[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6714-S6722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in a minute or so, I am going to send an 
amendment to the desk. But so as to not waste time, let me take a few 
minutes to talk before it is submitted.
  First of all, I understand the managers of this bill want to get it 
finished today, and I gather the leader wants to do it quickly. I want 
to be cooperative. Essentially, I am not going to say a great deal, 
other than, first, I compliment Senator Kempthorne on language in this 
bill that I call commonsense language that relates to small and arid 
landfills. They are relieved of some very expensive monitoring, and I 
compliment the Senator for that.
  Second, I would like to go a little further, because I want to add a 
little more common sense. I think common sense, with reference to 
regulatory processes, was part of the last election. You do not hear me 
come to the floor trying to second-guess what the election was about. 
But I am convinced that as to people regulated, be it cities, counties, 
tiny communities, small business people, the election was about common 
sense.
  So I am going to send an amendment to the desk which would allow 
States to promulgate their own regulations with regard to small 
landfills, provided that those regulations are sufficient to protect 
human health and environment.
  In my amendment, small landfills are those which receive 20 tons or 
less of municipal waste per day based upon an annual average. Such 
landfills, as the occupant of the chair, the former Governor of a great 
State would know, serve very small communities. In my State of New 
Mexico alone there are 50 such small community landfills. Let me 
suggest that they are not next door to anything. Those landfills are 
out in a huge, huge open space surrounded, in most instances, by 
hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of unused land, public or private.
  So we are not talking about these small landfills in my 50 small 
communities as, per se, bothering anyone. The question is, are they 
safe? Do they protect the health and environment? Frankly, I believe 
that our States are sufficiently different, and that States ought to be 
able to determine the regulations that these small landfill operators, 
small communities, must comply with in order to meet the standards of 
our law. I believe States are totally capable of drafting the 
regulations for safe and healthy small landfills in rural America and 
in rural New Mexico.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these small 
landfills make up 50 percent of the total number of landfills and 
contribute only 2 percent in terms of the total cumulative waste--2 
percent.
  Now, I realize that some argue that EPA does give States flexibility 
with regard to landfill management, and I assume the managers might 
even say that they believe it has already been done. I also know, 
however, that my State's environment department has not experienced 
this purported flexibility on EPA's part.
  Frankly, I believe we ought to make it clear that the Environmental 
Protection Agency shall give this authority to the States to draw up 
their own regulations with reference to small community landfills so 
long as the regulation adequately protects human health and the 
environment. That is very simple.
  I have seen small communities attend meetings for 3 years in New 
Mexico. They are looking for a regional landfill, I say to Senator 
Smith, and they are going to meetings for 3 years, trying to figure out 
how to have this big regional landfill and how this little small town 
can buy into that. And it is not getting done yet. The little towns are 
worried about it, and they are out telling their 100 citizens, or 300, 
what they might have to pay, what they might have to do. And many of 
them are not even cities, as the occupant of the chair knows. They are 
villages. They are less than municipalities, many of them.
  So I believe common sense says as to those small, but very important, 
community landfills that we ought to make it mandatory that they can be 
operated pursuant to State regulations in terms of their adequacy.
  With that I yield the floor. I hope I have not taken too much time. I 
hope the managers will accept this amendment, and I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1092

     (Purpose: To revise guidelines and criteria for the Resource 
                     Conservation and Recovery Act)

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1092.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 69, line 22, strike ````.''
       On page 69, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following 
     new provision:
       ``(5) Further revisions of guidelines and criteria.--Not 
     later than April 9, 1997, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     revisions to the guidelines and criteria promulgated under 
     this subchapter to allow states to promulgate alternate 
     design, operating, landfill gas monitor, financial assurance, 
     and closure requirements for landfills which receive 20 tons 
     or less of municipal solid waste per day based on an annual 
     average, provided that such alternate requirements are 
     sufficient to protect human health and the environment.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to compliment the Senator from 
New Mexico. I think his amendment is helpful. I intend to support it. 
It provides additional flexibility for the States to more closely 
tailor their own individual problems. One-size-fits-all Federal 
regulations do not always work. Many times they do not work. I think 
the Senator has hit on an area here that improves the bill. It would be 
helpful, certainly, for very small communities in very remote areas, 
which we find everywhere in almost every State in the country.
  One area the Senator did not mention which would have a positive 
impact on his amendment is many rural areas used to burn their garbage, 
a lot of it. Of course, when it is burned and not buried, we do not 
have the methane buildup. So this would give those communities great 
flexibility because you do not need to monitor where you did not bury 
and you did burn.
  So I think that is another dimension which is really attractive and, 
frankly, the main reason I support this amendment.
  So this Senator will be voting for the amendment, and I congratulate 
the Senator on his amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is attempting 
to address the concerns of small communities, a concern which we all 
share. Under the bill before us, and according to pursuant regulations, 
generally the State of New Mexico can already now do what this 
amendment asks EPA in to do. That is quite clear.
  The Senator from New Mexico thinks there is some ambiguity, and I 
respect the Senator's view there might be some ambiguity, although we 
checked with the EPA and checked the regulations and today they can do 
already what New Mexico wants to do.
  I am in a bit of an awkward position because the State of Montana, 
frankly, sent me a letter expressing their reservations about this 
amendment. Their reservations generally revolve around the following 
point; namely, that when the landfill regulations went into effect in 
1991, States acted pursuant to these regulations. And under these 
regulations virtually all authority was 
[[Page S6715]] delegated to the States--43 States have approved plans, 
the State of Montana is one, the State of New Mexico is another--and 
they began to plan.
  One of the goals under each of the State plans is to not only be sure 
small, local communities are able to develop their landfills in a 
commonsense way, but also to consolidate landfills where, in the 
opinion of the State, it makes sense.
  So the State of Montana is saying this is probably not a great 
problem, this amendment. However it is changing horses in the middle of 
the stream. It has the effect of changing regulations after 1991. The 
State of Montana is doing fine with the 1991 regulations, and they are 
also working with some communities, small communities, to keep their 
landfills open but consolidating other landfills because you need 
volume to make landfills economically feasible. This amendment might 
have the effect of disrupting those States' efforts to try to get some 
consolidation.
  It is not a major point. I do not mean to raise it in any serious 
degree, but it is a consideration I think all States have when they are 
adopting their plans. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on the Domenici amendment there appears to 
be no further debate. I support the amendment and also want to say the 
views of the Senator from Montana were certainly worthy of 
consideration. We are ready to go forward with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator 
Kempthorne and Senator Smith be shown as original cosponsors of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the floor managers. With regard to the 
ambiguity as to whether States are currently given adequate flexiblity 
over their regulation of small landfills, I might say to my friend from 
Montana we received a call the day before yesterday from New Mexico's 
environmental department asking us to do this. They, and I, are still 
convinced that this amendment will help States with their small 
landfill problems. But I very much appreciate clarifying this, and I 
thank my friend for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? All the time has 
been yielded back.
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1092) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
                           states' authority

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
to clarify the meaning of language contained in title I of S. 534, 
regarding the Governors' authority to ban interstate waste shipments. 
Section 4011(a)(4)(A) limits that authority when its exercise would 
``result in a violation of, or would otherwise be inconsistent with, 
the terms of a host community agreement or a permit issued from the 
State to receive out-or-State municipal solid waste.''
  During the committee markup on this title, the chairman of the 
committee and I engaged in a colloquy in the business meeting of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee on March 23, 1995, regarding the 
meaning of this provision in the case of a host community agreement 
that contains no tonnage limitation. The chairman agreed with me that 
where there is no specified tonnage amount in a host community 
agreement, a Governor's ban of interstate waste shipments to a facility 
covered by such an agreement would be in violation, or inconsistent 
with, the terms of the host community agreement.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the 
committee whether this colloquy still reflects the committee's 
understanding about how the 4011(a)(4)(A) limitation should be 
interpreted when a host community agreement contains no specified 
tonnage amount?
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Idaho is correct. Where a host community 
agreement contains no specified tonnage, a Governor's use of his 
authority to ban interstate waste shipments would be in violation of, 
or inconsistent with, the terms of the host community agreement.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If a Governor imposes a cap at 1993 tonnage levels on 
waste received, affecting a facility with a host community agreement 
that does not have a tonnage limitation, would the cap be considered to 
be inconsistent with the host community agreement?
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct, a cap would be inconsistent with 
such an agreement.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Does the provision, as interpreted, apply only 
prospectively, or is it intended to cover host community agreements 
entered into, or permits issued by a State, both before and after 
enactment of section 4011?
  Mr. CHAFEE. The provision applies both retroactively and 
prospectively to those host community agreements that were in effect 
before and after the date of enactment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Has anything happened during the course of this floor 
debate on the bill to change this understanding as to the 
interpretation of this provision, section 4011(a)(4)(A)?
  Mr. CHAFEE. No. But it is this Senator's view that this colloquy 
confirming our understanding of section 4011(a)(4)(A), as previously 
set forth in the committee business meeting, does not apply to 
amendment 1077, an amendment that was offered by Senator Coats and only 
affects the State of Indiana.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SIMPSON. We are once again trying to pass legislation dealing 
with the export of solid waste from one State to another. This issue 
has become a concern because some of the large Northeastern States have 
been shipping large amounts of garbage to States such as Indiana, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia for disposal. This waste is being exported 
in part because the cost of disposing of this waste in another State, 
even after figuring in shipping costs, is less than the cost of 
disposal in the home State.
  We find that high population States such as New Jersey and New York 
have been running short of landfill capacity. That has been caused by a 
shortage of usable land and more importantly because State and local 
governments have not been building new landfill capacity or new 
incinerators. Local citizens in these area have opposed such efforts. 
This is a classic example of the ``not in my back yard'' or ``NIMBY'' 
principle. The citizens in States generating the waste oppose the 
construction of new incinerators. With proper environmental controls 
incinerators may be one of the best methods of disposal. Heat energy 
can be recovered from burning trash and we do not end up with the huge 
volume that must be buried in a landfill. Without local disposal 
options the next option becomes shipping trash somewhere else and 
disposing of it in a neighbors back yard. Now the folks who have been 
receiving trash from out of State are finding their landfill capacity 
being used up by citizens who live hundreds of miles away. They are 
saying ``not in my backyard either'' and I can understand their 
frustration.
  The people of Wyoming do not want trash being brought in from other 
States in large quantities because others will not make the tough 
political decisions needed to expand landfill capacity or to build 
incinerators. Wyoming is the largest coal producing State in the 
Nation. We have large open pit coal mines. We had a proposal floating 
around in my State at one time to bring empty coal train cars back into 
the State loaded with garbage to be dumped in the old open pit mines. 
Someone thought that was a marvelous idea. The people of Wyoming did 
not think it was a marvelous idea though. There was a hue and cry 
across the land when that trial balloon was floated. The opposition to 
this proposal was vocal and near unanimous. So I am pleased that we are 
granting Governors authority to limit the importation of waste from out 
of State. I understand the issue with the commerce clause. But we do 
need to ensure 
[[Page S6716]] that some States will not just take the easy way out and 
send their problems down the road to someone else. This is not about 
interstate commerce--this is about States and counties failing to face 
up to their own problems and responsibilities.
  We see some of the same issue when dealing with low level nuclear 
waste. We have set up a system of compacts where States join together 
and make group decisions about where to locate low level waste disposal 
sites. Every State generates low level waste and it must be disposed of 
in a thoughtful manner. But the State compact system does not work well 
for interstate trash because there are just a few States with huge 
volumes of waste and no place to put it. So we are letting individual 
States limit or accept out of State waste as they see fit.
  I trust that this legislation will ensure that the exporting States 
will take a more constructive approach to this problem in the future. 
Citizens of every State must recognize that as consumers they are 
responsible for the waste they generate and they must bite the bullet 
and deal with it locally.
  I trust we can get this bill through conference and to the President 
in a timely fashion. We came very close last year to getting it done 
but the bill died the last day of the session. Senator Chafee and 
Senator Smith have done yeoman work on this bill and I commend them for 
their efforts and I look forward to the passage of this important 
legislation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill, S. 534, as 
amended.
  Let me first thank Senator Chafee, the chairman of the full 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Smith, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, for their assistance to Senator Cohen and me on 
several amendments of great importance to the people of Maine. We 
offered three amendments to this bill, and all of them have been 
accepted, for which I am very grateful. The amendments relate to put-
or-pay contracts, the term ``original facility'' on page 58 of the 
bill, and to the ``substantial construction'' requirement on page 56.
  I would also like to thank the ranking members of the full committee 
and the subcommittee, Senator Baucus and Senator Lautenberg, for their 
cooperation and acceptance of our amendments.
  And finally, I would like to thank my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Cohen, for working with me on these amendments on behalf of the State 
of Maine.
  Mr. President, Maine has had a keen interest in the issue of flow 
control since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in C&A Carbone, 
Inc. versus Town of Clarkstown, New York almost 1 year ago today, on 
May 15, 1994. That ruling, which invalidated municipal solid waste flow 
control ordinances across the country, threatened to unravel the 
painstakingly crafted waste management systems of local governments in 
Maine and many other States. Over 200 municipalities in my State made 
expensive investments in modern waste-to-energy facilities based on the 
assumption that flow control authority would be available to them. As a 
result of the Carbone decision, they now fear for their future 
financial well-being.
  S. 534 focuses primarily on municipalities that issued bonds to pay 
for the construction and operation of designated waste management 
facilities like waste-to-energy plants. These municipalities relied on 
flow control ordinances to meet their financial obligations and to 
repay the bonds. The bill contains a grandfather provision that allows 
these communities to continue using flow control as long as they 
enacted their original flow control ordinances and designated their 
waste management facilities before May 15, 1994.
  At first glance, the bill's grandfather provision would appear to 
protect the communities associated with the Regional Waste Systems 
waste-to-energy plant in Portland, ME, and the Mid-Maine Waste Action 
Corp. plant in Auburn, ME. These
 municipalities banded together in the 1980's to construct the 
facilities, and they issued bonds to pay for that construction. Flow 
control ordinances were enacted to guarantee delivery of sufficient 
amounts of waste to the facilities. But separate provisions in the bill 
would unintentionally and unfairly exclude many of these communities, 
and Senator Cohen and I offered amendments to rectify these problems.

  The first problem relates to the bill's use of the term ``original 
facility'' when it defines the duration of the flow control authority 
available to qualified political subdivisions in the future. Title II, 
subsection (b)(4)(C) allows qualified municipalities to continue using 
flow control through the end of the remaining useful life of the 
original waste management facilities that had been designated. The 
problem with the term ``original facility'' is that it could be 
interpreted to exclude facilities that had been the subject of the 
original designation by a group of municipalities, but that had also 
been overhauled prior to the Carbone decision.
  The MMWAC facility in Auburn, ME, is one facility that could have 
been unintentionally excluded from S. 534's grandfather provisions by 
this language. Due to significant deficiencies, the MMWAC plant, which 
had been constructed in 1988, was temporarily shut down in 1990, and 
subsequently overhauled. The plant resumed operations in 1992, and it 
has functioned well since that time. Under the original language of the 
bill, a party could have argued that because of the renovations, MMWAC 
could not be considered an original facility, and therefore flow 
control would not be available to its member municipalities through the 
plant's remaining useful life.
  The amendment that I offered with Senator Cohen, and which has been 
accepted, deletes the word ``original,'' and ensures that 
municipalities whose designated waste management facilities were in 
operation as of May 15, 1994, will be able to continue using flow 
control through the remaining useful life of the facility.
  Another problem in S. 534 relates to the `substantial construction'' 
requirement found in title II, subsection (b)(1)(B). This provision 
States that qualified municipalities would only be able to use flow 
control if the ordinance or legally binding provision in existence 
before Carbone had been enacted or signed before ``substantial 
construction'' of the designated facility had been completed. 
Unfortunately, more than 61 municipalities in Maine had enacted flow 
control ordinances or legally binding provisions after the substantial 
construction of their designated facilities had been completed.
  Even more problematic, this provision requires the ``substantial 
contruction'' to have been completed after the ``effective date'' of 
the ordinance or provision, rather than the date of enactment. As a 
result of this language, most of the municipalities in Maine that would 
otherwise qualify for S. 534's grandfather provision would be denied 
the bill's protection. Municipalities in Tennessee, Michigan, and other 
States would be similarly affected.
  In recognition of the unintentional problems that this language poses 
for so many otherwise qualified municipalities, I joined Senators 
Cohen, Smith, and Thompson in offering an amendment to strike this 
language. As I noted earlier, that amendment has been accepted by the 
managers of the bill.
  The last amendment that Senator Cohen and I offered relates to put-
or-pay contracts. Municipalities that signed put-or-pay contracts with 
designated facilities prior to Carbone, but that did not enact flow 
control ordinances before that date, do not qualify for flow control 
authority in S. 534 as written. Under a put-or-pay contract, a 
municipality agrees to deliver a specified amount of waste to the 
designated waste management facility every month. If the muncipality 
cannot deliver the required amount of waste, then it must pay the 
facility for the waste that was not delivered.
  In Maine, 160 communities in the sparsely populated central, eastern, 
and northern parts of the State determined that the put-or-pay approach 
was the best one for them, and they signed contracts with the Penobscot 
Energy Recovery Corp. [PERC] in Orrington, a $100 million waste-to-
energy plant.
  These cities and towns signed long-term contracts with PERC in 
response to the same policy signals from the Federal and State 
governments as communities that actually issued bonds to pay for 
municipally-owned facilities. The difference is that the PERC towns 
chose a somewhat different route. They 
[[Page S6717]] decided to sign put-or-pay contracts with a privately 
owned waste-to-energy plant that was created in response to a request 
for proposals from these communities.
  The original contracts, which were 30-years long and set a tipping 
fee at $10 a ton, were signed in 1988. Due to financial difficulties 
that threatened the plant in 1989, however, the contracts were 
renegotiated.
  The new contracts increased the tipping fee fourfold, to $42 a ton. 
The municipalities agreed to sacrifice in the short-term and pay such a 
large fee increase for two reasons: to finance essential capital 
improvements to the plant to help it run more efficiently; and to 
ensure a stable tipping fee over the life of the contract.
  In addition, the new contracts not only required each municipality to 
deliver a specified amount of waste, but they included a kind of 
aggregate put-or-pay provision which allows the PERC facility to void 
the existing contracts if the total amount of waste from all member 
communities declines below a specified minimum tonnage. Finally, the 
new contracts provided that the cities and towns that signed would 
receive 50 percent of any distributable profits earned by the plant.
  After signing the contracts, some of the larger cities in this region 
of Maine like Waterville, and Bangor--cities that have a council form 
of government--enacted flow control ordinances to ensure that they 
could deliver the minimum amount of waste specified in the contract. 
But most of the 160 towns are very small, and they rely on town 
meetings for public decisionmaking. As anyone familiar with the town 
meeting form of government knows, the meetings are held infrequently, 
and the towns generally do not vote on measures unless they must be 
addressed at that particular time.
  Consequently, after signing the put-or-pay contracts, a lot of the 
Maine towns deferred passage of flow control ordinances in the hope 
that they could deliver the required amount of waste without having to 
go through the process of formally enacting a flow control ordinance. 
But these towns always believed that, if necessary, they could resort 
to flow control to guarantee delivery of the amount of waste specified 
in their contracts. If they had known that flow control would not be an 
option, most, if not all, of them would not have signed these 
contracts. The Carbone decision eliminated the flow control option, 
changing the rules in the middle of the game, and leaving these 
communities vulnerable to significant financial hardship if they being 
to have trouble delivering the amount of waste required in their 
contracts.
  Without flow control, these towns may not only find it more difficult 
to meet their individual contractual obligations, however. They could 
fail to meet their aggregate tonnage requirements as well, giving 
PERC's owners the right to void all 160 of the contracts and to 
initiate a new round of negotiations.
  The current contract provide stable tipping fees and terms for the 
member municipalities. And it allows them to receive half the profits 
generated by the facility--which is only reasonable since the 
communities have paid for necessary capital improvements through the 
higher tipping fees negotiated in 1989 and 1990.
  These cities and towns cannot afford to lose this arrangement. 
Because they are dispersed across a large, rural region, and because 
nearly all of the local landfills have had to close due to Federal and 
State mandates, the PERC waste-to-energy plant is the only real waste 
disposal option for most of the 160 towns. Under a renegotiation, these 
towns, tucked away in the far northeastern corner of the United States, 
will find themselves facing what amounts to a waste disposal monopoly.
  Needless to say, in such a weak negotiating position, the towns could 
see their waste disposal costs rise sharply, despite having already 
invested so much money to make the plant viable.
 And they could lose the opportunity to get a return on the substantial 
investment that they made in this facility through the higher tipping 
fees negotiated in 1990.

  Mr. President, this elaborate but workable waste disposal system for 
central, northern, and eastern Maine was predicated on the 
understanding that flow control would be available to all participating 
communities. Since flow control was overturned by Carbone, the 
communities of the region have been placed in a very vulnerable 
position, one which they would not have placed themselves in had flow 
control not been an option.
  In order to avoid substantial financial hardship in the future, put-
or-pay communities that signed contracts before Carbone must retain the 
authority to enact flow control ordinances if they need to. The net 
effect of the Carbone decision on these communities is not dramatically 
different from the decision's effect on other communities that actually 
issued bonds for their own facilities. In both cases, a court decision 
leaves the communities dangerously exposed to financial hardship. In 
both cases, the communities designed new waste systems in response to 
Federal and State policies that encouraged them to do so. And in both 
cases, the systems were predicated on access to flow control. 
Considering these similarities, the put-or-pay communities do not 
deserve to be treated differently and excluded from the flow control 
grandfather in S. 534.
  The amendment offered by Senator Cohen and I simply clarifies that 
the term ``legally binding provision'' in title II, subsection (b) of 
the bill, includes put-or-pay agreements of the kind negotiated in 
Maine. As a result of this clarification, the municipalities that have 
contracted with the PERC facility will continue to have access to flow 
control, and their intricate but successful waste management system 
will remain intact. I am very pleased that the managers of the bill 
agreed to accept this important amendment.
  Mr. President, with these amendments, S. 534 treats all deserving 
municipalities equitably, without creating loopholes for other 
municipalities that did not rely on flow control before the Carbone 
decision. The bill as amended restores fairness for local governments 
that acted and invested in good faith, according to the rules that 
existed before May 15, 1994,
  Senators Chafee, Smith, Baucus,  and Lautenberg deserve credit for 
crafting a reasonable and balanced compromise bill, and I am happy to 
announce my support for it.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, over the past several years the Senate has 
discussed the issue of interstate trash and has passed two interstate 
trash bills. The provisions contained within those bills were the 
result of significant efforts and provided authorization for an 
integrated approach to interstate trash control. The bill before us 
today accomplishes similar goals, but also addresses flow control and 
reinstates the ground water monitoring exemption for small landfills.
  I commend the efforts of Senator Coats who has worked so hard for the 
past several years to pass such a bill. Senator Chafee, Senator Smith, 
and others have all worked extensively on this legislation. I believe 
the authority granted to Governors provides the right flexibility, with 
local community participation being an important part of this 
legislation. While I remain concerned about long term implications of 
the flow control provisions, I believe the committee sought to achieve 
a balance that provides security for existing flow control authorities 
while providing for a competitive marketplace in the future.
  Public and private authorities need to work together in a free market 
system to address waste management concerns. Congress should only work 
to assist these decisions, not impede sound environment practices, by 
providing flexibility to State and local governments to their waste 
management needs.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of passage of the 
Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. 
Although I support more stringent restrictions on waste imports, I 
believe that this legislation is a necessary tool for Ohio and other 
importing States for implementation of their solid waste management 
plans.
  The accumulation of solid waste in municipal landfills is one of the 
most urgent and fundamental environmental problems facing Federal, 
State, and local officials today. According to the Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency [OEPA], all the landfills in Ohio 
[[Page S6718]] could be full by the year 2000. For several years, I 
have supported and voted for measures to stem the tide of interstate 
waste, and I commend my colleague, Senator Coats, for his perseverance 
on this important issue. In 1992, I voted for the Interstate 
Transportation of Municipal Waste Act which passed the Senate on a vote 
of 89-2. In 1993, I was an original cosponsor of legislation to 
restrict imported waste. I am pleased that the Senate is again acting 
to address this issue, and it is my hope that this year these 
restrictions will be enacted into law.
  Mr. President, Ohio currently receives about 1.7 million tons of 
municipal solid waste annually from other States. As old landfills are 
closed or reach capacity, Ohio has reached the point where 28 of the 88 
counties have no landfill, and 35 have 5 years or less capacity 
remaining. Clearly, my State cannot implement its environmental 
objectives and deal with thousands of tons of imported trash at the 
same time.
  The increasing flood of waste imports from out-of-State is a serious 
threat to the health and safety of Ohioans and to the environment in my 
State and the other States that receive vast quantities of imported 
waste. Ohio has taken strong and effective actions to reduce its waste 
generation and to recycle waste. However, my State's efforts are being 
overwhelmed by trash from other States.
  Mr. President, this bill takes several steps that will reduce the 
amount of out-of-State waste coming into Ohio and other States. The 
bill will allow Governors to immediately freeze out-of-State waste at 
1993 levels at facilities that received imported waste in 1993. In 
addition, the bill contains strengthened authority to impose an import 
control, or ratchet, on out-of-State waste. I worked with my colleagues 
from the other largest importing States--Michigan, Pennsylvania, and 
Indiana--to make this ratchet more effective by placing tougher 
limitations on waste exports.
  This legislation also contains provisions to restore local authority 
to control the flow of municipal solid waste. Many county commissioners 
and solid waste district managers have expressed concerns to me about 
the need for flow control authority to enforce solid waste planning 
goals as well as recycling mandates. Although this bill does not 
accommodate each individual situation in Ohio, it is a strong statement 
about the necessity of local flow control authority, and I will 
continue to work through the House-Senate Conference to ensure that 
Ohio's specific needs are met.
  Mr. President, a national solution to the problem of interstate waste 
is long overdue. We must act decisively, and we must act now to avert a 
national crisis in solid waste disposal. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate is about to pass S. 534, the 
Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. I am 
pleased that the Senate is moving early in this session toward 
resolving this important matter.
  This bill is a positive step in the right direction. It has been much 
improved during the amendment process on the floor, particularly with 
respect to the provisions on flow control authority. The bill now more 
clearly provides counties in Michigan with the ability to protect 
investments they have made in recycling and waste reduction programs, 
or disposal facilities, using their previously existing authority to 
control the out-flow of municipal solid waste and recyclables from 
their jurisdiction.
  Several amendments, in particular, should alleviate local government 
concerns about the effects of the Supreme Court's Carbone decision. 
These amendments provide the Grand Traverse, Clinton, and other 
Michigan counties, should be able to continue to use flow control to 
generate revenue to fund waste management programs, including 
recycling. And, Kent County, MI, is more clearly grandfathered to 
continue to exercise its flow control authority.
  The bill also provides States and local governments with the ability 
to control the importation of municipal solid waste into their 
jurisdiction. At the request of local governments, Governors would be 
able to half the shipment of waste to disposal facilities in their 
States that did not receive out-of-State waste in 1993. Governors will 
be able to freeze shipments of waste to landfills and incinerators at 
1993 levels. And, Governors would also be authorized to gradually limit 
imports of waste from States that did not reduce the amounts of waste 
they exported.
  I offered an amendment to clarify that the definition of ``out-of-
State municipal solid waste'' should include out-of-country waste, 
because of Michigan's experience with Canadian waste. I also supported 
another amendment that authorized the EPA to conduct a study of solid 
waste management issues associated with increased border movement of 
waste due to NAFTA.
  Mr. President, I would prefer that the Senate's's bill include a 
requirement that halted all waste imports until such time as a host 
community agreement could be negotiated between a local government and 
a waste exporter. Such an agreement would specify the quantities out-
of-State municipal solid waste that would be acceptable to the local 
government for disposal in their jurisdiction.
  Also, construction and demolition debris has been a problem at 
Michigan disposal facilities for some time. I would hope that the 
conferees could find a way to include this waste in the definition of 
municipal solid waste or otherwise provide local governments with some 
measure of control over its disposal. I cosponsored Senator DeWine's 
amendment to do this, but the amendment was ultimately not offered 
because of the threat of a filibuster for States that export large 
quantities of this waste.
  Michigan is a net importer of municipal solid waste [MSW]. We receive 
MSW from sources all over the country and Canada. For many years, 
Michigan had a model comprehensive solid waste management and planning 
system that provided for long-term local waste disposal needs. Starting 
with the Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill case in 1992 and subsequent 
Supreme Court decisions, this system was thrown into disarray. These 
decisions jeopardized good-faith investments made by State and local 
governments in programs and facilities to manage municipal waste in an 
environmentally sound, cost-effective manner.
  Congress should act quickly and explicitly to put municipal solid 
waste disposal decisions back into the hands of the people most 
directly affected by them and best suited to make them--the taxpayers 
of the municipalities that generate the waste and the States.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support for the passage 
of S. 534, the Interstate Transportation of Solid Waste Act of 1995. 
This legislation is long overdue. For too long States like Kentucky 
have been forced to deal with the uncontrollable flows of out-of-State 
waste. I do not need to remind my colleagues of the garbage barge in 
1987 that sailed up and down the east coast looking for a place to 
deposit its foul load. It came to symbolize our Nation's burgeoning 
solid waste problem.
  Since then, States and communities have attempted to manage their own 
waste flows, but were helpless to stop the flow of out-of-State waste. 
For the past 6 years, I have worked to provide States the authority to 
control the waste being sent to their State. Finally, we have a bill 
that allows States to say no to out-of-State trash.
  It is particularly troubling to think that there are States and 
localities that have either been unwilling or unable to dispose of 
their own garbage in a responsible manner, forcing it on States like 
Kentucky. The disposal of garbage is truly a local concern and should 
be handled that way. I do not believe States should be forced to share 
valuable landfill space with out-of-State waste they do not want.
  Gone are the days of open dumps and multitudes of cheap landfills. in 
1996, new landfill standards will be implemented mandating liners, 
leachate collection and treatment and ground water monitoring. The EPA 
has estimated that nearly half of the Nation's 6,000 landfills will be 
closed. This will obviously force many States to rethink their disposal 
needs. Therefore, it is critical that States are provided the authority 
to control out-of-State garbage.
  [[Page S6719]] Last week, I offered an amendment that was accepted to 
protect the authority of States and regional authorities to develop and 
implement comprehensive waste reduction strategies in an effort to 
conserve costly landfill space.
  For the past 6 years, I have worked hard to ensure that States and 
localities are given the discretion to manage their own waste and to 
protect themselves from becoming a dumping ground for those States that 
take the position of ``out of State, out of mind.'' I refuse to allow 
Kentucky to become a garbage colony.
  In 1990, I introduced S. 2691, a bill to give States the ability to 
fight long-haul dumping by charging higher fees for disposal of waste 
coming from other States. This bill passed the Senate with 68 votes.
  During the 102d Congress, I introduced S. 197 to once again provide 
States the authority to impose a fee differential for out-of-State 
waste. In 1992, Senator Coats and I joined forced and produced 
comprehensive legislation to provide States the authority to regulate 
waste. That same year, the Senate passed an interstate waste bill by an 
overwhelming vote of 88-2. Unfortunately, the bill died in the House.
  During the 103d Congress, I joined with Senators Coats and Boren in 
introducing S. 439. Although the Senate didn't act until late in the 
session, Congress came extremely close to passing an interstate waste 
bill. Again, the House stalled long enough to effectively kill the bill 
on the last day of the session.
  I am encouraged by the quick action taken by the committee under the 
leadership of Senator Smith and the chairman, Senator Chafee to address 
the problem of interstate waste. I am hopeful that the House will work 
expeditiously to pass their own interstate waste bill so that we can 
finally give States the authority to control out-of-State waste and 
protect their own landfill space.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, for the third time, the Senate is 
attempting to resolve the many difficult issues that are involved with 
municipal solid waste flows. For the third time in the last 6 years, I 
have worked with my colleague on the Environment Committee, Senator 
Lautenberg, to defend our home State of New Jersey and the many ways in 
which we handle, recycle, or dispose of the tons of municipal solid 
waste produced every year.
  Last Congress, we were within a single vote of resolving this issue. 
All of the relevant parties hammered out a bill that was as fair as it 
could be to those States that are called waste exporters and those 
States that are waste importers--actually, most states are both. It 
responded to the needs of States that tried to manage solid waste flows 
within their boundaries. It tried to balance the contradictory impulses 
to create a more competitive waste market or to impose more 
restrictions on waste flow.
  It was not a great bill. But it was a pretty fair bill. And it was as 
least reasonably consistent. When the bill now before us was first 
reported to the Senate floor, it was a poor facsimile of last year's 
effort. Yet, fortunately, the bill's managers were willing to work with 
Senator Lautenberg, State officials, and myself to guarantee New Jersey 
the security we needed to move forward on this most contentious issue.
  Mr. President, this is not the easiest bill to support. Title I of 
this bill will be restrictive of interstate trade. It will give 
Governors and citizens the real ability to slow and ultimately stop the 
flow of municipal solid waste from State to State. Fundamentally, these 
actions are anticompetitive. They will result in more expensive waste 
disposal for many Americans and American businesses.
  Title II, however, has quite a different purpose. Title II responds 
to recent legal decisions that, if left standing, would greatly reduce 
the ability of a State to manage waste flows within its own borders. 
Because of this title II, as modified on the Senate floor, New Jersey 
will be able to continue its efforts to control and reduce the 
municipal waste flow.
  For years, many States have anticipated the need to manage internally 
waste flows, exactly because of the pressures for and against exports, 
as well as environmental concerns. In my State, we started very early 
to close inadequate landfills and waste facilities. Early on, we 
realized that to do the job of waste disposal right was neither cheap 
nor easy. New Jersey responded
 with State law setting up a broad program of environmentally 
progressive waste facilities.

  These facilities were not and are not cheap. Many counties in my 
State were essentially compelled to build facilities that they 
probably--or certainly--would not have built otherwise. Now these 
counties depend on mandated trash flows for revenue. Unfortunately, 
without some legislative redress, these revenues are at risk for many 
facilities. Additionally, the potential financial collapse of 
authorized waste facilities would certainly make it far less likely--
perhaps exceedingly unlikely--that my State ever develops a truly 
comprehensive waste management plan again.
  I have heard the arguments that, in a world of competition, we do not 
need to allow States flow-control authority. Trash would end up in the 
lowest cost facilities that meet the appropriate environmental 
requirements. Consumers and businesses would save money and the 
environment could be protected in this world. But title I obliterates 
any hope of truly competitive markets in solid waste. Once title I is 
adopted, trash is transformed from an issue of commerce to an issue of 
baldfaced politics. In such a world, my State has to have effective 
flow-control authority and that authority is provided in title II of 
this bill.
  In the best of all worlds, frankly, we probably would not be passing 
any bill. We would simply recognize that trash represents goods in 
commerce; that a bag of potato chips which moves freely from State to 
State is not mysteriously transformed once the chips are eaten. But all 
of my experience dealing with the interstate waste issue confirms to me 
that we are not living in that world now. I have seen political 
commercials run attacking my State. I have seen demagoguery. And I have 
seen efforts that were far more restrictive of interstate waste flows 
pass this body with overwhelming support.
  Mr. President, I have come to conclude that this bill does protect my 
State and will give us the flexibility we need to resolve these waste 
flow issues. To be truthful, I am not wild about this bill. However, it 
can be the basis for a resolution of this matter and it is a compromise 
that I will support, notwithstanding my obvious reservations.
                   flow control and interstate waste

  Mrs. BOXER. I voted against final passage of S. 534, which amends the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act, because the final bill does not adequately 
address the needs of many California cities and counties which have 
incurred debt to achieve California's ambitious integrated waste 
management requirements.
  From the beginning, I have had concerns about the impact of this bill 
on California. California requires its communities to meet stringent 
recycling and waste reduction goals--a 25-percent reduction by the 
beginning of this year and 50 percent by the turn of the century. To 
meet these goals, California communities must aggressively manage their 
municipal solid waste.
  However, California communities do not use statutory flow control 
authority, as do communities in many other States. Instead, California 
communities rely on contracts with private companies to ensure that 
their waste goes to a designated recycling plant or other facility. 
Consequently, the California League of Cities and the California State 
Association of Counties asked me to try to amend the bill to ensure 
that it would not restrict their ability to employ these contractual 
agreements.
  I worked with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and with Senator Feinstein in the full Senate, to try to 
amend the bill to address the needs of California cities and counties. 
Unfortunately, our efforts failed. I understand that the bill moving 
through the House of Representatives may be more favorable to interests 
of California cities and counties. If that is the case, and this bill 
is amended in conference to address some of my concerns, I will 
reconsider my position when the Senate votes on a conference report.

[[Page S6720]]

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to offer my support for S. 534, 
as amended, and to discuss the importance of flow control to the State 
of Connecticut.
  I want to thank the chairman, Senator Chafee, and ranking member, 
Senator Baucus, of the Environment and Public Works Committee for 
moving forward with this important legislation.
  The bill, as crafted by Senators Smith and Chafee, was much narrower 
than the compromise legislation agreed to at the end of the 103d 
Congress. The bill before us today, S. 534, seeks to protect only 
public debt incurred by municipalities to construct waste disposal 
facilities. Flow control authority would apply to those communities 
that were operating or constructing their own disposal facilities, or 
had contracted for such disposal prior to the May 1994, Carbone 
decision. There is to be absolutely no prospective flow control--flow 
control authority would cease 30 years after enactment of the 
legislation.
  Unfortunately not all Connecticut mnnicipalities and public service 
authorities were protected by the original language in S. 534. 
Therefore, Senator Lieberman and I offered amendments at the committee 
markup and on the floor of this body. The Senate agreed to our 
amendments which contained technical changes and small provisions 
intended to address situations unique to Connecticut.
  It is my belief that State and local governments and State-created 
entities have a vested interest in how solid waste produced within 
their borders is transported and disposed. Flow control is the backbone 
of Connecticut's integrated waste management plan. Localities made 
significant capital investments to construct waste disposal facilities. 
Approximately 86 percent of Connecticut's waste is disposed of in these 
state-of-the-art facilities. The State, and ultimately the taxpayers, 
are backing nearly $500 million in bonds that were used to finance the 
construction of regional waste disposal centers and recycling transfer 
stations. Profits from the facilities, used to pay off the bonds, were 
to be ensured by flow control authority. Without the ability to direct 
waste to appropriate facilities, these revenue bonds would be in 
jeopardy.
  Again, I thank the managers of this bill for working with staff to 
understand and incorporate the needs of individual States. If this 
legislation passes today, I am confident that Connecticut 
municipalities and localities around the Nation will be able to 
administer their solid waste management systems in environmentally 
sound and fiscally responsible manners. Therefore, I hope my fellow 
Senators will support this bill and I urge the House of Representatives 
to take up this measure in a timely manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee 
substitute.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might inquire of the Chair as to what 
vote it would be proper to request the yeas and nays on. At what stage 
in what vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On final passage.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the committee substitute is 
agreed to.
  So the committee substitute was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Indiana will be 
here in a few minutes and would like to make a statement on the bill. 
That would be the only business in connection with this legislation.
  So I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 2:15 today, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on final passage of S. 534, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  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. 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their work on this bill. 
The Senate has been grappling with these issues for several years. They 
are very contentious. They are very arcane. They are hard to understand 
and in many respects they are totally confusing.
  But, nonetheless, I believe we came out with a bill that is balanced 
on the interstate portion of the bill. The bill in effect is divided 
into three sections, the first being the interstate part. It is very 
difficult balancing the views of the importing States, those who have 
garbage shipped into them, and those who are the exporting States who 
do not want to be cut from exporting their trash. We tried to wrestle 
with that. I hope and I believe we have been successful.
  I hope that the package we put together will resolve many of the 
differences that have prevented a solution to the interstate waste.
  The flow control dilemma has been a separate one. We have had several 
votes in connection with that, not leaving everybody happy, but 
hopefully this will resolve itself in the months and years to come.
  I want to thank the staffs of Senator D'Amato and Senator Coats who 
labored hard to develop the compromise on title I, the interstate 
portion of the bill. I would like to thank Jim McCarthy of the 
Congressional Research Service, George Hall of the EPA, and Tim Trushel 
of the Senate Legislative Counsel's office for their work in 
facilitating passage.
  On our side of the aisle, the staff, I want to thank John Grzebian 
and Steve Shimberg, and Jeff Merrifield who worked so hard on this.
  Senator D'Amato's office, Peter Phipps; Senator Coats' office, Sharon 
Soderstrom and Melissa Murrell.
  Of course, we are deeply indebted for the splendid work of the 
ranking member of the committee, the senior Senator from Montana who 
has always been helpful and knowledgeable on these difficult issues. I 
want to pay my respects to him for the splendid work he has done, and 
to Cliff Rothenstein and Tom Sliter and Scott Slesinger also.
  So, Mr. President, we are winding up a long and contentious period. 
If all goes well, this will be approved at 2:15 this afternoon.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be brief because we have been so 
long on this bill--it has been 6 years--so that we do not prolong the 
agony and get it passed, and very much hope the House also passes a 
similar bill so that we can deal with this in this Congress finally.
  To follow up on the points of the Senator from Rhode Island, the 
chairman of the committee, John Chafee, it is the staff around here 
that does the work. All Senators know that. They work very, very hard, 
long, long hours, know the details, know the substance, and are not 
frankly sufficiently complimented I think for all the work they do.
  Mr. President, I think that the most noble human endeavor is service. 
It is service to friends, it is service to families, to the church, to 
the community, to the State, and the Nation--service.
  Some of us who spend our lives in public service get all of the 
attention and the thanks for a lot of what we do. I must say we get a 
lot of a contention and criticism for what we allegedly do and do not 
do as well. But it is the staff, it is the people around here who do 
the work who get no attention, who do not get thanked who really 
deserve it for all the work they do. And to again give the names 
because these are the people who did most of the work on 
[[Page S6721]] the majority side, John Grzebian, who was very, very 
diligent, very helpful. We had many late-night meetings back in the 
cloakrooms trying to work this out, and John is particularly helpful. 
Steve Shimberg, staff director for the committee, we have known Steve 
for many years, those of us who have been on the committee. He is very 
knowledgeable, very gracious, very helpful; and also Jeff Merrifield 
who is a bit new to this but nevertheless very, very competent, very 
diligent, as everyone on the staff working.
  On the minority side, Tom Sliter, who is the minority staff director, 
very gracious, and knowledgeable. I have worked with Tom for many 
years. I know no one who is more competent. Tom is very effective and 
very knowledgeable and substantive; that is, not acrimonious, not 
bitter, and not nasty but very, very solid and very gracious.
  The same with Cliff Rothenstein. I frankly do not know anybody not 
only on Capitol Hill but in this town who knows more about this subject 
than Cliff. That is because Cliff has been working on it for 6 years. 
Cliff is bound to know this subject very well, and does, and frankly 
when we got to a lot of the parts of the amendments we were trying to 
work out, it was Cliff who was able to provide the solution or the idea 
of bringing it together.
  Mike Evans, who is the minority chief counsel, has also worked on 
this issue for several years. Mike's knowledge of the issue and his 
advice was very helpful throughout the course of this bill.
  Scott Slesinger works for Senator Lautenberg, the ranking minority 
member of the relevant subcommittee. Scott, too, has added a lot of 
advice all along every stage of this bill.
  We compliment the Senators here on the floor very often. I will not 
at this point again compliment all the Senators. I have done so many 
times on this bill. But I want to at this time highlight the staff, and 
those are the key staff that have worked very diligently. I think all 
should pause for a moment and reflect to thank them for all of their 
effort.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire is 
the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation and 
has done wonderful service here on the floor despite demands on his 
time with very difficult matters that came up simultaneously.
  So I want to pay tribute to Senator Smith for his very, very helpful 
support on this entire legislation, for his knowledge of it, and the 
fact that he moved along so swiftly in the subcommittee. We would not 
be here but for Senator Smith taking charge of that subcommittee and 
determining that this bill was going to come to the floor in due order 
and in short order.
  So we are very grateful to Senator Smith for what he has done and 
appreciate it and look forward to continued working with Senator Smith 
as his committee has a series of other bills that will be coming, 
including the great big Superfund bill, which is a real challenge.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Chafee first 
of all for his very fine remarks. It has been a delight to work with 
the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on this 
legislation. He several months ago said we want to try to get the flow 
control bill and the interstate waste matter brought up. And I took it 
seriously. We were able to do that. It has been a delight to work with 
him and his staff as we brought this bill here to the floor for a 
close, hopefully. It has been a long haul.
  We tried to accommodate a number of Senators. I had a long list of 
some 27 or 28 Senators I think that we were able to accommodate that 
had specific concerns. I know there were some who we were not able to 
accommodate because we felt it would essentially violate the spirit and 
intent of the legislation that we brought forth.
  But particularly the majority staff, John Grzebian, Steve Shimberg, 
and Jeff Merrifield who were really right there doing a lot of work, 
most of the work I guess behind the scenes to work on these amendments 
and get the compromise language agreed to. Certainly, Cliff Rothenstein 
and Tom Sliter and Scott Slesinger on the minority staff; and Peter 
Phipps of Senator D'Amato's staff and Melissa Murrell of Senator Coats' 
staff were all particularly helpful, and as were others.
  I think we ended up with essentially a good bill. There are some 
things I would not have put in it, and Senator Chafee would not have 
put in it. There are certain things we wish we had put in. But the 
bottom line is that this legislation is a compromise. We tried to 
accommodate those who brought up concerns that you had not thought of 
or maybe did not realize that needed to be put in there. And they come 
up with these ideas, and we tried to work them out.
  I think it deals essentially with the issue of flow control. It takes 
care of those people who made investments, who stood a grave risk had 
we not passed this legislation. It does grandfather the flow control 
authority so that it is not a permanent anticompetitive piece of 
legislation. It does grandfather it. So we went to great lengths to 
reach a compromise.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership. It has 
really been a pleasure to work with him in the position of subcommittee 
chairman.
 He has been 100 percent cooperative every step of the way personally 
and at the staff level. As the Senator said, last week I had a number 
of conflicts. I had three separate subcommittees to chair at the same 
time, two on Superfund, which is another priority item in our 
subcommittee, and Senator Chafee was willing to step in and participate 
almost fulltime on the floor debate and the management of the bill, for 
which I am very grateful.

  Mr. President, at this point, I will yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Yogi Berra said, ``It ain't over 'til it's 
over.'' We are not through yet, but it is awful close; we are in the 
bottom of the ninth on this issue I have been working on for 6 years.
  I thank the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] and the Senator 
from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] and Senator Baucus, who is not in the 
Chamber right now, and others who have joined with me in this effort 
that started out as a lonely vigil and now has turned into nearly a 
consensus effort.
  Senator D'Amato was willing to sit down at the table and negotiate a 
very difficult problem for his State with those of us who had difficult 
problems for our States. I believe we reached, last Friday afternoon, a 
satisfactory resolution of that concern.
  We have every reason to believe there will be favorable treatment of 
this in the House. It has been stopped there before. I believe we are 
as close to success there as we have ever been and we can resolve 
whatever differences may exist between the House and Senate and put 
this on the President's desk, and finally give the States and 
communities we represent a basis for dealing with their own 
environmental problems but not having to solve everybody else's 
environmental problems--the ability to say that is all we can take, or 
we cannot take anymore, or you are going to have to find a way to 
dispose of that in your own State. We are doing our share; you do your 
share.
  We are that far away, and I am optimistic we are going to finally 
complete this effort. A lot of people have participated in it, and I 
thank them for their efforts. I am looking forward to finally putting 
this issue to rest and then moving on to other concerns before the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
                   harrisburg, pa, flow control issue

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a brief discussion 
with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the sponsor of 
this legislation. The city of Harrisburg owns and operates a 
municipally financed resource recovery facility that was originally 
constructed in 1972. Harrisburg has issued $40 million in outstanding 
revenue bonds and has had a flow control ordinance in place for several 
years. The facility is required, however, to undergo a substantial 
retrofit pursuant to the Clean Air Act, which will necessitate the 
issuance of an additional $150 million in bonds and a 
[[Page S6722]] new waste stream from nearby counties which have not 
previously flow controlled to the Harrisburg facility. It would appear 
to me that the existence of outstanding bonds and the unfunded mandate 
on Harrisburg under the Clean Air Act would justify the extension of 
flow control authority to the counties that would want to send waste to 
the Harrisburg facility in the future.
  Would the distinguished chairman be willing to look closely at this 
issue as this legislation goes forward?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, 
this legislation provides flow control authority which is predicated on 
meeting debt obligations. The issuance of new debt at a facility that 
has operated since 1972 and that would require expanded flow control 
authority is not one that the committee has had the opportunity to 
examine in any detail at this time. I would be glad to work with the 
Senator from Pennsylvania as the bill goes forward and to determine 
whether the Harrisburg facility is or should be covered by this 
legislation.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I share all of the views set forth by the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana. We have all been struggling with 
this issue for many years, nobody as hard as he has and with more 
tenacity. As he indicated, we are this close. I think he said we are in 
the bottom of the ninth. I hope we complete the game, and I know we 
will. Then, of course, comes what the House does and then the 
conference with the House. But all of that we will pursue with great 
vigor.

                          ____________________