[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6591-S6593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MORATORIUM ON REGULATIONS

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in March of this year, just 2 months ago, 
this Senate considered a bill that would have imposed an across-the-
board moratorium on the issuance of new major regulations. That across-
the-board moratorium would have extended from last November's election 
up until the end of this year, the end of 1995. It would have 
encompassed all of 1995 and the last several months of 1994.
  That bill came up before the Senate, and it was overwhelmingly 
rejected by this Senate. Instead, on this across-the-board moratorium, 
the Senate adopted a substitute amendment which was offered by the 
Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Nevada.
 And that provided for a 45-day review of major new rules coming up 
before the new rules by the Congress. This 45-day review was agreed to 
by this Senate 100-0. Any time you can get a vote of 100-0, it is 
considered favorable; overwhelming is an understatement.

  Before that bill was sent over to the House and to the conference of 
House and Senate Members, many of us here in the Senate made clear that 
if the conference report came back with an across-the-board moratorium, 
we would oppose it. We do not want these across the board moratoriums. 
We wanted the situation that was proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma 
which, principally, was for a 45-day review.
  I want the Senate to know, as I indicated during the earlier debate, 
that I will oppose the conference report if it includes provisions of 
the type that I outlined, namely the restoration of these broad 
moratoriums that this bill had.
  Now, yesterday, a Member of the House released a list of the rules 
that they have targeted in the House. They are not satisfied with a 45-
day review. They have targeted some 30 rules--12 of them are EPA rules; 
4 of them are worker safety rules to be issued by OSHA; 10 of the rules 
relate to food and drug safety. Almost all of the rules on the list 
that are targeted by the House are there to protect public health, 
worker safety, and the environment.
  I notice that the occupant of the chair is the distinguished Senator 
from Minnesota. One of the rules that is targeted deals with the Great 
Lakes clean water quality guidance. I do not know the position of the 
occupant of the Chair on this. I suspect that most of the Senators from 
those States--Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--are interested in the quality of the water 
in those Great Lakes.
  The EPA has proposed an initiative dealing with that situation. The 
EPA has estimated a proposal that could cost from $80 to $500 million 
annually. This has to do with the cleanliness of those lakes. This is 
one of the rules that has been targeted by the House Members, one that 
would be subject to an extensive moratorium.
  There are a host of others, Mr. President. One of them I will 
describe. It is a rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
It would reduce the levels of so-called disinfection byproducts in 
drinking water. These are the chemicals that form when water is 
chlorinated, as is done in most communities. It is chlorinated to kill 
bacteria and other organisms. The chlorine, in some instances, combines 
with other substances in the water to form new chemicals, such as 
chloroform, that may cause significant cancer risks for those using the 
water.
  A recent article in the American Journal of Public Health indicated 
that up to 10,000--not 1,000, but 10,000--cases of cancer per year may 
be attributable to these chemicals in our water. EPA has been working 
on a rule to reduce this health risk.
   [[Page S6592]] Did EPA just conceive this rule as a bunch of 
bureaucrats sitting down at EPA headquarters? This is what they did. 
They convened a regulatory negotiation involving all of the parties 
that had an interest. The drinking water suppliers, the States, the 
cities, public health organizations--a very broad group worked for 2 
years on this rule. With one exception, this broad range of interests 
all signed an agreement at the end of the process supporting the 
proposed rule. The proposed rule reflects a significant consensus 
across virtually the entire community of interests involved in drinking 
water. Now, under the House proposal this would be targeted; it would 
be suspended, you could not have the rule. You could not have the rule 
until some indefinite period--until certainly perhaps the end of this 
calendar year, and probably into the future likewise. Why should they 
do that? I am opposed to that type of action by the House of 
Representatives.
  A second item on the list is a petition that EPA approved last 
December. It was a petition submitted by 13 States from the northeast--
my State involved likewise--asking that cars with pollution controls 
such as those used in California also be sold in the Northeast to 
reduce our air pollution problems. This was not an EPA proposal. In 
fact, EPA was reluctant to approve this petition. It was required by 
the Clean Air Act because 13 States had made the request.
  I was under the impression that many of those who support these 
regulatory reform efforts want to return more responsibility to the 
States. They say, ``We believe in the States and States rights.'' Here 
we have a proposal that was made by the States that is targeted on this 
House list as being suspended.
  Now, a third item on this list is the Federal implementation plan for 
California that was promulgated in February. EPA was ordered by the 
courts to produce this plan when California failed to come up with its 
own program. The EPA program has been controversial in California and 
Governor Wilson has asked that it be suspended. And this list would 
target it for suspension.
  But this EPA clean air plan for California has already been 
overturned. The supplemental appropriation for the Defense Department 
enacted earlier this year already repealed the California plan, 
including this item on this list of 30 rules to be killed must be an 
error, because Congress has already acted to repeal this rule. I bring 
this item to the attention of the Senate to make that point. Where 
specific measures, including rules that are required by the courts 
because of laws enacted by the Congress, go too far, we should take 
action to correct the excess. We have done that in several cases. We do 
not need an across-the-board moratorium, as mandated by the House in 
the legislation it passed and suggested for this conference.
  Another item on this list is also from the Clean Air Act. It is the 
employee trip reduction program that requires large employers in most 
severe nonattainment areas to work with their employees to reduce the 
number of vehicle trips each day. In other words, this is a way, in 
nonattainment areas of the country where they have not attained the 
clean air requirements, goals, that large employers would work with 
their employees to reduce the number of vehicle trips. Six hundred 
employees, six hundred cars--is that necessary, or is there another way 
of doing it? EPA has not issued, nor is it about to, any rule 
implementing this requirement of the act. So there is no rule to 
suspend.
  This is a requirement of the Clean Air Act that guides States in the 
development of their own implementation plans. It is carried out by the 
States without Federal regulation. This is an example where a mechanism 
called a regulatory moratorium, such as the House is suggesting, is 
being used to reach into the Clean Air Act and knock out a specific 
policy that some in the House apparently do not like.
  I am not here to defend the employee trip reduction program. In fact, 
earlier this year I asked EPA Administrator Carol Browner to look for 
other approaches to the problem of the increasing number of vehicle 
trips and miles that are traveled that we might substitute for this 
measure in the Clean Air Act. I am not arguing policy grounds one way 
or the other. My point is that in the guise of regulatory moratorium, 
some in the House are seeking to repeal the provision of the Clean Air 
Act that is not even implemented through Federal rulemaking. This 
proposal is not to freeze a rule. There is no rule to freeze. This is a 
proposal to change the law.
  This list reflects an attack on 30 specific policies that some 
Members of the House would like to see reversed. These policies are 
intended to protect public health, worker safety, and the environment. 
I am familiar with the rules on the list that would come from EPA. They 
cannot be characterized as rules written by out-of-control bureaucrats 
without regard for cost or risk reduction. To the extent that 
rulemakings are actually involved, they have all been subject to cost-
benefit analysis under existing regulatory review requirements. In some 
cases the rules have either been painstakingly developed in 
consultation with State or local governments are actually written by 
the States themselves.
  Mr. President, the House is no longer proposing a regulatory 
moratorium. What we have here is a fishing expedition. They have thrown 
out a long list of policies they want killed to see how many the Senate 
will take in the name of compromise to get a bill. I hope our Senate 
conferees will not engage the House in this discussion.
  Mr. President, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject an across-
the-board moratorium on new rules. I trust the Senate conferees will 
not allow the conference to produce a bill that makes 30 specific 
changes in law without hearings, without debate in either body on the 
specific policies, and without the opportunity for Members to exercise 
their rights to offer amendments and have votes on the substantive 
questions at stake. That would be an extraordinary abuse of the 
standards that are to be observed by a conference committee between the 
House and the Senate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me state to my colleagues who are 
wondering about votes today, we believe we may have a unanimous-consent 
agreement. If it is approved, there will be no additional votes today. 
We should have word on that, hopefully, in the next few minutes. I know 
many of my colleagues have other things to do so we will try to keep 
everybody apprised.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1074

 (Purpose: To promote local and regional planning for effective solid 
  waste collection and disposal and for reducing the amount of solid 
  waste generated per capita through the use of solid waste reduction 
                              strategies)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator McConnell 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. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 1074.

  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:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:

              TITLE  --STATE OR REGIONAL SOLID WASTE PLANS

     SEC.  01. FINDING.

       Section 1002(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6901(a)) is amended--
       [[Page S6593]] (1) by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (4) and inserting ``; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) that the Nation's improved standard of living has 
     resulted in an increase in the amount of solid waste 
     generated per capita, and the Nation has not given adequate 
     consideration to solid waste reduction strategies.''.

     SEC.  02. OBJECTIVE OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT.

       Section 1003(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6902(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) promoting local and regional planning for--
       ``(A) effective solid waste collection and disposal; and
       ``(B) reducing the amount of solid waste generated per 
     capita through the use of solid waste reduction 
     strategies.''.

     SEC.  03. NATIONAL POLICY.

       Section 1003(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6902(b)) is amended by inserting ``solid waste and'' after 
     ``generation of''.

     SEC.  04. OBJECTIVE OF SUBTITLE D OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 
                   ACT.

       Section 4001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6941) is amended by inserting ``promote local and regional 
     planning for effective solid waste collection and disposal 
     and for reducing the amount of solid waste generated per 
     capita through the use of solid waste reduction strategies, 
     and'' after ``objectives of this subtitle are to''.

     SEC.  05. DISCRETIONARY STATE PLAN PROVISIONS.

       Section 4003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6943) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Discretionary Plan Provisions Relating to Solid Waste 
     Reduction Goals, Local and Regional Plans, and Issuance of 
     Solid Waste Management Permits.--Except as provided in 
     section 4011(a)(4), a State plan submitted under this 
     subtitle may include, at the option of the State, provisions 
     for--
       ``(1) establishment of a State per capita solid waste 
     reduction goal, consistent with the goals and objectives of 
     this subtitle; and
       ``(2) establishment of a program that ensures that local 
     and regional plans are consistent with State plans and are 
     developed in accordance with sections 4004, 4005, and 
     4006.''.

     SEC.  06. PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 
                   STATE PLANS.

       Section 4006(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6946(b)) is amended by inserting ``and discretionary plan 
     provisions'' after ``minimum requirements''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
help States get a handle on their local waste flows and to ensure that 
States are not precluded from establishing regional solid waste 
reduction plans. Next year, the subtitle D regulations affecting 
landfills will go into effect. These new regulations will force States 
to closely reevaluate their disposal needs and develop their own 
comprehensive plans on how they might implement the more stringent 
regulations.
  Kentucky has already taken the initiative in establishing one of the 
most comprehensive solid waste reduction plans of any State. The 
Kentucky plan mandates that regional and local authorities establish a 
waste collection and disposal plan as well as regional waste reduction 
strategies. These efforts have proven effective in stopping illegal 
dumping, increasing recycling, and reducing the overall need for 
landfill space.
  Unfortunately, without Federal legislation these plans are open to 
constitutional challenge. Mr. President, where does that leave us? How 
can States effectively meet the goals of reducing waste flows, 
increasing recycling, and improving landfill standards if they are 
prohibited from establishing an effective waste management plan?
  Those of us who have been involved in the interstate waste issue 
know, this legislation is necessitated by the commerce clause of the 
Constitution. A number of State and local initiatives that attempted to 
deal with solid waste issues have wound up in court, and eventually 
been struck down based on this provision of the Constitution. 
Consequently, it is virtually impossible for a State to effectively 
deal with their own waste flows without a specific delegation of 
Congress' plenary commerce power.
  In every Congress since 1990 there has been an attempt to provide 
States the authority to keep the interstate flow of solid waste in 
check. Over the past 6 years, I have fought hard with Senator Coats to 
ensure that States like Kentucky and Indiana do not become dumping 
grounds for those States that have refused to control their own waste 
flows.
  Mr. President, my amendment will correct this by authorizing States 
to establish a comprehensive plan for waste reduction. This is 
essential if communities are to get a handle on their own waste flows 
through plans that promote local planning and are consistent with the 
objectives of subtitle D, of the Solid Waste Disposal Act passed by 
Congress in 1991.
  Gone will be the days of open dumps and multitudes of cheap landfills 
when the new standards are implemented in 1996. These standards will 
mandate liners, leachate collection and treatment, groundwater and gas 
monitoring, and new corrective action. The EPA has estimated that 
nearly half of the Nation's 6,000 landfills will close. In Kentucky, 
new landfill standards have already gone into effect and the number of 
landfills has declined dramatically from 29 to just 6. Mr. President, 
these new regulations will compel many States to rethink their disposal 
needs and how they should plan for the future.
  Many States may find they do not have an effective plan for disposing 
of their waste. States will need to establish a plan for consolidation, 
reduction, and recycling programs mandated by the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act. Again, my amendment will help States plan for the 
inevitable and protect already established plans from legal challenge.
  Mr. President, this amendment will not eliminate existing host 
community agreements, nor will it ban the interstate flow of waste. In 
fact, in Kentucky a special landfill was recently authorized to accept 
waste from out-of-state. A number of Kentucky counties continue to ship 
and accept nominal amounts of waste from our neighboring States of West 
Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. My amendment will not disturb 
these arrangements.
  Mr. President, my amendment is entirely consistent with the export 
reduction strategies contained in this bill.
  I have worked with the officials of the Kentucky Department of 
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet and officials in 
Magoffin County to ensure that State and regional waste plans are 
protected in this legislation. I am appreciative of their assistance.
  Today, Congress will clarify whether States have the authority to 
establish their own plan for the disposal of waste. Only with the 
explicit delegation of this authority can States be certain that they 
are acting within a constitutional framework.
  I would like to thank the managers of this bill for accepting this 
amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator McConnell for the 
work he has done in connection with solid waste. It is a subject he has 
been interested in for a good number of years.
  Kentucky is a State that has established one of the most 
comprehensive solid waste reduction plans of any State and the Senator 
was very conscious of that in his dealing with the legislation before 
us.
  Mr. President, I again congratulate the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for the work he has done.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment on our side 
and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1074) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  

                          ____________________