[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6703-S6709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senate will now resume 
consideration of S. 534, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 534) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
     provide authority for States to limit the interstate 
     transportation of municipal solid waste, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized to offer an amendment, on which there will be 
1 hour equally divided. The Senator from Washington is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1079

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself and 
     Mr. Gorton, proposes an amendment numbered 1079.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Title II, following section (f) State Solid Waste District 
     Authority, add the following section (g) and reletter all the 
     following subsections accordingly:
       ``(g) State Mandated Solid Waste Management Planning.--A 
     political subdivision of a State may exercise flow control 
     authority for municipal solid waste, and for voluntarily 
     relinquished recyclable material that is generated within its 
     jurisdiction, if State legislation enacted prior to January 
     1, 1990 mandated the political subdivision to plan for the 
     management of solid waste generated within its jurisdiction, 
     and if prior to January 1, 1990 the State delegated to its 
     political subdivisions the authority to establish a system of 
     solid waste handling, and if prior to May 15, 1994:
       ``(1) the political subdivision has, in accordance with the 
     plan adopted pursuant to such State mandate, obligated itself 
     through contract (including a contract to repay a debt) to 
     utilize existing solid waste facilities or an existing system 
     of solid waste facilities; and
       (2) the political subdivision is currently undertaking a 
     recycling program in accordance with its adopted waste 
     management plan to meet the State's solid waste reduction 
     goal of fifty percent; and
       (3) significant financial commitments have been made, or, 
     bonds have been issued, a major portion of which, were used 
     for the construction of solid waste management facilities.
       On page 65, line 10, strike ``or (e)'' and insert ``(e) or 
     (f).''

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a 
quick question. It is my understanding that this amendment she filed is 
the same as the one she previously circulated, except the previous one 
had in it additional waste besides solid waste. I 
[[Page S6704]] think it had construction debris; is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that I sent to the desk is 
slightly modified and has been worked out with the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this morning I rise with my colleague 
from Washington, Senator Gorton, to offer an amendment to the 
Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995.
  Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the attempts the managers of 
this bill have made to accommodate the wide array of waste management 
systems there are around the country. My colleagues from Connecticut, 
Florida, Virginia, Delaware, and most recently, from Vermont have found 
ways to amend this legislation so that the uniqueness of their local 
systems is recognized within the scope of this legislation. Senator 
Gorton and I want to ensure that Washington's communities have the same 
latitude to continue progressively implementing solid waste management 
systems.
  Washington's municipal solid waste management system is a good one. 
All municipal waste systems comply with the States' comprehensive waste 
management plan. This plan delegates authority over solid waste 
management to the State's counties, cities, and towns. These entities, 
in turn, manage public systems or contract with private industries to 
handle all municipal solid waste and recycling.
  The specifics of each system differ, from county to county, and from 
county to city, and from city to town; but all share the common 
elements of minimizing costs and adhering to the State's mandated 
recycling goals.
  In Washington, according to our State plan, local governments manage 
solid waste, including recyclables, by way of an integrated system of 
facilities. The city of Seattle, King County, Spokane County, Snohomish 
County, Clark County, and Okanogan County, and other jurisdictions use 
flow control authority in their systems. In this arrangement, the 
interplay between county ordinances, town and city ordinances, health 
district regulations, local agreements, and private contracts all play 
a role.
  Although the Supreme Court's decision sent a new wave of insecurity 
about the future rippling through the public sectors of waste 
management, Washington State actually began thinking about these issues 
long ago. We have set a progressive waste management agenda for 
ourselves that has been nationally heralded and emulated.
  In 1989, while I was a State senator, we embraced the growing crisis 
over solid waste management when we passed the Waste Not Washington 
Act. Among other things, this plan established the statewide goal of 50 
percent recycling. Now, we have the lowest cost recycling systems in 
the country and the lowest cost disposal systems in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  In Washington State, we are on the cutting edge of recycling. Let me 
give a few examples of what this means in terms of the waste stream. 
Statewide, we recycle 56 percent of all newspaper, 57 percent of high 
grade paper, 52 percent of cardboard, 50 percent of all yard waste, and 
about 73 percent of all metals.
  The city of Seattle's residential recycling rate was 48 percent in 
1993. The commercial recycling rate was 45 percent. Eighty-three 
percent of all newspapers are recycled in Seattle, as is 70 percent of 
all
 cardboard, 77 percent of all high grade paper, 68 percent mixed paper, 
70 percent of all aluminum, and over 50 percent of all glass recycled.

  Curbside programs are currently available to over 70 percent of 
Washington State's population; and in urban counties and cities, there 
is almost 100 percent available curbside recycling. The city of Seattle 
has had a curbside recycling program since 1987.
  Not only does Washington State exceed current national standards, it 
is well beyond the targets of this bill.
  The ways we got there were by allowing local communities the 
flexibility to establish the waste systems they needed. In the future, 
attaining our recycling goal of 50 percent will depend on the ability 
to continue managing our waste systems as well as we do now.
  Our amendment is for Washington. It would ensure that Washington's 
counties, towns, and cities will be able to meet the commitments they 
made when they understood that flow control was a legitimate power.
  Millions of dollars' worth of bonds, issued for facility development, 
could be defaulted upon if Washington's local communities lose the 
ability to service their waste management debts due to the loss of 
flexibility to guarantee a reliable waste stream.
  In Washington, many communities have issued municipal bonds to pay 
for the construction of solid waste facilities. These bonds are 
outstanding. The committee's substitute only partially protects the 
commitments in communities like these.
  In Snohomish County, for instance, improvements to the system were 
financed through a combination of revenue bonds and general obligation 
bonds. These debts were assumed with the expectation that solid waste 
revenues would be used to service them. As of 1995, Snohomish County 
has issued $26.7 million in general obligation bonds, scheduled to be 
paid back by 2007. As the bill is currently written, only the revenue 
bonds of Snohomish could be paid back.
  The burdens of these debts will fall on the users of the system--the 
taxpayers. As we at the Federal level of Government are shifting more 
and more financial responsibility on local governments, restricting the 
ability of local governments to manage their solid waste systems is not 
a good solution.
  As it is written, this bill steps all over the jurisdictions of our 
local authorities. It will raise taxes. It will ruin one of the most 
effective recycling programs in the Nation, and it will throw many 
communities in our State into financial jeopardy. This one-size-fits-
all approach will not work.
  Our amendment is within the scope of this bill--it only grandfathers 
existing systems and facilities. We do not ask for any extension of the 
sunset of flow control.
  I encourage the passage of this amendment, and in turn, the passage 
of this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am puzzled, perhaps even bewildered at 
the necessity to speak here on behalf of an amendment for my State and 
Senator Murray's--an amendment designed under the parameters of a bill 
simply to allow the continuation of a flow control regime in our State 
which may very well have been the most successful of any State in the 
United States of America in reducing the amount of solid waste which is 
not recycled.
  This bill, of course, responds to a decision of the U.S. Supreme 
Court. That decision invalidated flow control regimes all across 
America on the grounds that a State or municipality which directed or 
funneled the flow of its waste materials violated the dormant 
provisions of the interstate commerce clause. That is to say, States 
and local communities could not impact interstate commerce by flow 
control regimes in the absence of authority from the Congress of the 
United States. The Supreme Court, of course, invited the Congress to 
legislate in this area, and that is precisely what this bill does.
  The bill attempts to recognize the fact that many States already have 
flow control regimes. And while it wishes to move them out of those 
present regimes toward a greater degree of competition in the private 
sector, it nonetheless recognizes many, but not all, existing 
obligations. And that is the defect which leads to this amendment.
  While the bill recognizes and grandfathers for an extended period of 
time of up to 30 years regimes for single facilities financed by 
revenue bonds, it does not exempt systems of facilities financed in 
whole or in part by general obligation bonds. Beginning long before 
this bill was thought of, that was the method adopted by the State of 
Washington's system of facilities, generally speaking, financed by 
general obligation bonds; that is, bonds which were a call or a lien on 
taxpayers through the property that they own in particular counties.
  So all Senator Murray and I propose to do is to provide a narrowly 
defined fix by defining the nature of the State 
[[Page S6705]] statute that covers, in a way, only the State of 
Washington and allow the continuation of its present regime for roughly 
the same period of time that it has allowed for other States in this 
bill.
  Nothing, Mr. President, could be more reasonable. One size does not 
fit all when we are legislating in a field which the States have 
occupied. One size certainly does not fit all when we are dealing with 
a State that has been as progressive and as successful with its flow 
control regime as has the State of Washington.
  Now, at one level this debate has already taken place. It took place 
last Thursday at the beginning of the discussion of this bill with the 
amendment proposed by the two Senators from Vermont for a special 
circumstance found in Vermont. This body accepted that Vermont 
amendment by a relatively close rollcall vote.
  This proposal is considerably narrower than that proposed by the two 
Senators from Vermont, because theirs talked about prospective systems 
not in existence at the present time; ours talks about existing systems 
which are in place, in operation, and have already been financed.
  Ours requires that significant financial commitments have been made 
or bonds have been issued, a major portion of which were used for the 
construction of solid waste facilities--a much more specific definition 
than that in the Vermont amendment. Nor can we come up with a single 
exception for a single county. Our counties and cities have been given 
fairly broad discretion in this field, and different metropolitan 
counties in the State of Washington have had subtle but distinct 
differences in the way in which they exercise flow control 
requirements.
  But I can say, Mr. President, that for those who feel that this 
should be a competitive field, not single-source contracts, that is 
exactly what the State of Washington does. The management of our solid 
waste is conducted on a competitive bid basis.
  So, Mr. President, we, the two Senators from Washington, are here 
simply to request the right to continue to do what we have already been 
doing so successfully--to pay off our bonds and to be subject to the 
provisions of this bill under essentially the same circumstances as are 
allowed other States, States to which the members of the committee paid 
some attention in drafting the bill in the first place.
  Mr. President, just as this was appropriate for those that were 
included in the bill in the first place on single State bases, those 
which have been added without controversy, that which was added by the 
amendment of the Senators from Vermont, we wish not to have the Federal 
Government interfere with us, to tell us that everything we have done 
in the past is wrong, that in spite of the success of our program, I am 
sorry, we do not fit into the exceptions and therefore we cannot have 
one.
  Mr. President, we should be allowed to have this exception. We should 
be allowed to continue a regime which has worked so successfully in our 
State in the past.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to make the record clear right from 
the very beginning that this is not a case of the Federal Government 
interfering in the affairs of any State. The current law of the United 
States that is defined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court is 
that you cannot have flow control. That is not the EPA or the 
Environment Committee or anybody else saying that. The Federal 
Government is not interfering. The law of the land is that they cannot 
have flow control in the State of Washington or anywhere in the United 
States. So we came forward with this legislation.
  Why are we here? We are here because of the Carbone decision just a 
year ago. In that decision, they said having flow control interferes 
with the commerce clause. However, the Congress of the United States 
can make arrangements in its acts and they can do something about the 
so-called flow control.
 And we have.

  We realize that there are lots of communities across the country--or 
several, anyway--that were caught. They had flow control and they had 
committed money for a facility that bonded indebtedness or general 
obligation bonds and that facility was dependent upon the municipal 
solid waste that would come to it, pursuant to flow control that had 
been enacted.
  So we are taking care of that. Indeed there is one county in 
Washington that appears to fall within that category. That does not 
satisfy the folks from Washington. Indeed, it is not restricted to the 
State of Washington.
  I suppose the argument could be made, ``Well, under the act, when 
certain things have to be enacted, it is solely Washington,'' but there 
is no restriction solely to Washington. We do not know how many other 
areas in the country might qualify under this. They are saying, ``We 
never had flow control. However, we would like to be given that 
privilege for the future. And we do not even have to have had bonded 
indebtedness.''
  Indeed, if we read the amendment, it says ``Bonds have been issued or 
significant financial commitments have been made.'' Actually, it is the 
other way around--``Significant financial commitments have been made or 
bonds have been issued.''
  Now, what does it mean by ``Significant financial commitments have 
been made?'' They spent some money on some trucks, for example. But 
they want that to qualify them to have an exception to the Constitution 
of the United States.
  Where do we draw the line? Clearly, this is a place that does not 
qualify, it does not even come close to qualifying now, under the rules 
that we have set forth, after a lot of deliberation.
  Now, they have pointed out that they have had wonderful success in 
recycling. That is great. They did not need flow control for that 
because they never had it. In some communities, yes. But they did not 
have it in these other communities, and they had the successes of the 
recycling that the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray pointed out.
  Mr. President, this just goes too far. Clearly, if this amendment 
prevails we might as well say all across the country, forget the 
Constitution. We make an exception to it--not an exception. We just say 
in the whole Nation of the United States we can have flow control. 
California is next up.
  Mr. President, I just think it is very unfortunate that they are 
pursuing this amendment. After long discussions we worked out what 
seemed to me to be a fair compromise. It took care of the specific 
situation where they had flow control but they had some commitments, 
general obligation bonds, have made a commitment, but this is not 
similar to that.
  Mr. President, I hope very much that the amendment would not be 
accepted.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am truly puzzled. The Senator from Rhode 
Island says we ought to be satisfied because 1 county out of 39 in the 
State of Washington might possibly qualify under a general bill that he 
has written to continue its present system.
  The Senator from Rhode Island says, ``They say the Constitution be 
damned, we just want to go ahead.'' He is entirely correct when he says 
that a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court stated that under the dormant 
reading of the interstate commerce clause, flow control regimes all 
across the United States were invalid.
  That same Supreme Court decision asked the Congress if it wished to 
do so to legislate in this area, pointing out that it could grant 
States full authority if it wished to do so, to continue forever all of 
their existing or any future regime.
  Now, the Senator from Rhode Island has done that. He is passing 
legislation which under certain circumstances States can exercise flow 
control regimes. One might ask, why does he not just simply allow it to 
the full extent that the Constitution would allow it, but he has not. 
He wants a certain pattern, but he has made exceptions to that certain 
pattern and we would like such an exception.
  Ours is all retrospective. Unless financial obligations have been 
undertaken or bonds sold, unless there is a system in place by a State 
statute that is some 5 years old or more, the exception does not apply. 
It does not apply in any other State, Mr. President.
  Why should a community be penalized because it had enough money to 
pay for these facilities in cash? Why should it be penalized if it pays 
for 
[[Page S6706]] them by general obligation bonds which cover other 
facilities as well, rather than a specific revenue bond for one 
specific facility?
  Now, Mr. President, this committee did not have to bring a bill out 
on this subject at all. It could just have told the country that it had 
to live with this Supreme Court decision. The committee decided that 
the Supreme Court decision mandated legislation. The legislation does 
have differences from one State to another. This body has adopted an 
amendment for Vermont which is infinitely broader than the amendment 
proposed for the State of Washington.
  Why in the world these people sitting here in this body have to tell 
the State of Washington, ``Sorry, you did it wrong and we are not going 
to let you do it anymore,'' is simply beyond the understanding of this 
Senator.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, several times the Senator has said he is 
puzzled.
  First of all, with regard to Vermont, there are exceptions in the 
Vermont situation, and I might point out that this Senator, nor the 
committee, did not support the Vermont amendment.
  Was it adopted? Yes, by a vote, over the objections of this Senator 
and others who are managing the bill.
  To take a whole State such as Washington that has never had flow 
control--they are seeking something they never had--talk about 
puzzlement. I wish the Senator from Washington would explain why he 
needs flow control.
  Why is he here? Because they had this remarkable record as recited of 
the recycling and they have achieved all of that without flow control.
  Now, once again, why did we bring this bill to the floor? The Senator 
says, why did they bring it up? We brought it up to take care of those 
communities that were truly hurt by the Carbone decision. Those 
communities had enacted flow control, had issued bonds, usually revenue 
bonds, to pay for either an incinerator or very carefully planned 
landfill. They wanted to pay it off, and they are planning to pay off 
their bonds through the flow control that required all the trash within 
the municipality or the county--wherever it is--to come to a central 
place.
  That is not the situation with the Senator and the State of 
Washington at all.
  If there are explanations that are needed here, I think they are 
needed from the Senator, or the prime sponsor of the amendment, if she 
would say what they need these for. They had all these wonderful 
recycling achievements without flow control, so now they are in here 
asking for an exception to an entire State.
  By the way, in all fairness, there is some difference between the 
population of Vermont, which is relatively modest, and the population 
of the State of Washington and what this will trigger, should this 
amendment be adopted.
  Mr. President, I suggest during these pauses that the time be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me again stress in no way does the 
State of Washington in the proposed amendment come close to meeting the 
exceptions that were provided for in this legislation. First, they do 
not have flow control; and, second, under the amendment as submitted it 
does not require there be outstanding bonded indebtedness.
  The Senator from Washington has frequently mentioned to us they have 
general obligation bonds, but that is not what this amendment says. 
This amendment says, ``significant financial commitments have been 
made.'' That could be the community had spent some money, as I say, on 
some trucks, to haul garbage. So it does not even come close to the 
criteria that we have set forth in the bill and I just think it is a 
vast overreaching.
  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. SMITH. 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. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray-Gorton 
amendment. We worked on it hard to try to craft a compromise to 
accommodate as many people as possible on this legislation. The 
amendment of Senators Gorton and Murray would simply open up the 
current provisions under S. 534 and would allow prospective flow 
control for areas that currently do not have flow control, and some 
areas that do flow control but do not have bonds and currently need to 
be paid off.
  The whole spirit of the compromise worked out so carefully as we put 
this legislation together was we would not do things prospectively, 
that the intent here was to protect those people who had made financial 
commitments. Most specifically, they had let bonds or contracts that 
would require substantial losses possibly, conceivably, to the 
investment. That was the purpose. We were not trying to pass a bill 
here that would open up the whole interstate commerce issue again and 
allow States to prospectively implement flow control anywhere or any 
time for whatever reason, no matter how small the cost, whether it be 
the purchase of a truck or some minor item of cost.
  Local flow control laws are by their very nature monopolistic and 
they are anticompetitive. I have stated numerous times during the 
course of this debate that I personally do not favor flow control, but 
in working with my colleagues I tried to help out some of the States 
that had very, very significant financial commitments, most 
specifically bonds, or in the case of a State like New Jersey, where 
they had an entire system for flow control and we wanted to try to 
accommodate them, we put a grandfather clause in here that would say 
that all flow control would be by the boards after 30 years. That was 
to allow for any bonds that may have been let to run out and then it 
would be entirely the free market system.
  This amendment just flies in the face of the entire bill, the entire 
compromise. It is very important that my colleagues understand that if 
you support the free enterprise system and want to see less flow 
control in the future--not more--then you would be opposed to this 
amendment.
  The Supreme Court ruled last year that these types of flow control 
laws are a violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Yet, 
it can be argued that governments that issued bonds--and the key here 
is bonds--to build facilities in reliance on flow control should be 
allowed to continue flow control only until these bonds are repaid. 
After this, the free market should prevail.
  The purist argument would be they knew what they were doing when they 
let the bonds, and the free market ought to prevail anyway. Frankly, 
that is my position. But in an effort to compromise on this, Senator 
Chafee and I and others agreed that we would allow this grandfather, 
that it would be restrictive, that it would not be an open-ended 
grandfather that would simply allow prospectively anybody to think, 
``Well, I might have an opportunity in 10 years to implement flow 
control and, you know, we might want to sign a contract, or we might 
want to let a bond, or prospectively, we may want to do it in 10 
years.'' That is not the intent of this legislation. It would not be in 
the best interests of those who want to see flow control restricted 
rather than increased.
  So the key here is that this amendment vastly expands the universe of 
communities that would be allowed the flow control--I mean vastly. This 
is not just Washington State. This is an open end that is going to 
allow flow control, and it would be flow control allowed not on the 
basis of financial need, not on the basis of financial commitments, not 
at all; just maybe we will have some financial commitments, or maybe in 
the future we would like to pass a bond, or maybe we would like to sign 
a contract, or maybe we would like to build a facility sometime in the 
future. That defeats the entire purpose of the legislation. I cannot 
emphasize that strongly enough.
  This amendment goes beyond the principles that only those facilities 
that incurred bonded indebtedness should be grandfathered and instead 
it 
[[Page S6707]] grants flow control authority to a large universe of 
local governments who are simply implementing a State solid waste 
management plan.
  Again, I go back to the hearing that we held in the subcommittee on 
flow control when we heard from New Jersey and other units which were 
affected by this. We heard that bond holders were going to be harmed 
and even some of us felt that they knew what they were doing or should 
have known what they were doing when they let the bonds and invested in 
the bonds. We decided, be that as it may, to be as fair as possible, we 
were going to allow the grandfather to kick in. A 30-year period gives 
everybody a chance to recoup any losses that they might have as a 
result of investments in the bonds. That was a compromise. It was very 
carefully struck. It was not my position. It was not the position of 
Senator Lautenberg or others on the committee who supported flow 
control. But it was a compromise. As compromises are, you give a little 
bit and you take a little bit. And that is the way it works.
  But now to say we are down to the end, or very close to where we want 
to have a vote on this bill, to say now we are going to open this whole 
thing up prospectively to any locality or any community whatsoever 
anywhere which may want to have flow control is basically undoing the 
bill.
  It is an anti-free-market amendment. It opens up flow control to a 
variety of communities that currently do not practice it, and it will 
shut out private companies that could meet the solid waste disposal 
needs of these areas. What we are hoping will happen in States like 
Washington and other States is that the free market will kick in; that 
over the next 30 years as we grandfather those who are currently 
implementing flow control, we will see the free market kick in in 
States like this where there is no flow control now, and it will work 
and it will work very well, and the free market frankly usually works, 
if not always works.
  So I think that is the approach we ought to take. To just now come in 
with an anti-free-market amendment is a serious mistake. Recent studies 
indicate that flow control jurisdictions charge, on average, 40 percent 
higher rates than non-flow-control jurisdictions--40 percent higher.
  This amendment goes against the spirit of the bill, the intent of the 
bill, and it should be defeated.
  Flow control is not necessary for recycling, according to a recent 
EPA report called ``Report to Congress--Flow Controls and Municipal 
Solid Waste'':

       There are no data showing that flow controls are essential 
     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.

  That is a quote from that report. Thus, even the EPA has demonstrated 
that there is no need for flow control to meet State recycling goals.
  The bottom line, as has been said before, my colleagues, is that this 
is a killer amendment. It kills the bill. It guts the bill. It makes 
the bill totally worthless, and it should not be passed.
  I hope my colleagues will think very carefully and weigh this very 
carefully before the vote.
  I call attention to item three in the amendment, which says 
significant financial commitments have been made. What is a 
``significant financial commitment''? Is it a few dollars, $10, $15, or 
$20? Maybe it is a fee to buy a license or a permit. We are not talking 
about that. We want to limit future flow control in this legislation. 
We want it to end in 30 years. We do not want it to begin in States 
that do not have it. We are just allowing the exception or the 
grandfather in the States that do.
  So, Mr. President, with the greatest respect to my colleagues who 
have offered the amendment, it is ill advised. It will hurt what we are 
trying to do in this compromise, and frankly if this is passed, this 
could lead to the very defeat of the flow control bill, which will hurt 
those people, those very people out there, the bond holders who are 
sitting there now worried about whether or not they are going to get 
relief.
 And if the bill is defeated or somehow taken down because of this, 
then those people are not going to get relief.

  So I hope this amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has control of the time, and how much 
time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes for the Senator from Rhode 
Island; 14 minutes for the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I assume I have the time of the Senator 
from Rhode Island. I yield myself a few minutes.
  Mr. President, it is with some reluctance that I oppose the Murray-
Gorton amendment. I have the highest regard for the Senators from 
Washington, both Senator Murray and Senator Gorton. They are trying to 
protect their State.
  I must reject their amendment and oppose it, Mr. President, very 
simply because the approach that they are coming up with to meet the 
conditions in their State is much too broad, is much too general, and 
it goes much, much beyond the intent of the bill.
  The intent of the bill is to protect those communities which, 
essentially, prior to a certain date--May 15, 1994--had flow control 
either by regulation or by ordinance or by State law. It is not, 
frankly, to protect those communities which did not have any kind of 
flow control; that is, that had not designated certain sites where 
trash would go.
  The amendment offered by the Senators from Washington essentially 
says that flow control is OK if there had been a plan, a general plan 
to deal with trash in the State of Washington. The amendment by the 
Senators from Washington does not say that there was in some case flow 
control but rather, essentially, there is a waste management plan. For 
that reason it is much, much too broad. It is very unfair to other 
States, frankly, who would like to do the same thing.
  If this amendment passes, there is a good argument it should apply to 
every other State in the Nation. And if it applies to every other State 
in the Nation then we might as well pull down this bill. Because the 
compromise that has been reached, one between free enterprise hauling 
the trash according to the wishes of different communities and trash 
haulers across State lines, combined with the other, that 
municipalities control their own trash, that compromise would fall 
apart. There would be no compromise. We would have no bill.
  I, therefore, suggest to the Senators from Washington that if the 
amendment is rejected--and I very much hope it is rejected--that they, 
the Senators from Washington, work in conference, and the conferees 
come up with a generic approach to address the kinds of problems that 
are raised by the Senators from Washington.
  This is a very complicated matter. I wish I could support the 
amendment offered by the Senators from Washington, but, in good faith, 
I cannot. And I cannot because it goes way, way beyond the compromise 
reached in the bill. It is way beyond the provision we adopted to deal 
with the situation in the State of Vermont just a few days ago.
  And I must say that if this amendment passes, every other Senator can 
stand up on this floor and very legitimately say, ``Well, gee, it 
should apply to my State.'' And if that is the case, the bill falls 
apart and it will not pass. I guarantee it will not pass. I guarantee 
there are going to be Senators whose other points of view will stand up 
on the floor and prevent its passage.
  Basically, Mr. President, I believe, for those reasons, that the 
amendment should be soundly rejected and we can work in conference to 
come up with a solution that might deal with some of these problems, if 
not all.
  Mr. President, if a community does not need flow control, I think we 
should let the private market work and not just rely on Government 
regulation. This amendment is a Government regulation amendment which 
basically says we want more Government on your backs, we want more 
regulation, we want more control. I think that there are a good number 
of people in this country, particularly this body, that might have some 
reservations about adding more control, more regulations, more laws on 
the backs of the American people.
  [[Page S6708]] Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time on 
this side.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, again, as I have stated, I am completely 
puzzled by the nature of the argument of those a committee and on a 
committee staff, who worked in a committee without a Member from the 
State affected by this amendment and who presume to know much more 
about the desires of the people of the State represented by Senator 
Murray and myself than they themselves do, and who continue to use 
language such as ``prospective'' and ``wide open'' and ``applicable to 
everyone.''
  Well, Mr. President, we have offered to make a specific reference to 
the revised code of Washington, if they want to make certain that this 
applies only to the State of Washington. They are not interested, 
because, of course, such an amendment would be useless. The description 
we have in here now is single State in nature. We have offered to put 
in ``continue to exercise flow control'' in this amendment, but they 
are not interested because they know that this is not a prospective 
amendment as it is.
  Mr. President, this requires the State to have had a law before the 
year 1990 and it requires the plans to have been in existence in 
particular communities before May 15, 1994. Now, what is prospective 
about that?
  These are existing plans. These are existing systems of facilities in 
one single State.
  Now, if the bill is dead because one single State is permitted to 
continue to do what it wishes to do, it is already dead by reason of 
the Vermont amendment last week, which is much more broad and is 
prospective and does allow that State to go forward with plans in the 
future.
  The answer, Mr. President, is that this is just something that this 
committee did not consider and does not want to consider now.
  Senator Murray and I are asking for the continuation of an existing 
system in various counties of our State which has resulted, I believe, 
in more recycling and less disposal of solid waste perhaps than any 
other State in the United States of America. That is all we are asking 
for.
  It is not prospective. It does not allow new counties and new 
communities even in our State who already had these ordinances and 
these obligations underway a year ago yesterday, May 15, 1994, to do so 
at some time in the future. It is State-specific and it is system 
facilities-specific. That is all there is to it. And there is no reason 
in the world for this amendment to be turned down.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not want to get into an argument with 
my good friend, the Senator from Washington. But the fact is, the 
committee very directly considered these points, contrary to the 
statement of the Senator from Washington. Second, contrary to the 
statement of the Senator from Washington, the amendment is prospective.
  He talks about a solid waste plan. Mr. President, a plan is so 
general. We are not talking about plans in this bill. We are talking 
about whether a specific flow control ordinance passed, and if a 
specific indebtedness was created. We are talking about a specific 
contract where people are obligated. That is what we are talking about.
  We are not talking about providing flow control authority if a State 
only has a solid waste plan. But that is what this amendment does. It 
would allow a State to use flow control if the State has a solid waste 
plan even if the State has not relied on flow control in the past. 
Washington only has only a general solid waste plan. If Washington was 
a lot more specific, and had relied on flow control in the past then 
Washington would be covered.
 The problem is Washington is not specific as a general plan, and that 
is why this is prospective.

  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Gorton, in 
being perplexed at the reasons for not accepting this amendment. I go 
back to the fact that my colleagues from Connecticut, Florida, 
Virginia, Delaware, and Vermont have come to the committee with 
specific concerns from their States that have been worked out to this 
point in this debate and in this bill. The concerns from Washington 
State are just as needy.
  I was in our State senate back in 1989 when we passed the Waste Not 
Washington Act. We were ahead of this country in how to deal with our 
waste management. It is a very effective piece of legislation. We do 
not want it undermined now by actions on this Senate floor.
  We have offered to the committee words that will deal with their 
concerns about being prospective. We have offered to put in language 
that makes it Washington State specific by referencing the Waste Not 
Washington Act. I assure my colleagues there is no intent to open 
loopholes. The intent is to allow the waste management in our State of 
Washington to work well, as it is currently doing.
  I invite any of my colleagues to my hometown of Seattle and to take a 
look at the curbside recycling program that exists there. We recycle 
everything. We put out our pop bottles. We put out our plastic. We put 
out our newspaper. We separate our paper into different colors. It is 
done on every street in the city of Seattle. We do not want to see it 
undermined. People are very proud of that program there.
  I think it is absolutely critical that this Senate does not go on 
record undermining a very progressive recycling program in the State of 
Washington. I assure you that I did not know the rest of the Nation was 
so far behind us until I moved here 2\1/2\ years ago, and my children 
said, ``What is with the garbage cans here that are so full?'' They 
could not believe what was not recycled here on this coast.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at this legislation, 
to allow Washington State to continue to be progressive, to be an 
example for the rest of the Nation, and to not undermine us by 
exempting us within the legislation that is before us. Our amendment 
very simply allows the State of Washington to continue doing what it is 
doing. I ask and encourage all of our colleagues to allow local control 
to exist on this very serious problem in my home State of Washington.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the opposition has expired.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators from Washington yield back 
their time?
  Mr. GORTON. Not quite yet. How much time is remaining to the Senator 
from Washington?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. I would like to speak for perhaps 2 of those minutes, Mr. 
President, I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, and then I think 
his motion will be in order.
  My colleague from Washington reminds me of my own experience. I, too, 
live in the city of Seattle. I hear a great deal about monopolies and 
competition and the like. I can assure my colleagues I pay much less 
for a much more efficient system at home than I do in the District of 
Columbia by a long shot.
  What we are saying is that if we had a plan that was in place a year 
ago on which there is a contract--not some amorphous future plan, Mr. 
President. The municipality not only had to have a plan a year ago; it 
had to obligate itself by a contract--it has to be undertaking this 
process right now. It has to be in place. It is not in the future. And 
it has to have cost money.
  Now, somehow or another we are criticized because some of our 
communities were wise enough and responsible enough to pay for these 
major facilities out of cash, that they did not have to bond, but for 
some reason or other to this committee that is a terrible thing.
  A responsible municipality which has paid for these facilities 
already cannot recover for them. Now, that is another part of the 
absurdity of this amendment. This is State specific, Mr. President. It 
is not prospective. It deals only with things that are already in 
place. And it is in pursuance of a system which has worked very well 
and very effectively and should be allowed to be 
[[Page S6709]] continued. It is not as broad as amendments which are 
already a part of this bill for other States.
  Mr. President, with the permission of the other Senator from 
Washington, I will yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and 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. 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1079) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my deep dismay 
over the defeat of the Murray-Gorton amendment.
  Frankly, it was my intention if the Murray-Gorton amendment were 
successful, to move an amendment which would be a slight change to take 
California's situation into consideration.
  I cannot help but note that there have been a number of specific 
amendments to deal with a number of States. Nine States have received 
some preferential treatment in this bill. For my State, and I speak for 
Senator Boxer, as well, California has a unique situation.
  We have a State law which mandates a 50-percent reduction in solid 
waste by the year 2000. How can a State do that if it does not have 
some flow control over its waste?
  Eight local governments in my State, based on last year's bill, made 
agreements and incurred debts totaling $125 million which are 
unaddressed by this bill. Those counties are very concerned.
  The California Association of Counties had asked that if the Gorton-
Murray amendment were successful, an amendment be introduced based on 
that amendment which would clarify certain gray areas in the bill. The 
gray areas are contracts and franchises that have been consummated 
after the grandfather date, but based on last year's bill.
  I very much regret that these issues are not taken into 
consideration, particularly by a Congress that is very concerned about 
States' rights.
  I, for one, and Senator Boxer as well, will have to vote against this 
bill, based on the fact that we believe our State is seriously 
disadvantaged by it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I gather from what the Senator said she, 
therefore, will not proceed with the amendment?
  We had a reserve amendment slot for the Senators from California, and 
I gather the Senators will not proceed on that.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I could have a couple of minutes to think about 
this I would appreciate it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1083

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Kempthorne, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. 
     Kempthorne, proposes an amendment numbered 1083.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be 
dispensed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 35, line 5, after the word ``agreements'', insert 
     the words, ``or permits authorizing receipt of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste''.
       One page 45, lines 15 and 16, after the word, ``tax'', 
     strike the words, ``assessed against or voluntarily''; on 
     lines 16 and 17, after the word, ``subdivision'', insert the 
     following: '', or to the extent that the amount of the 
     surcharge is offset by voluntarily agreed payments to a State 
     or its political subdivision''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment that has 
been cleared with the other side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
  We have reviewed this amendment and we find it acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. CHAFEE. All time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1083) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, here is the situation now.
  We have two more amendments that were provided for, and then we would 
hope be able to go to final passage. One is the Levin amendment and the 
other is the Domenici amendment. We are working on both of those.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Levin 
amendment is withdrawn and Senator Levin will not offer his amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right, that takes care of that.
  I received word that the Senator from California will withdraw the 
so-called Boxer amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is my 
understanding.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished managers of 
the bill are in the process of working on what may come next. While 
that is going on, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak in 
morning business. I assure the distinguished managers when they reach a 
point where they want to interrupt, I will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________