[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6576-S6580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the pending committee substitute amendment to S. 534,
the solid waste disposal bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas
and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter]
and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--3
Pell
Specter
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, many people have asked what is going to
happen for the remainder of the day. What we would very much like to do
is get these amendments disposed of as quickly as possible. I know that
many people have plans. We would like to see how many amendments there
are around here. I think most of the players are here. If people could
tell us who has an amendment, then we could figure where we go from
here.
Now, who has an amendment? All right. Senator Coats. We are conscious
of his. Senator Gorton. We are conscious of his. That is the same one
as Senator Murray's, right?
Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. Who else? Senator Dorgan has an amendment. I hope people
will speak up because we would like to close out the amendments, if
possible, if we can get an agreement. Senator Boxer, I am sure, has
one. We are not seeking a big list. I know Senator Boxer has an
amendment. Senator D'Amato.
Mr. D'AMATO. I may have some very comprehensive, exhaustive
amendments. I hope I do not have to offer them.
Mr. CHAFEE. We hope you do not, too. If you can check with your
Cloakroom and see, we will do the same. We want to press this along and
hopefully finish today. We know a lot of people have engagements.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have a very brief statement with regard to the
legislation. If you are looking for a few moments of free time, I could
do that.
Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator could withhold for a minute.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Sure.
Mr. CHAFEE. Is Senator Dorgan ready to go?
This would involve a rollcall vote on Senator Dorgan's amendment, if
he proceeds with it.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. My statement is very short and is on the bill.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask if we could give 30 seconds or 1
minute to the Senator from Alaska to make a statement, and then if I
could have the floor again, we will return to Senator Dorgan's
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] is
recognized.
amendment no. 861
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Chafee, and
Senator Baucus, the floor managers; Senator Smith, the subcommittee
chairman; and Senator Kempthorne for accepting my amendment last night
which extends the efforts of Senator Kempthorne, who amended the
interstate waste disposal act to provide for practicable solid waste
regulations that take into account the remote nature of Alaska Native
villages--that is, relief from covering landfills, controlling access
to landfills by an operator, et cetera--to cover all Alaska villages.
This provision is not a blanket exemption from all landfill standards
for these facilities; rather, the governor of Alaska will have
flexibility to set appropriate standards based on local conditions.
My amendment provides for workable solid waste regulations for all
Alaska villages. The problems faced by Native village landfills are the
same as those faced by other small, remote villages; both need
regulatory relief.
I have a list of Alaskan villages not classified as Native villages''
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I ask unanimous consent
that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Non-ANSCA Villages
Paxson.
Seward.
Chicken.
Seward.
Skwentna.
Healy.
Kupreanof.
Tok.
Elfin Cove.
Siana.
Central.
Medfra.
Wiseman.
Houston.
Willow.
Tonsina.
Northway Junction.
Tenakee Springs.
Circle Hot Springs.
Gustavus.
Coffman Cove.
Ft. Glenn.
Talkeetna.
McCarth.
[[Page S6577]] Kenny Lake.
Livengood.
Pelican.
problem
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Landfills in remote areas of Alaska do not have the
resources to comply with Federal solid waste management regulations.
Many communities have no local government at all, or operate all
community services on an annual budget of $25,000 to $80,000. If
landfills close, the result will be illegal dumping on the lands, or
into the rivers, because no other alternatives exist.
Unlike areas in the lower 48 States, if Alaska's village landfills
are forced to close for economic reasons, the waste often cannot be
disposed of in regional facilities because the necessary transportation
infrastructure simply does not exist. Many villages are accessible only
by aircraft, or in some cases, seasonal water transportation. Alaska is
different from the lower 48 where distances may be great, but
communities are connected by road to regional landfills.
Mr. CHAFEE. If Senator Dorgan is ready to go, can we get a time
agreement?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to a time agreement.
If I might offer the amendment, I will make some remarks, and then we
will talk about a time agreement.
Mr. CHAFEE. What about 20 minutes equally divided?
Mr. DORGAN. Let me offer the amendment first and make a few remarks.
It is not my intent to prolong it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield for
that purpose?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
Amendment No. 914
(Purpose: To amend the definition of ``municipal solid waste'' to
include industrial waste regardless of whether the industrial waste is
physically and chemically identical to other municipal solid waste)
Mr. DORGAN. 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 North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 914.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 49, line 16, insert the following after
``thereof)'' and before the period: ``and any solid waste
generated by an industrial facility''
On page 50, strike line 22 and all that follows through
page 51, line 2.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. My
amendment is not particularly complicated, although it might be
controversial. My amendment would change this legislation so that the
bill includes all solid waste generated by an industrial facility with
respect to the definition of waste addressed in this legislation.
Currently, this legislation addresses municipal waste. That is, waste
that is generated by the general public or from a residential,
commercial, institutional, or industrial source consisting of certain
kinds of materials. That is what constitutes the definition of
municipal waste in the bill.
In my judgment, this legislation moves in the right direction in the
sense that it gives the States the opportunity to control, to some
extent, their own destiny. At the present time, the interstate commerce
clause prevents States from having any say at all when somebody decides
to load train loads of waste in one jurisdiction and move it to another
jurisdiction. The folks who live in the second jurisdiction have no
right to say no. They have no right to say, ``You can't do that to our
neighborhood. You can't bring this waste to our area, because we don't
want it.'' There is no right for them to do that under current law.
This legislation, under certain circumstances, gives the States the
opportunity to say no, to decide when they do not want to have
additional kinds of municipal waste deposited in their landfills or
their waste disposal areas.
The definition of municipal waste in the bill, unfortunately, limits
the opportunity for the States to make their views known on the subject
of most waste that is moving around the country. Currently, there are
15 million tons of municipal solid waste exported nationwide across
borders; 47 States and the District of Columbia, the Canadian Provinces
of Ontario and British Columbia, and Mexico exported some portion of
their municipal solid waste for disposal in the contiguous United
States in 1992; 44 States import some municipal solid waste for
disposal; 4 States export more than 1 million tons of municipal solid
waste.
But S. 534 applies only to municipal solid waste and does not
restrict interstate transportation of industrial waste to the extent
that it can be restricted under this bill if the States decided they
wanted to try to restrict it. I simply ask the question: Why not
include industrial waste? Why would we limit this only to municipal
waste? It does not make any sense to me.
The bulk of the waste that is being transported between States is
industrial waste. For example, we have a landfill in North Dakota which
receives industrial waste. That landfill, Echo Mountain in Sawyer, ND,
imports metal grindings, paint waste, water treatment sludge, building
demolition material, contaminated soil, liquid and solid waste
associated with car manufacturing. None of which would be covered under
this legislation in its present form.
The question is, if you are going to give the Governor or you are
going to give the State the opportunity to say to those who would bring
a stream of waste into their area the right to say no, why would you
give them that right with only a small part of the waste? Why not all
of the waste? Why not all of the waste including industrial waste?
That is the proposition I offer in this amendment. The amendment is
very simple. With only one line change, my amendment changes the
definition of waste so that the bill's provisions would include
industrial waste. It is not difficult for anyone to understand. The
impact of it is very clear. The impact of it gives the States more
rights, and, I think, moves in the direction that is intended in this
legislation.
So I start on this issue believing that a problem we have in this
country with respect to waste disposal is the stream of waste moving
back and forth across borders and the corporations in this country
whose business it is to try to find places to put waste. I happen to
think that smaller, less populous States who may not want to have an
enormous amount of waste transported in for profit, ought to have the
right to say, ``No, thank you, that is not what we want for our future.
We have the right to determine our own future, and this is not what we
want.''
The committee brings a bill to the floor that says that is the right
of the States with respect to one category of waste--municipal. But
then they say by omission it is not the right of the States with
respect to the broad category of other waste, especially industrial. I
say why the inconsistency? If States' rights include the opportunity to
say no with respect to the import of municipal waste, why not the same
right with respect to industrial waste?
Mr. President, I know that this is a controversial amendment. I know
that we will hear that this legislation is a carefully crafted balance
and if anything should upset the balance, the whole thing falls. We
hear that on every bill that comes to the floor. It is like a loose
thread on a $20 suit, you pull the thread and the arm falls off. We
hear that every time there is a bill on the floor of the Senate.
All I am interested in doing is to say that if the philosophy by
which this bill is being brought to the floor makes any sense at all,
namely that is the States should have the right to say no to the waste
flow coming into their States of municipal waste, then that philosophy
holds true with respect to industrial waste as well.
I hope that both managers of this bill will stand up and immediately
accept this amendment and thank me for offering it and say that it
improves this bill immensely, and I will leave the floor a very happy
person.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, can we get a time agreement? Will the
distinguished Senator agree to 20 minutes equally divided, and if we do
not use it, fine?
Mr. DORGAN. That is fine with me, Mr. President.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I so ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S6578]] Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator was quite
right when he said this was a carefully crafted bill. What it is, it is
a balance between the exporters and the importers, and the exporters
and the importers have agreed--are very close to agreement now--on
dealing with municipal solid waste. If you throw a new equation into
it, a new element into the equation, such as how many different kinds
of wastes are there--oh, there is hazardous waste and there is
industrial waste and there is construction and demolition debris--all
of these things. We have become experts on waste around here. But we do
not know what the volumes are, for example, of this industrial waste
that the Senator is talking about. Suppose that added into the numbers
that were exported or imported and affected how much the quotas could
be that come into each State. This whole bill, clearly, would just drop
down. If we want a killer amendment, this is it, Mr. President.
I respect the earnestness of the Senator who offered it, and if he
wants to come around sometime later in future years and say now we have
worked it out with municipal solid waste, with the import and export
restrictions and the volumes and how much there can be in future years
and so-called ratchets, that is fine, but not today. We have enough
problems with this legislation without adding this element into it.
So I very much hope that my colleagues will reject the amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota somewhat
sarcastically says--it is not his intention, obviously--that his
amendment will not sink the bill as he suggests the managers of the
bill will say. The fact is this amendment will sink this bill. The
reason is because there is so much construction, demolition material,
there is so much sludge, there is so much wastewater treatment, there
is so much of this in interstate commerce today.
Many States want to ship this material to another State to help,
frankly, with Superfund cleanup or to deal with their waste in a way
that makes good sense to their own State, and vice versa. It works both
ways. Every State in the Nation ships this material out of State. Every
State does and every State receives some.
So if this amendment were to be adopted, the general commerce today
of the interstate shipment of construction and demolition material
generally, and the other material that is covered by the Senator's
amendment, would be severely disrupted and stopped. What then happens?
It is not going to happen because Senators are going to stand up and
filibuster this bill because they know that they represent interests in
their States who want to be able to ship material through interstate
commerce.
It is true that we have to have a balance here. On the one hand,
people want to ship waste whenever they want to ship it. The free
market system.
On the other hand, governments, particularly State governments and
local municipalities, want to protect themselves. They want to enact
laws to protect themselves against the free market.
It is the tension that always exists. It is what we try to do around
here; namely, we try to find a balance between those two tensions.
There is also another tension here, another balance we have to try to
pursue. That is between States and the Federal Government.
Our national motto is ``e pluribus unum,'' one out of many. We are
many States. We are 50 States. We are not 50 nations. We are 50 States.
We are one nation, the Federal system. We are trying to figure out how
to craft that balance.
Mr. President, it reminds me very much of something a very wise
person said not too many years ago. That is, all of American political
thought can be summed up in two sentences. No. 1, get the government
off my back; No. 2, there ought to be a law about that.
That is what we are facing here. That is what this question comes
down to. Get the government off my back, the opponents of the amendment
said, because they want to be able to ship this material, different
States, and have interstate commerce. There ought to be a law about
that, is what Senators say.
Mr. President, we carefully considered this question in the
committee, and we decided that with respect to municipal waste, which
is more easily accounted for and which really bothers communities more
than industrial waste, that we should set up a system with certain
restrictions and certain guidelines. States, under certain
circumstances, can restrict the amount of municipal waste that comes
into their States. That is what we are doing.
Industrial waste is a whole different category. As I said, and the
Senator from Rhode Island said, we really cannot account for it and do
not know how much it is. Frankly, I do not see why the Senator from
North Dakota is getting so worked up about this, because industrial
waste is not really the problem that most States have. It is municipal
waste, and also, it is hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is accounted
for in an entirely different category and not the subject of this bill.
Mr. President, to sum up, I understand the concerns of the Senator
from North Dakota, but it is true that if this amendment passes, there
can be a lot of Senators going to come to the floor and say, wait a
minute, we are not for this bill. We will vote against this whole bill.
Then what will happen? Then the citizens of North Dakota are not
going to be able to limit the imports of out-of-State municipal garbage
otherwise coming into North Dakota. That is because the Supreme Court
said North Dakota cannot do that unless this bill passes.
I think the Senator from North Dakota and all Senators want this bill
to pass so that States are able to limit municipal trash coming into
their own States.
For those reasons and the fundamental reason, just to make it crystal
clear, if this amendment is adopted, Senators will come to the floor,
and they will be against this bill because it restricts commerce way
too much. No bill. And then nobody wins, everybody loses.
I therefore urge the Senate not to adopt this amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was right. It is not that I have a
crystal ball over here, but I guess the argument is that whether or not
this is a good idea if the Senate would adopt this, it will sink the
bill. I do not know first hand of the flotation properties of this bill
or who constructed it or how long it might float.
I do know that this is a pretty good idea to say if it is a good idea
that the Governors ought to have the right to say no on the importation
of municipal waste, there is no reason to prevent them from doing the
same on industrial waste. If it is a good idea to give the States the
opportunity to make their own judgment about some of these things, why
is it a good idea to limit it to the smallest part of the waste that is
moving around?
Let me tell the Senators as an example, North Dakota imported 73,000
tons of municipal solid waste and 150,000 tons of industrial waste.
Now, if we are saying the Governor or the State ought to have the
right to say, ``No,'' under certain circumstances, to a small part of
the waste that is moving in, but does not have a similar right with
respect to the larger part, I do not understand that. I do not think
that holds up philosophically.
The other part of the argument apparently is the claim that
industrial waste cannot be included in this bill because there is too
much of it. The claim is that if the bill includes industrial waste, we
will get a lot of people upset. They will come over here and
filibuster, and we do not get a bill.
If industrial waste cannot be included because there is too much of
it, I guess that makes my case. If there is too much industrial waste
moving between States, that is especially what we ought to be dealing
with here on the floor of the Senate.
My own sense is that the opposition to this is not consistent. I feel
strongly that if we are going to do this with respect to municipal
waste, we also ought to do it with respect to industrial waste, and be
consistent. We should decide that States ought to have the right.
[[Page S6579]] It was said a few minutes ago that the mood is ``get
government off our backs.'' I understand that mood. But there is
another mood out there by some people who say, ``I don't want garbage
in my backyard. I don't want people to bring garbage into the areas
where I have grown up.''
This bill gives them the right to reject that in limited
circumstances, but does not give them the similar right in the broader
circumstances with respect to industrial waste.
I appreciate being called earnest, at least, and I do hope that
whether it is on this piece of legislation or at some point in the
future, the discussion about waste and its movement in our country that
there will be an opportunity for people in the States to make their own
judgment about industrial waste as well. If not now, then at some point
in the future.
Mr. President I shall not take further time. This is very clear.
I yield back my time, and I ask that we have the yeas and nays on my
legislation, or if the Senator from Rhode Island has different
objectives.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what I really hope is that the Senator
will withdraw his amendment. As the Senator knows, we have had no
hearings on this. We have arrived at the tonnage limitations that
affect importing States and exporting limits.
We have had them agree to this very carefully, through a lot of
laborious negotiations. If we add all the tonnage that comes with so-
called industrial waste, and nobody knows how to define ``industrial
waste,'' then we truly have upset the apple cart.
What can we promise the Senator? I think he has a legitimate request
that in the committee we would consider how to handle--I suppose we
could get into municipal waste, into construction, demolition debris,
also, and maybe that is something we ought to look at in the future.
I do not want to say we will do it immediately if we agree to it. We
have a pretty full agenda in that committee.
I say to the Senator that I would agree to having some hearings in
the future. I am not saying this calendar year, because this calendar
year is really just taken up with all kinds of challenges in the
committee including endangered species, Superfund, clean water, plus
the other things we have on the agenda.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is not a surprise. We have
been sending information over to the committee for a couple of years. I
filed a bill on this during the last session of Congress, and I have
talked to the committee about it.
I certainly respect the views of the two managers of the bill, the
Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Montana, but I would
very much like a vote on my amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is another point here which I think
is quite relevant. Very little is known about industrial waste. Much
more is known about municipal waste. That is why we in the committee
decided the limits we came up with.
I think it is very, very dangerous to legislate in ignorance. Very
dangerous. This body is, I might say, pretty much ignorant when it
comes to industrial waste. We do not know the numbers. We did not know
the volumes. We do not know enough about the practice, very little
about the practice. I think it would be very, very dangerous for this
body to legislate in ignorance. We may do that sometimes around here,
and we may do it with some frequency around here, but it does not
justify it.
For that reason, too, I think it is important that this amendment not
be adopted here. There is time to deal with this. There is no huge
outcry. My office is not inundated. I daresay the offices of other
Senators are not inundated with letters from people at home saying do
something about industrial waste.
That is not the cry. What we hear is, ``Do something about municipal
waste. Do something about garbage.'' This is not garbage in the
traditional sense of the term. This is industrial waste.
In addition, I might underline an earlier point I made. That is, a
lot of generators, waste generators around the country, want to avoid
Superfund sites, causing industrial waste to go to a site which will
then become a Superfund site, so they send the material to sites that
have the best environmental technology. Those sites are not always in
that same State. Often, they are in adjacent States. So generators want
to send material to the site that has the best environmental technology
to avoid that site being a Superfund site.
If we were, today, to put more restrictions in, that would make it
more difficult for generators of industrial waste to send that material
to an environmentally safe site.
For example, I have a letter from the Associated General Contractors
of America and a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers,
which I would like to put in the Record. They basically make the same
point opposing this.
I ask unanimous consent to have the letters printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were order to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Associated General
Contractors of America,
Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On Wednesday, September 28, the House
passed H.R. 4779, the State and Local Government Interstate
Waste Control Act of 1994 and it is now pending in the
Senate. We understand the Senate will soon consider this
legislation and may attempt to broaden the coverage beyond
municipal solid waste to include industrial wastes. The
Associated General Contractors of America opposes this
expansion.
Industrial wastes, particularly from construction projects,
are fundamentally different from municipal solid wastes.
There are specific regulatory programs requiring proper
treatment, storage and disposal of wastes generated by
industry using specialized methods at specialized facilities.
(The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 is one
such program.) Not all States have adequate capability to
manage industrial wastes. Given the potential of liability
under Superfund, generators of industrial waste have great
incentive to fully and properly dispose of these wastes. To
limit the transfer of industrial wastes may limit the
contractor from disposing of the waste at the most
environmentally protective facility available, regardless of
location. Restrictions on the interstate movement of
industrial wastes under this amendment would force
contractors to seek management of wastes at facilities that
may not meet the most stringent environmental standards.
For these reasons, AGC urges you to oppose any effort to
place restrictions on the interstate movement of industrial
waste. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi H. Stirrup,
Director,
Congressional Relations, Environment.
____
National Association
of Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus: The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM) has learned that the Senate will soon
consider legislation addressing the interstate movement of
municipal solid waste (MSW). The NAM strongly opposes
broadening the bill to include industrial and other wastes.
The NAM believes manufacturers need the maximum flexibility
in determining the destination of wastes to disposal
facilities and that barriers--such as bans on interstate
shipment of waste--would prove detrimental to that
flexibility.
Many industrial and hazardous wastes require specialized
treatment for their proper management. Due to the high cost
of building these specialized treatment and disposal
facilities, adequate capability does not exist in all states.
Generators of industrial wastes must be allowed to safeguard
against Superfund liability by sending waste to the highest
technology, most environmentally protective facilities
available, regardless of their location. Industrial waste
generators often incur great cost to ship their waste to a
specialized facility so that they can isolate their waste,
and therefore their liability, at one location, rather than
multiple locations throughout the country. Restrictions on
the interstate movement of industrial waste under this bill
could cause artificially inflated waste management costs and
undue financial burden to manufacturing companies that are
implementing waste minimization and recycling programs. Such
restrictions also would have an adverse impact on the
environment if responsible waste generators are forced to
utilize facilities that are ill-equipped to handle their
particular types of waste. If companies generating waste are
to remain financially liable for the disposal of their waste,
then it is critical that the scope of the pending legislation
be limited to MSW.
For the above reasons, the NAM urges you and your
colleagues to oppose any effort to place restrictions on the
interstate movement of industrial waste. Thank you for your
consideration of our position. Please do not hesitate to
contact Theresa Knieriemen
[[Page S6580]] Larson of our staff at (202) 637-3175 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard Seibert, Jr.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for that reason, and the basic one that if
this is adopted, I do not know what the prospects of the bill will be,
I urge that this amendment be defeated.
If there is no Senator seeking time, I move to table the amendment
and ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have one additional comment to make, but
I prefer to close this debate, if I might. Are there other people on
the floor wishing to speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair observes the time has expired for
the Senator from Rhode Island. Would the Senator like to yield some of
his time to the Senator from New Hampshire? The Senator has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if we could agree to give the
Senator from New Hampshire 2 minutes?
Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, would that add time to the
debate? There are some who cannot see a delay in time. I am sorry.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire 2 minutes of my
time. I have no interest in prolonging this.
Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that action of the Senator from North Dakota.
I am speaking against his amendment, so I would say that is a very
generous action.
I say with the greatest respect to the Senator from North Dakota,
this is really a killer amendment. We do not know how much industrial
waste is shipped nationwide. We have no idea. We have no idea how this
amendment is going to affect our national system of disposing of this
material. Every State, nationwide, ships industrial waste. There is the
potential to adversely affect every single State in the Union. We had a
very careful agreement on export and import ratchets in this bill, very
carefully crafted. This is going to adversely affect the whole
amendment. We just have no idea what the impact would be.
So my concern is that it opens the door to other restrictions on
exports, such as incinerator ash, sludges, hazardous waste, asbestos--
who knows? That is my main concern. We have not had any hearings. It is
just a new issue that is suddenly injected into the debate here, so I
strongly urge the amendment be defeated.
I thank my colleague and yield the remainder of my time to the
Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me reiterate something, and then I
will be glad to go to a vote.
The real reason here is that there is too much industrial waste. That
is, if you strip away all the arguments, the issue comes down to the
claim that there is too much of it so we should not include it. The
managers claim that we can only get an agreement on the limited amount,
namely municipal waste. The big corporate interests do not want
industrial waste included. I understand that. But if you are in a
neighborhood or region and folks are bringing industrial waste in by
the train car loads, unit train after unit train, it seems to me if
Congress says on this little area called municipal waste, you have a
right to say something about that, but upon the bigger area of
industrial waste, sorry, you do not have any rights, that does not make
any sense to me. I think it is philosophically inconsistent.
I understand. I think highly of both managers of this bill. They have
done a lot of hard work on this. But this is not a surprise to anybody.
We had a hearing in Bismarck, ND, on this very issue under the
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee a couple of years ago. I
submitted legislation in the last session of Congress dealing with
industrial waste. I have been in touch with the committee on it over
time. So this is not a surprise. It is not that we are ignorant about
industrial waste. I know how much industrial waste goes into North
Dakota versus municipal waste; twice as much industrial as municipal.
And if you say the State has a right to say no to municipal but you do
not have a right to say no to something twice as big, you have taken
away the opportunity for the State to say no on the quantity. That is
important to us.
That is the reason I offer my amendment. And I would like a record
vote on it.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
Mr. President, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment No. 914. The yeas and nays have been
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter]
and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 17, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 166 Leg.]
YEAS--79
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Pryor
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--17
Bingaman
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Glenn
Gramm
Harkin
Hollings
Leahy
Levin
Reid
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--4
Nunn
Pell
Specter
Warner
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 914) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wanted to indicate to my colleagues that
we are going to continue voting throughout the day. We are going to try
to finish this bill. We will have votes on Monday, and we will have
votes next Friday. And we will file cloture again this afternoon on
this bill. I hope it can be finished today, but we have to complete our
work around here, and we are not moving very quickly. So there will be
votes throughout the day.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. We are anxious for people with amendments to bring them
up. I think Senator DeWine had an amendment. Let us see what his
decision is on that. But we are pressing for these folks to bring
forward their amendments. If they are going to offer them, fine. If
they are not going to offer them, would they tell us.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________