[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6581-S6583]
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.


                       The Bottle Bill Amendment

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the Senate discusses the difficult 
issue of solid waste management, I would like to point out to my 
colleagues that 10 States have achieved great success by implementing 
some form of beverage container deposit system. My home State of 
Oregon, for example, has had remarkable success with its own bottle 
bill for over 20 years. Consequently, I am offering the National 
Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act as an amendment to the 
interstate waste bill.
  So often, States serve as laboratories for what later emerges as 
successful national policies. The State of Oregon and other bottle-bill 
States have proven that deposit programs are an effective method to 
deal with beverage containers, which make up the single largest 
component of waste systems. According to the General Accounting Office, 
deposit-law States, which account for only 18 percent of the 
population, recycle 65 percent of all glass and 98 percent of all PET 
plastic nationwide. That means 82 percent of the population is 
recycling less than 25 percent of our Nation's beverage container 
waste.
  The amendment I have placed before the Senate today will accomplish 
national objectives to meet our Nation's massive waste management 
difficulties. A national deposit system will reduce solid waste and 
litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a much needed 
partnership between consumers, industry, and local governments for the 
betterment of our communities.
  As someone who grew up during the Great Depression, I am constantly 
reminded of the throw-away ethic that has emerged so prominently in 
this country. In this regard, Oregon's deposit system serves as a much 
greater role than merely cleaning up littered highways, saving energy 
and resources, or reducing the waste flowing into our teeming 
landfills. The bottle bill acts as a tutor. It is a constant reminder 
of the conservation ethic that is an essential component of any plan to 
see this country out of its various crises. Each time a consumer 
returns a can for deposit, the conservation ethic is reaffirmed, and 
hopefully the consumer will then reapply this ethic in other areas.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have a 20-year history on this issue 
and have been greatly enthused by developments in recent years in 
promoting the establishment of a national bottle bill. The amendment I 
filed today is identical to the legislation I introduced last Congress. 
Although this bill has historically been referred to the Senate 
Commerce Committee, in recent years significant actions on this measure 
have come in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  Senator Jeffords offered the bill as an amendment to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in the Environment and Public 
Works Committee during the 102d Congress. Even though this attempt 
failed by a vote of 6 to 10 it was a monumental step forward. 
Additionally, during that same Congress a hearing was held in the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the energy 
conservation implications of beverage container recycling as outlined 
in that session's bottle bill, S. 2335.
  I regret that I continually have come to the Senate floor to force 
the Senate to take action on this matter, but that seems to be the only 
effective procedure for moving forward on this bill. For example, 
during the 1992 Presidential campaign, candidate Bill Clinton declared 
his support for a national bottle bill. However, once he took office he 
and a Democratic-controlled Congress were surprisingly silent on the 
issue in the 103d Congress. Consequently, here I am again offering the 
Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act as an amendment on the 
Senate floor.
   [[Page S6582]] Mr. President, this is an active approach to dealing 
with solid waste before it becomes waste. It is widely acknowledged 
that recycling is the wave of the future and this amendment will 
facilitate the recycling of beverage containers. I firmly believe the 
time has come for Congress to follow the wise lead of these States and 
encourage deposit systems on a national level. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to fully examine the benefits of a national beverage 
container deposit system and to adopt this amendment.
                              bottle bill

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a national deposit law is a commonsense, 
proven method to increase recycling, to save energy, to create jobs, 
and to decrease waste generation. The experience of 10 States, 
including Oregon and Vermont, attest to the success of a deposit law or 
a bottle bill as it is commonly called.
  Bottle bills work. These laws have been successful in every State 
that has one. Recycling rates of over 70 percent have been achieved for 
beverage containers in the bottle bill States. The rate is over 90 
percent in Vermont. Furthermore, jobs have been created by this 
legislation, not lost, and a majority of Americans support a national 
deposit law.
  There is a misconception in some people's minds that deposit 
legislation is not compatible with curbside recycling programs. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. Nine of the 10 States with deposit 
laws have vibrant curbside recycling programs.
  Mr. President, both Senator Hatfield and I have been working on this 
issue for more than 20 years. In both of our States, curbside recycling 
programs are working in tandem with beverage container deposit systems. 
In today's world, we must make every effort to conserve precious 
natural resources and reduce our use of energy. I ask my colleagues to 
support this measure and thank the managers for considering our 
amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk I would 
like to make a few remarks about. For over two decades, my State of 
Oregon, and about the same period of time the State of Vermont, have 
had on the books and in practice what we call the bottle bill. When you 
buy soft drinks and beer in my State, whether they are in the can or 
the bottle, you pay a deposit. That deposit becomes an incentive for 
people to return those bottles and cans rather than dumping them in the 
garbage and adding to the problem of trash and refuse in this country.
  We have found it to be highly successful. At first there was a great 
deal of concern expressed by merchants about the additional costs of 
administering this program. There was a great deal of discussion about 
the possibility of labor being impacted. We have demonstrated, along 
with a modification or variation on a theme in a few other States, an 
effective measure to reduce litter and to recycle the glass from the 
bottles and the metal from the cans.
  I have offered this at a national level for over 20 years and it is 
very interesting that the beer industry opposes it very strongly. My 
good friend, the former Senator from Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson, was the 
founder of Earth Day. However, every time I introduced the bottle bill, 
this great environmentalist would be the first to stand and oppose it 
because it was the beer industry that opposed it in his State. We had 
the same thing from the soft drink industry; they opposed it.
  Now we find there is no longer solid opposition. Joe Coors, of the 
Coors Breweries, has swung around. I think Hamm's beer--of course 
Blitz-Weinhard, in our State--is supportive of the proposal. Now one of 
the largest growing beer producers in the State of Oregon are 
microbreweries. There is no longer the solid phalanx of opposition.
  I have asked, I suppose 100 times, for a hearing. And I have not been 
able to get a hearing on this bill.
  We had a sponsor at one time many years ago, not the Senator from 
Massachusetts but a Congressman from Massachusetts, and he was urged 
and persuaded to get off the bill because of the opposition of 
organized labor in his State. That has been true across this country. 
There is a lot of misunderstanding on the part of organized labor and 
others, that this is somehow going to add to their costs or, that it is 
a beautification issue, not a recycling, refuse, or trash issue. It is 
all of them.
  I had intended to raise the bottle bill as an amendment to this bill 
from the floor. I rarely raise amendments that have not had hearings. I 
am a traditionalist, and believe that issues of this kind should go 
through a hearing process through the committees of jurisdiction. 
However, I have had private conversation with the chairman of this 
committee, Senator Chafee. I wanted to say to Senator Chafee I am not 
trying to hold up this bill. I support it and I would like to see it 
enacted into law. Nevertheless, I feel just as strongly about trying to 
get some kind of a hearing to move the bottle bill through the Congress 
at some point during my lifetime.
  So I would yield to the chairman of the committee at this moment, if 
he would like to make any comment or give me some assurance of a 
hearing?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to the senior 
Senator from Oregon. He has been persistent in this measure. I do not 
recall that we ever had a hearing in the committee. But I do recall we 
had a vote in the committee. As I recall, Senator Jeffords, then a 
member of the committee, raised it so we did have a vote in the 
committee on it.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Right.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The vote failed. However, the Senator has been very 
gracious in his handling of this subject. I would be glad to arrange a 
hearing for his legislation in our committee.
  I just say this, if he could give us a little time? We are chock-a-
block in that committee right now. But in due course I certainly will 
work in a hearing.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I appreciate the Senator's commitment and that 
satisfies my request.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Let me say briefly, this. In my State I have always been 
a supporter of the bottle bill.
  But then it turns out that in our recycling efforts, the thing that 
makes the recycling effort go is the fact that the recycling center is 
able to earn money from the aluminum cans. It is the big money earner 
for the recycling center and helps carry everything else.
  So in our State, we will not want a bottle bill where you would make 
a deposit and bring it back to the central place and get your refund 
because that would deprive our recycling centers of this constant flow 
of very valuable income. But that may be a unique situation.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this was a 
valid issue, as the Senator described it in his State. However, 
concerns expressed by other States that there is competition between 
deposits and other recycling programs have been shown to be overstated. 
We have had studies, and I will be very happy to produce the records of 
those studies, indicating that this is not a valid concern, and that 
instead of being a possible deterrent to the ongoing efforts of 
recycling, it has become an incentive.
  So there should not be this sense of competition between a bill of 
this kind, in which an individual can return a beverage container to 
the grocery store and get a refund, or other programs where container 
are returned to recycling centers. We have recycling centers in our 
State, as well as this deposit law. I would be happy to refer to those 
studies in more detail at a hearing.
  Mr. President, with that assurance, I see the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I do not know if he wants to get the floor on this 
issue. If not, Mr. President, I will not call up my amendment on the 
desk. I thank the Senator for his assurance and look forward to a 
hearing on this subject.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, unless somebody is about to propose an 
amendment or wants to proceed, I would like to proceed as if in morning 
business for a few minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will withhold. We 
have a couple of amendments we can accept. We can dispose of them. They 
will take very little time.
                    [[Page S6583]] Amendment No. 1070

  (Purpose: To include in the definition of ``out-of-State municipal 
       waste'' waste that is generated outside the United States)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Levin and Senator 
Abraham, 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 Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Levin, 
     for himself, and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1070.

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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 49, strike lines 1 through 8 and insert:
       (3) The term ``out-of-State municipal solid waste'' means, 
     with respect to any State, municipal solid waste generated 
     outside of the State. Unless the President determines it is 
     inconsistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement and 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the term shall 
     include municipal solid waste generated outside of the United 
     States. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     generators of municipal solid waste outside the United States 
     shall possess no greater right of access to disposal 
     facilities in a State than United States generators of 
     municipal solid waste outside of that State.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, our side has reviewed this amendment and 
we find it acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1070) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1071

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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 Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1071.

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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 65, line 6, insert ``or related landfill 
     reclamation'' after ``services.''

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment, as well, 
and also urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1071) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. If he wants to 
proceed, this is a good time to do it.

                          ____________________