is considered to be a mountain. We have the very
serious problem of our ground water supply and its vulnerability to
contamination and have used the mechanisms which require flow control
in order to be able to support effective and appropriate landfills and
other technologies to dispose of our solid waste while also diverting a
substantial amount of our solid waste into a recycling stream.
My basic concern with this legislation is that it goes beyond what is
required to meet the Supreme Court's directive. The Supreme Court, as
quoted on page 8 of the committee report, in the words of Justice
O'Connor, who stated:
It is within Congress' power to authorize local imposition
of flow control. Should Congress revisit this area and enact
legislation providing a clear indication that it intends * *
* States and localities to implement flow control, we will,
of course, defer to that legislative judgment.
So, clearly, the decision is within our hands. It reminds me of the
old story of the callow youth who held a bird behind his back and asked
the wise, older man, ``Is the bird dead or alive?'' The wise man, with
solemn wisdom, opined, ``It is in your control.'' That is, the young
man had the ability to open his hand and allow the bird to fly free or
to crush the bird.
Well, we are somewhat in that same situation with the opinion of the
Supreme Court. It is in our control to do, allowing States to have a
wide range of options as to how to deal with this issue, or to narrowly
constrain.
This is particularly focused on the question of whether there should
be prospective operations for States. Should States be allowed in the
future to utilize this important technique as a means of achieving the
broader end result of public health and environmental sensitivity as
that State and its local communities find to be most appropriate for
their particular set of circumstances?
In an era in which we are applauding federalism, or seriously
considering reversing a half century of the consolidation of power by
allowing States and local communities to have more control over issues
such as health care financing, welfare, child care programs, it seems
peculiar and strange in an area that has been as historically local as
any in our Nation's history, the disposition of garbage, that we would
now be nationalizing that issue.
So I join the Senator from Vermont. I applaud his creativity in
crafting this amendment and hope that we will be wise enough to allow
Vermont to take this initiative for the protection of that beautiful
State and as a statement of our own sensitivity to the tremendous
diversity in America and its desire to let the creativity of the local
communities operate to the benefit of their local citizens.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, why are we here? We are here because of a
Supreme Court decision a year ago, just a year ago, in the so-called
Carbone case. So currently, the law of the land is that there cannot be
these restrictive agreements that limit the delivery of municipal solid
waste to one specific point. In other words, there cannot be what is
known as flow control.
Now in our committee, we recognized that many communities across the
States had made very, very substantial financial contributions or
commitments to incinerators and to landfills, and they would be placed
in a very difficult position if so-called flow control did not exist,
if they were not able to tie up the entire waste from the community to
go to a central point.
But we said we are going to limit this. We are going to limit it to
the situations where they have problems arising from debt commitment,
from bonded indebtedness, or that they already had flow control on
their books and were used to functioning in that fashion.
In the Vermont situation, we have taken care of those communities
where there is a commitment into a solid waste facility or--and they do
not have incinerators for Vermont--to a landfill. They are taken care
of.
But the Senator is stressing that, absent us giving an exception to
the situation that exists in Vermont, Vermont will not be able to
continue the excellent record it has had in connection with recycling.
But, Mr. President, I do not think that necessarily follows. Who knows
that recycling will fail because they do not have flow control?
Indeed, here is a report from the Office of Solid Waste in the EPA.
The report is dated March 1995, 2 months ago. This is what the report
says. There was a question.
Identify the impact of flow control on the development of
State and local waste management capacity and on the
achievement of State and local goals for source reduction,
reuse, and recycling.
In other words, what flow control does for recycling. We are all for
recycling. The conclusion is as follows, on page ES-5.
[[Page S6504]] There is no data showing that flow controls
are essential either for the development of new solid waste
capacity or for the long term achievement of State and local
goals for source reduction, reuse and recycling.
So the Senator's point, it seems to me from the study that has taken
place here, just is not valid. He may feel strongly about it, and they
have had considerable success in Vermont--although I suspect there are
other communities across the Nation in States that have done extremely
well likewise--but, at least from the data we have here, there is not a
connection between having flow control and having a better recycling
record.
But then we get back to the other point. Why did the Supreme Court
decide the way it did? The Supreme Court decided the way it did because
of the commerce clause.
And what does the commerce clause do? It says that it is good for the
Nation to have competition, to permit commerce to flow. And that is
exactly what flow control does not do.
Now, you might say, well, I argued earlier today for a situation
where we had flow control. That is right. We did it, as I say, in those
instances where a community made a commitment and was still involved
with that commitment. But the overall thrust of this legislation is to
take care of those specific situations that arose where the communities
were harmed, financially harmed, as a result of the Carbone decision.
But we said, enough is enough. No matter how long the indebtedness
is, no matter what the particular situation as far as bonded
indebtedness, at the end of 30 years this privilege that we have given
these communities to go against the commerce clause ends.
And so, Mr. President, for that reason, I strongly believe that the
proposition from the State of Vermont, as advanced so ably by the
junior Senator, is not valid in this particular situation
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me answer the arguments that have
been put forth by my good friend from Rhode Island. I think if you
examine our situation, it does not in any way fly in the face or raise
any concerns.
The question is: Is our system working? It is. It is reducing waste,
it is bringing about recycling, and most importantly, it does allow
competition. There is competition among the haulers. The only thing is,
every hauler has to pay the tipping fee. But there is no problem. We
have haulers that are bidding on it. We have put contracts out for bid.
There is no problem with any interference with competition.
Now, what the Supreme Court said was that the Federal Government can
allow this, they just have to do it because a State cannot do it under
the commerce clause without the authority of the Federal Government.
All we are asking for is a simple exception for a system that is
working well. And there is no way it will work in rural areas unless
you can have tipping fees; that is, getting the people in the areas
sharing the cost of this to have a way to participate, in other words,
in order to get the haulers to come in.
So I think this is a perfect example of what happens when Congress
gets to look at a problem and gets carried away with some study done by
EPA which is irrelevant to the situation and tramples on States rights
to do what is right for the Nation and right for Vermont.
I understand--and this is the basic problem--that my colleagues are
afraid of opening this bill up for exceptions. Well, if anybody can
come with an exception as we have, fine. But I do not think you will
find anybody.
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield to my good friend from South
Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I just ask for a moment to associate myself with the remarks of the
Senator from Vermont, as well as the other Senator from Vermont,
Senator Leahy.
Obviously, Vermont has had a very good experience with flow control.
It has been able to promote programs for recycling and disposal of
household hazardous waste. This amendment recognizes that fact and
address the issue of flow control as it pertains to these Vermont
programs. It recognizes that Vermont may be unique in this regard and
gives that state the opportunity to continue to make those programs
work.
That is all we are saying with this amendment. Let us give Vermont a
little more flexibility. Let us defer to that State with regard to flow
control, if it is going to be able to respond to this issue
effectively.
So I applaud the Senator's amendment. I certainly hope that our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAFEE. I yield to the Senator whatever time I have remaining.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I encourage Senators to not support this
amendment, very simply because the committee has worked long and hard
to try to find a balance here, to balance out interests of those
communities on the one hand that want to have the right to control the
flow of trash, garbage, dedicated facilities in their communities, and,
on the other hand, the rights of companies, entrepreneurs, to ship
trash to whatever location seems to make the most sense to let the free
market work. It is a classic battle between those who want to control
by statute and law in the market on the one hand, and those, on the
other hand, who want total free market.
As is always the case, the right answer is somewhere in between. The
solution crafted by the committee, we think, is a good solution in
between.
Frankly, Mr. President, if the amendment offered by the Senator from
Vermont were to pass, I believe we are going to start to find this
compromise begin to unravel, and it would, therefore, very strongly
jeopardize this bill.
If this bill does not pass, then we are not going to be able to have
any kind of flow control because of the Carbone decision. At the same
time, States will not be able to limit out-of-State trash coming into
their State because of another Supreme Court decision.
So I urge Senators to vote against the Jeffords amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is the Senator ready to conclude debate on
this?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Leahy wishes to speak.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will support the
Jeffords-Leahy amendment. If you defeat this amendment, you help nobody
in the country, but you hurt one State, the State of Vermont. This
simply says that Vermont, provided we want to operate beyond what may
be required under Federal laws, would be allowed to do so; that if we
want to set up a procedure that fulfills everything that the Federal
law might require but does even better but fits our small very special
State, that we be allowed to do so.
Basically, we are saying to every Member of the Senate who has given
speeches over the last year that States can design programs better, we
agree and let us do that. We are making sure that we violate no Federal
law, that we have followed every Federal rule, but we be allowed to
design something that fits our State.
Every single Senator, I am willing to wager, Mr. President, in this
body, has given a speech saying, ``If we can do it better, allow us to
do it, allow us to design it.''
Basically what the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and I are
saying is that is what we want to do. So let us adopt this. This is no
different than taking care of a unique situation for Alabama yesterday
in the product liability bill. This takes care of Vermont. It hurts
nobody, but it helps us.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Vermont. Let me
advise the Senator, time has expired.
[[Page S6505]] Mr. JEFFORDS. I 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.
Mr. CHAFEE. I have some time remaining; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, the Senator has 3 minutes 7
seconds.
Mr. CHAFEE. I will just use a couple minutes of that.
Mr. President, there are a couple of points I briefly want to make.
The present situation is that it is against the Constitution of the
United States to do what Vermont is suggesting. So what we have done is
we have crafted an amendment which will help Vermont and all the other
States in the Nation that have made these financial commitments, but it
still says when all is said and done, that they cannot go against the
Constitution in these other areas.
It is not correct to say that this is just a little something for
Vermont. If this is adopted, there is no way in the world that we could
keep flow control from being adopted universally across the Nation,
because the Vermont case is what you might call a weak case.
So, Mr. President, if this amendment is adopted, then, I suspect, the
whole effort to deal with this goes down the tube and then there will
be no exceptions to the Constitution as provided.
So I am going to move to table the amendment, and I very much hope my
colleagues will join with me.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and move to
table the 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. 867, as modified. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr.
Warner] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Coverdell
Craig
Dodd
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Nickles
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Santorum
Shelby
Smith
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--51
Abraham
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--3
D'Amato
Dole
Warner
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 867), as
modified, was rejected.
Mr. FORD. Regular order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we vitiate the
request for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 867), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________