[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H931-H943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
     INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 349) providing for the consideration of S. 534.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 349

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
     Committee on Commerce shall be discharged from further 
     consideration of the bill S. 534 and the House shall be 
     considered to have struck out all after the enacting clause 
     and inserted in lieu thereof an amendment consisting of the 
     text contained in section 2 of this resolution, the bill 
     shall be considered to have passed the House, as amended, and 
     the House shall be considered to have insisted on the House 
     amendment and requested a conference with the Senate thereon.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL 
                   MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL.

       (a) Amendment of Subtitle D.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act is amended by adding after section 4010 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 4011. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL 
                   GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL 
                   SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.

       ``(a) Flow Control Authority for Facilities Designated as 
     of May 16, 1994.--Any State or political subdivision thereof 
     is authorized to exercise flow control authority to direct 
     the movement of municipal solid waste, and recyclable 
     materials voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator 
     thereof, to particular waste management facilities, or 
     facilities for recyclable materials, designated as of May 16, 
     1994, if each of the following conditions are met:
       ``(1) The waste and recyclable materials are generated 
     within the jurisdictional boundaries of such State or 
     political subdivision, determined as of May 16, 1994.
       ``(2) Such flow control authority is imposed through the 
     adoption or execution of a law, ordinance, regulation, 
     resolution, or other legally binding provision or legally 
     binding official act of the State or political subdivision 
     that--
       ``(A) was in effect on May 16, 1994,
       ``(B) was in effect prior to the issuance of an injunction 
     or other order by a court based on a ruling that such law, 
     ordinance, regulation, resolution, or other legally binding 
     provision or official act violated the Commerce Clause of the 
     United States Constitution, or
       ``(C) was in effect immediately prior to suspension thereof 
     by legislative or official administrative action of the State 
     or political subdivision expressly because of the existence 
     of a court order of the type described in subparagraph (B) 
     issued by a court of the same State or Federal judicial 
     circuit.
       ``(3) The State or a political subdivision thereof has, for 
     one or more of such designated facilities, in accordance with 
     paragraph (2), on or before May 16, 1994, either--
       ``(A) presented eligible bonds for sale, or
       ``(B) executed a legally binding contract or agreement that 
     obligates it to deliver a minimum quantity of waste or 
     recyclable materials to one or more such designated waste 
     management facilities or facilities for recyclable materials 
     and that obligates it to pay for that minimum quantity of 
     waste or recyclable materials even if the stated minimum 
     quantity of such waste or recyclable materials is not 
     delivered within a required timeframe.
       ``(b) Waste Stream Subject to Flow Control.--The flow 
     control authority of subsection (a) shall only permit the 
     exercise of flow control authority to any designated facility 
     of the specific classes or categories of municipal solid 
     waste and voluntarily relinquished recyclable materials to 
     which flow control authority was applicable on May 16, 1994, 
     or immediately before the effective date of an injunction or 
     court order referred to in subsection (a)(2)(B) or an action 
     referred to in subsection (a)(2)(C) and--
       ``(1) in the case of any designated waste management 
     facility or facility for recyclable materials that was in 
     operation as of May 16, 1994, only if the facility concerned 
     received municipal solid waste or recyclable materials in 
     those classes or categories within 2 years prior to May 16, 
     1994, or the effective date of such injunction or other court 
     order or action,
       ``(2) in the case of any designated waste management 
     facility or facility for recyclable materials that was not 
     yet in operation as of May 16, 1994, only of the classes or 
     categories that were clearly identified by the State or 
     political subdivision as of May 16, 1994, to be flow 
     controlled to such facility, and
       ``(3) only to the extent of the maximum volume authorized 
     by State permit to be disposed at the waste management 
     facility or processed at the facility for recyclable 
     materials.

     If specific classes or categories of municipal solid waste or 
     recyclable materials were not clearly identified, paragraph 
     (2) shall apply only to municipal solid waste generated by 
     households, including single family residences and multi-
     family residences of up to 4 units.
       ``(c) Duration of Flow Control Authority.--Flow control 
     authority may be exercised pursuant to this section to any 
     facility or facilities only until the later of the following:
       ``(1) The expiration date of the bond referred to in 
     subsection (a)(3)(A).
       ``(2) The expiration date of the contract or agreement 
     referred to in subsection (a)(3)(B).
       ``(3) The adjusted expiration date of a bond issued for a 
     qualified environmental retrofit.


[[Page H932]]

     Such expiration dates shall be determined based upon the 
     terms and provisions of the bond or contract in effect on May 
     16, 1994. In the case of a contract described in subsection 
     (a)(3)(B) that has no specified expiration date, for purposes 
     of paragraph (2) the expiration date shall be treated as the 
     first date that the State or political subdivision that is a 
     party to the contract can withdraw from its responsibilities 
     under the contract without being in default thereunder and 
     without substantial penalty or other substantial legal 
     sanction.
       ``(d) Mandatory Opt-Out for Generators and Transporters.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no State 
     or political subdivision may require any generator or 
     transporter of municipal solid waste or recyclable materials 
     to transport such waste or materials, or deliver such waste 
     or materials for transportation, to a facility that is listed 
     on the National Priorities List established under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 unless such State or political 
     subdivision or the owner or operator of such facility has 
     adequately indemnified the generator or transporter against 
     all liability under that Act with respect to such waste or 
     materials.
       ``(e) Effect on Existing Laws.--
       ``(1) Environmental laws.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted or construed to have any effect on any other law 
     relating to the protection of human health and the 
     environment, or the management of municipal solid waste or 
     recyclable materials.
       ``(2) State law.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted to authorize a political subdivision to exercise 
     the flow control authority granted by this section in a 
     manner inconsistent with State law.
       ``(3) Ownership of recyclable materials.--Nothing in this 
     section shall authorize any State or political subdivision to 
     require any generator or owner of recyclable materials to 
     transfer any recyclable materials to such State or political 
     subdivision, nor shall prohibit any persons from selling, 
     purchasing, accepting, conveying, or transporting any 
     recyclable materials, unless the generator or owner 
     voluntarily makes such recyclable materials available to the 
     State or political subdivision and relinquishes any rights 
     to, or ownership of, such recyclable materials.
       ``(f) Facilities Not Qualified for Flow Control.--No flow 
     control authority may be exercised under the provisions of 
     this section to direct solid waste or recyclable materials to 
     any facility pursuant to an ordinance if--
       ``(1) the ordinance was determined to be unconstitutional 
     by a State or Federal court in October of 1994;
       ``(2) the facility is located over a sole source aquifer, 
     within 5 miles of a public beach, and within 25 miles of a 
     city with a population of more than 5,000,000; and
       ``(3) the facility is not fully permitted and operating in 
     complete official compliance with all Federal, State, and 
     local environmental regulations.
       ``(g) Limitation on Revenue.--A State or qualified 
     political subdivision may exercise the flow control authority 
     granted in this section only if the State or qualified 
     political subdivision limits the use of any of the revenues 
     it derives from the exercise of such authority for the 
     payment of one or more of the following:
       ``(1) Principal and interest on any eligible bond.
       ``(2) Principal and interest on a bond issued for a 
     qualified environmental retrofit.
       ``(3) Payments required by the terms of a contract referred 
     to in subsection (a)(3)(B).
       ``(4) Other expenses necessary for the operation and 
     maintenance of designated facilities and other integral 
     facilities necessary for the operation and maintenance of 
     such designated facilities that are identified by the same 
     eligible bond.
       ``(5) To the extent not covered by paragraphs (1) through 
     (4), expenses for recycling, composting, and household 
     hazardous waste activities in which the State or political 
     subdivision was engaged before May 16, 1994, and for which 
     the State or political subdivision, after periodic 
     evaluation, beginning no later than one year after the 
     enactment of this section, finds that there is no comparable 
     qualified private sector service provider available. Such 
     periodic evaluation shall be based on public notice and open 
     competition. The amount and nature of payments described in 
     this paragraph shall be fully disclosed to the public 
     annually.
       ``(h) Interim Contracts.--A lawful, legally binding 
     contract under State law that was entered into during the 
     period--
       ``(1) before November 10, 1995, and after the effective 
     date of any applicable final court order no longer subject to 
     judicial review specifically invalidating the flow control 
     authority of such State or political subdivision, or
       ``(2) after such State or political subdivision refrained 
     pursuant to legislative or official administrative action 
     from enforcing flow control authority and before the 
     effective date on which it resumes enforcement of flow 
     control authority after enactment of this section,

     shall be fully enforceable in accordance with State law.
       ``(i) Areas With Pre-1984 Flow Control.--
       ``(1) General authority.--A State that on or before January 
     1, 1984--
       ``(A) adopted regulations under a State law that required 
     or directed transportation, management, or disposal of 
     municipal solid waste from residential, commercial, 
     institutional, or industrial sources (as defined under State 
     law) to specifically identified waste management facilities, 
     and applied those regulations to every political subdivision 
     of the State, and
       ``(B) subjected such waste management facilities to the 
     jurisdiction of a State public utilities commission,

     may exercise flow control authority over municipal solid 
     waste in accordance with the other provisions of this section 
     and may exercise the additional flow control authority 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Additional flow control authority.--A State that 
     meets the requirements of paragraph (1) and any political 
     subdivision thereof may exercise flow control authority over 
     all classes and categories of municipal solid waste that were 
     subject to flow control by such State or political 
     subdivision thereof on May 16, 1994, by directing it from any 
     existing waste management facility that was designated as of 
     May 16, 1994, or any proposed waste management facility in 
     the State to any other such existing or proposed waste 
     management facility in the State without regard to whether 
     the political subdivision within which the municipal solid 
     waste is generated had designated the particular waste 
     management facility or had issued a bond or entered into a 
     contract referred to in subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B), 
     respectively.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `proposed waste management facility' means a waste 
     management facility that was specifically identified in a 
     waste management plan prior to May 16, 1994, and for the 
     construction of which--
       ``(A) revenue bonds were issued and outstanding as of May 
     16, 1994,
       ``(B) additional financing with revenue bonds was required 
     as of the date of enactment of this section to complete 
     construction, and
       ``(C) a permit had been issued prior to December 31, 1994.
       ``(4) Limitation of authority.--The additional flow control 
     authority granted by paragraph (2) may be exercised to--
       ``(A) any facility described in paragraph (2) for up to 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this section, and
       ``(B) after 5 years after enactment of this section, only 
     to those facilities and only with respect to the classes, 
     categories, and geographic origin of waste directed to such 
     facilities specifically identified by the State in a public 
     notice issued within 5 years after enactment of this section.
       ``(5) Duration of authority.--The authority to direct 
     municipal solid waste to any facility pursuant to this 
     subsection shall terminate with regard to such facility in 
     accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(j) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section is intended 
     to have any effect on the authority of any State or political 
     subdivision to franchise, license, or contract for municipal 
     solid waste collection, processing, or disposal.
       ``(k) Application of Flow Control Authority.--The flow 
     control authority granted by this section shall be exercised 
     in a manner that ensures that it is applied to the public 
     sector if it is applied to the private sector.
       ``(l) Promotion of Recycling.--The Congress finds that, in 
     order to promote recycling, anyone engaged in recycling 
     activities should strive to meet applicable standards for the 
     reuse of recyclable materials.
       ``(m) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect with respect to the exercise by any State or 
     political subdivision of flow control authority on or after 
     the date of enactment of this section, and such provisions 
     shall also apply to the exercise by any State or political 
     subdivision of flow control authority before such date of 
     enactment unless the exercise of such authority has been 
     declared unconstitutional by a final judicial decision that 
     is no longer subject to judicial review.
       ``(n) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Adjusted expiration date.--The term `adjusted 
     expiration date' means, with respect to a bond issued for a 
     qualified environmental retrofit, the earlier of the final 
     maturity date of such bond or 15 years after the date of 
     issuance of such bonds.
       ``(2) Bond issued for a qualified environmental retrofit.--
     The term `bond issued for a qualified environmental retrofit' 
     means a revenue or general obligation bond, the proceeds of 
     which are dedicated to financing the retrofitting of a 
     resource recovery facility or a municipal solid waste 
     incinerator necessary to comply with section 129 of the Clean 
     Air Act, provided that such bond is presented for sale before 
     the expiration date of the bond or contract referred to in 
     subsection (a)(3)(A) and (B) respectively that is applicable 
     to such facility and no later than December 31, 1999.
       ``(3) Designate; designation, etc..--The terms `designate', 
     `designated', `designating', and `designation' mean a 
     requirement of a State or political subdivision, and the act 
     of a State or political subdivision, individually or 
     collectively, to require that all or any portion of the 
     municipal solid waste or recyclable materials that is 
     generated within the boundaries of the State or any political 
     subdivision be delivered to one or more waste management 
     facilities or facilities for recyclable materials identified 
     by the State or a political subdivision thereof. The term 
     `designation' includes bond covenants, official 

[[Page H933]]
     statements, or other official financing documents issued by a political 
     subdivision issuing an eligible bond in which it identified a 
     specific waste management facility as being the subject of 
     such bond and the requisite facility for receipt of municipal 
     solid waste or recyclable materials generated within the 
     jurisdictional boundaries of that political subdivision.
       ``(4) Eligible bond.--The term `eligible bond' means--
       ``(A) a revenue bond specifically to finance one or more 
     designated waste management facilities, facilities for 
     recyclable materials, or specifically and directly related 
     assets, development or finance costs, as evidenced by the 
     bond documents; or
       ``(B) a general obligation bond, the proceeds of which were 
     used solely to finance one or more designated waste 
     management facilities, facilities for recyclable materials, 
     or specifically and directly related assets, development or 
     finance costs, as evidenced by the bond documents.
       ``(5) Flow control authority.--The term `flow control 
     authority' means the authority to control the movement of 
     municipal solid waste or voluntarily relinquished recyclable 
     materials and direct such solid waste or voluntarily 
     relinquished recyclable materials to one or more designated 
     waste management facilities or facilities for recyclable 
     materials within the boundaries of a State or within the 
     boundaries of a political subdivision of a State, as in 
     effect on May 16, 1994.
       ``(6) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid 
     waste' means any solid waste generated by the general public 
     or by households, including single residences and multifamily 
     residences, and from commercial, institutional, and 
     industrial sources, to the extent such waste is essentially 
     the same as waste normally generated by households or was 
     collected and disposed of with other municipal solid waste as 
     part of normal municipal solid waste collection services, 
     consisting of paper, wood, yard waste, plastics, leather, 
     rubber, and other combustible materials and noncombustible 
     materials such as metal and glass, including residue 
     remaining after recyclable materials have been separated from 
     waste destined for disposal, and including waste material 
     removed from a septic tank, septage pit, or cesspool (other 
     than from portable toilets), except that the term does not 
     include any of the following:
       ``(A) Any waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste 
     under section 3001 of this Act or waste regulated under the 
     Toxic Substances Control Act.
       ``(B) Any waste, including contaminated soil and debris, 
     resulting from--
       ``(i) response or remedial action taken under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980,
       ``(ii) any corrective action taken under this Act, or
       ``(iii) any corrective action taken under any comparable 
     State statute.
       ``(C) Construction and demolition debris.
       ``(D) Medical waste listed in section 11002 of this Act.
       ``(E) Industrial waste generated by manufacturing or 
     industrial processes, including waste generated during scrap 
     processing and scrap recycling.
       ``(F) Recyclable materials.
       ``(G) Sludge.
       ``(7) Political subdivision.--The term `political 
     subdivision' means a city, town, borough, county, parish, 
     district, or public service authority or other public body 
     created by or pursuant to State law with authority to present 
     for sale an eligible bond or to exercise flow control 
     authority.
       ``(8) Recycle and recycling.--The terms `recycle' and 
     `recycling' mean--
       ``(A) any process which produces any material defined as 
     `recycled' under section 1004; and
       ``(B) any process by which materials are diverted, 
     separated from, or separately managed from materials 
     otherwise destined for disposal as solid waste, by 
     collecting, sorting, or processing for use as raw materials 
     or feedstocks in lieu of, or in addition to, virgin 
     materials, including petroleum, in the manufacture of usable 
     materials or products.
       ``(9) Recyclable materials.--The term `recyclable 
     materials' means any materials that have been separated from 
     waste otherwise destined for disposal (either at the source 
     of the waste or at processing facilities) or that have been 
     managed separately from waste destined for disposal, for the 
     purpose of recycling, reclamation, composting of organic 
     materials such as food and yard waste, or reuse (other than 
     for the purpose of incineration). Such term includes scrap 
     tires to be used in resource recovery.
       ``(10) Waste management facility.--The term `waste 
     management facility' means any facility for separating, 
     storing, transferring, treating, processing, combusting, or 
     disposing of municipal solid waste.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for subtitle 
     D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by adding the 
     following new item after the item relating to section 4010:

``Sec. 4011. Congressional authorization of State and local government 
              control over movement of municipal solid waste and 
              recyclable materials.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). Pursuant to the rule, 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes flow control authority. That 
is, it authorizes State and local governments, rather than the people 
who transport the waste, to choose where waste generated within their 
borders is sent.
  In its May 16, 1994, Carbone opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that 
the exercise of flow control violated the interstate commerce clause. 
The Court found that flow control was simply another in a long line of 
mechanisms burdening interstate commerce. Only Congress or its duly 
authorized designee can impose such restrictions.
  In my view, this legislation is a necessary evil. In an arena where 
the private sector is perfectly capable of doing the job, it authorizes 
State and local government regulation over interstate commerce. Where 
the waste hauler could find a cheaper disposal site, or a closer 
disposal site, or a more environmentally sound disposal site, this 
legislation says that under certain conditions, the hauler would have 
to send that waste to another site chosen by the government. That is 
contrary to my own views.
  However, State and local governments across the country, in good 
faith reliance on the ability to exercise such regulation, entered into 
contracts and made billions of dollars worth of investment in waste 
facilities. Much of this investment is in the hands of investors who 
purchased bonds that could be at risk absent some congressional action. 
Taxpayers also face risk if the continued stability of these facilities 
and investments is not ensured. Hence this bill.
  The road to the floor of the House of Representatives sometimes 
twists and turns in an unusual fashion. We dispense today with full 
committee consideration of this bill some 7 months after subcommittee 
markup. Following subcommittee markup last May, this legislation 
languished while the interested parties, primarily local government 
organizations and the waste industry, stared at each other in resolute 
disagreement. Only as the situation reached a dire stage for some 
bondholders and certain jurisdictions, including the State of New 
Jersey, did the parties open the window of opportunity. The Public 
Securities Association, along with Browning-Ferris Industries and Waste 
Management, approached the Committee on Commerce about negotiating a 
flow control agreement. We welcome their offer and facilitated their 
discussions.

  After input from States, local governments, the waste industry, 
bondholder organizations and of course the Members of this body, the 
result is the legislation before us today. I am proud to hold a letter 
supporting this legislation from the National Association of Counties, 
WMX Technologies, the Solid Waste Association of North America, 
Browning Ferris Industries, the Public Securities Association, and 
Ogden Projects.
  The principle driving this bill is that if you have bonded 
indebtedness issued prior to the date of the Carbone case, or if you 
entered into a contract prior to Carbone obligating you to provide a 
minimum quantity of waste to a particular facility or pay for the 
contract amount, then you can exercise flow control in the future for 
the life of the bond or the life of the contract. If not, the recourse 
for your facility is to become competitive in the marketplace.
  There are a lot of situations across the country that we have sought 
to take care of within the context of this principle. Many that simply 
did not meet the test will find themselves in the same situation that 
private sector facilities have long been in: competing for business. 
Others may meet the test but were not brought to the committee's 
attention in time for consideration in today's bill. I am willing to 
work with Members to make sure that situations that meet the principle 
are not inadvertently left out.
  Another issue also bears mentioning. Flow control has long been 
linked to 

[[Page H934]]
interstate waste in both the House and the Senate. This bill deals only 
with flow control. I am not opposed to moving interstate waste 
legislation through the Committee on Commerce and have committed to 
bring it up for a vote on February 28. However, that legislation was 
simply not ready for consideration today because of outstanding issues 
between waste importing and waste exporting States. I hope they can be 
resolved soon. I appreciate the forbearance of the many Members who 
selflessly have agreed to let this legislation go forward despite local 
issues so we can solve pressing problems in other States.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the 
many minority members who have been very interested in this issue and 
whose assistance is reflected in this legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the question before this body today is whether to 
suspend the rules of the House in considering legislation which would 
grandfather flow control authority for certain local jurisdictions and 
waste management facilities. While I support flow control legislation, 
I do not believe this is an appropriate bill for consideration under 
procedures which circumvent the committee process.
  In bringing up the flow control bill on the suspension calendar, 
there has been a serious breach of the normal legislative flow control. 
Without explanation, we have bypassed the normal full committee markup 
process and denied members of the Committee on Commerce their 
opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation.
  The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials reported 
a flow control bill, H.R. 2323, on May 18 of last year. H.R. 2323, 
which also contains provisions addressing the issue of allowing States 
and local governments to limit receipt of out-of-State municipal waste, 
has been languishing before the full Committee on Commerce for the last 
6 months. No full committee markup of the bill has ever been scheduled.
  The language before us today was only introduced as a bill this 
morning. In fact, the bill which we have is marked ``12:20,'' at 12:20 
this afternoon. It is now 2:20 in the afternoon. For 2 hours we have 
had the bill and the bill itself has been changed from the last version 
which we saw.
  Mr. Speaker, that is wrong, just from a procedure perspective, in 
terms of what all Members are owed as procedural due process in the 
notice of important substantive changes in legislation. It contains 
provisions that were not agreed to by the minority, and it deletes the 
interstate waste language.
  Reportedly, this new bill was negotiated downtown between special 
interests who did not favor the subcommittee-reported bill apparently 
lacked the votes at full committee in order to weaken it. So as a 
result, it has been weakened in the Committee on Rules, with no public 
notice, with no debate, and with all Members now expected to vote upon 
legislation which has not gone through the traditional legislative 
committee process.
  In addition to the substantive changes made in the flow control 
language, the bill has also delinked flow control from the interstate 
waste legislation. This creates serious problems for many Members who 
are concerned that their States and localities not become the dumping 
grounds for out-of-State waste.
  In the past, the flow control and interstate waste bills have always 
been linked together in the same legislation. In the 103d Congress, for 
example, a flow control/interstate waste bill was considered by this 
body under an open rule that allowed Members to offer amendments where 
the will of the Members could be fully expressed. The resulting product 
was approved by the House by unanimous consent. In this Congress, the 
Senate passed legislation which addresses both the flow control and 
interstate waste issues.
  Delinking these two issues, as is being proposed today, means that we 
may not have any interstate waste legislation this year, despite the 
fact that 23 Governors have called for such legislation.
  I must object, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to consideration of this bill 
today under suspension of the rules. The bill before us is 
controversial, and maybe Members have been denied their opportunity to 
offer amendments as a result of this procedure. I urge the Members to 
oppose the motion to suspend the rules of the House so we can defeat 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, to answer the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced and it is in the Record for 
Friday. Yes, it was changed today to insert two provisions for the 
benefit of the ranking minority member of the full committee. One 
deleted the so-called double-dipping language, and the other was to 
insert a central Wayne County fix, so I wanted to clear up that 
misunderstanding.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Minge].
  (Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, the flow-control legislation we are 
considering this afternoon, from the perspective of many of us, ought 
to be written differently, but one thing that I have noticed in my 
short legislative career, congressional career, is that it is almost 
impossible to move legislation through this body and through the Senate 
in a form that each of us feels is going to take care of every problem 
that is faced by our constituents.
  In the last session of Congress, indeed, we did pass flow-control 
legislation in the House of Representatives. It was passed in the 
Senate, but due to the lateness of the hour, the legislation languished 
and it never was brought back to both Chambers for final approval.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we favorably report out this proposal today 
so that the process may move forward, so that a conference committee 
can be appointed, so that the differences between the House and Senate 
provisions can be reconciled, and ultimate legislation which serves the 
needs of our country can be passed by this institution.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying that I think there is broad 
bipartisan agreement for supporting a flow-control bill. I am all for 
it. I regret that the coming together of sides on this issue as it 
relates to not only flow control but the interstate waste bill has been 
so late in developing as we come to the floor, because there are, 
frankly, folks who are not here today who have a real stake and a real 
interest in this legislation who I would like to have consulted with.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also for a bill that gives our local governments 
the ability to prohibit out-of-State from being dumped into our 
communities. I, along with the gentleman from Michigan, Fred Upton, and 
the gentleman from Ohio, Mike Oxley, and a whole host of other people 
on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Boucher, and many others on our side of the aisle have been fighting 
for this now for a number of years, and we have come within a whisker 
of having this accomplished over the last two Congresses. We do not 
want the opportunity to go by without having our full say.
  Mr. Speaker, we are willing to work with Members on both sides of the 
aisle to get this done; in fact, to get both done, the flow control as 
well as the out-of-State. It appears right now, Mr. Speaker, and I am 
still talking with folks, that the out-of State provisions fall a 
little bit short here. By not addressing the out-of-State-issue, as has 
been mentioned by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], on the 
floor of this House, or in committee, for that matter, in the House, 
Members on both sides of the aisle are limited in their negotiating 
ability once this goes to conference.
  I am concerned about that, because the Senate bill that deals with 
out-of-State is not as environmentally strong as, frankly, some of us 
would like it to 

[[Page H935]]
be. The House provisions that we have had over the years, and which we 
seek to have come before the House today which would give more autonomy 
to local units of government, as opposed to having the say on what can 
come into the State in terms of out-of-State waste controlled by the 
Governor.
  Further, the 11th-hour negotiations still going on among many parties 
involved in this issue I think clearly shows that this may not be the 
best way to handle this in terms of the suspension calendar, although 
there is an advantage to doing it that way, and the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and I talked about that a little earlier today. 
I recognize parts of the procedural advantages.

                              {time}  1430

  But it does shut out a lot of folks, and that is somewhat troubling 
to me.
  I would hope that we would be able to have an honest debate on this. 
This is a big issue. This affects all of our districts; it is one of 
the key environmental votes that we will have probably this Congress. 
it deals with how we are going to deal with our waste in this country.
  It seems to me that the proper role for local and State governments 
in solid waste management really hinges upon the full participation, 
not just the narrow participation, of the Representatives from those 
individual States in this body. We want to work together to open up the 
process and give all of the States in this debate an opportunity to be 
heard.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me reserve my comments at this point and say to 
my friends on both sides of the aisle, I hope we can continue to have 
some good discussions on this, although I am rather troubled by the 
procedure under which we are working here this afternoon.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley], chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Hazardous Materials, who has put endless hours in on this subject.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the issues of flow control and interstate waste have 
vexed this Congress for the last several years. I believe that it has 
been proper all along to consider these issues in tandem, because they 
both speak to how responsibly we, as a society, manage the disposal of 
solid waste.
  Some communities find themselves in desperate financial condition 
because of the Supreme Court's Carbone decision that struck down flow 
control. These communities sold bonds to investors in good faith, and 
are relying on limited flow-control power to pay them back. There is a 
need for Congress to act with dispatch in order to provide legitimate 
relief.
  Not everyone will agree with the bill in front of us today. Some 
people wanted a broader bill, others, no bill at all. But this bill 
sends a clear signal that obligations will be honored.
  A great controversy has arisen over the last few days over the 
decision to move this flow bill before the House arrived at a position 
on interstate waste legislation, which is equally as important to 
importing States like Ohio. Frankly, I was prepared to oppose the 
decision to divorce the two titles, especially since they were approved 
by my subcommittee on a voice vote.
  Adding to the anxiety of importing States were recent statements that 
the move to split the two bills would have killed any interstate 
legislation this year.
  I have received assurances, however, that in approving this flow-
control bill that we will be able to conference interstate waste with 
the Senate. I had a productive discussion with Rules Chairman Jerry 
Solomon this morning. I would expect that the concerns of importing 
States will be adequately and forcefully represented in conference. 
Meantime, I have encouraged the Governors of the affected States to 
meet and to try to reach an agreement on the issues. We need to have 
direct participation by all Governors with an interest in this. The 
National Governors Association meeting coming up soon will allow the 
Governors to have face-to-face discussions on this issue.
  Again, I will give support to this flow-control bill only having been 
assured by key players in the debate that interstate waste legislation 
will be addressed and that the concerns of importing States, which have 
fallen on deaf ears in recent years, will be resolved.
  I want to pay special thanks to the full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for providing an opportunity for 
those States who are importing States to actually get to conference on 
this important issue. I think all of us share the goal of getting to a 
conference and getting to agreement on this important issue, involving 
the Governors and all of the Members from the affected States.
  Please remember that 23 Governors have signed a letter in support of 
the legislation that passed out of my subcommittee on a unanimous voice 
vote. There is strong support out there for reasonable interstate waste 
provisions in the statute, coupled with flow control. I ask the Members 
to support this important move forward as we get into a conference 
committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 349 
for a couple of reasons. Part of it is that this legislation does not 
at all resemble what the subcommittee worked on for this bill, and the 
problems that the subcommittee addressed.
  Even more to the point, and I have great respect for my friend from 
Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bliley, this 
legislation was introduced only 2 hours ago, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, said.
  This legislation clearly does not deal with many of the problems that 
a lot of districts and a lot of taxpayers have around this country. 
Putting this legislation forward after being introduced only 2 hours 
ago, having no hearings on this bill, reminds us of the way that these 
committees and this Congress have dealt on issues like Medicare and 
Medicaid, where there might be a hearing, there might not be a hearing, 
the vote comes to the floor, we vote it up or down without people 
reading the bill, without people understanding what we are voting on.
  In district after district in this country taxpayers will be left out 
in the cold, instead of, for example, in my district in Medina County, 
OH, instead of issuing bonds to construct its facilities, Medina County 
entered into an $8 million cooperative loan agreement with the Ohio 
Water Development Authority.
  Taxpayers in Medina County will lose, will be left out in the cold 
because of this bill, the way this bill is written.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I appreciate the problems of 
Medina County. My home county has a similar kind of situation where 
they actually save the money to develop a landfill and then use that to 
initiate flow control. They did it very responsibly. They are 
unfortunately not covered under this particular version, and that is 
why it is important for us to get to conference on this issue so that 
we can vent these issues and have them determined.
  I am on the gentleman's side on this issue, and I understand where he 
is coming from, but we cannot get this problem solved unless we get to 
conference, and that is what this procedure is all about.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ohio is actually my 
mother's Congressman, but she taught me a long time ago that I should 
take care of a problem when it is there. I do not think that the kind 
of back-room deals that were made in this bill with lobbyists and 
special interests writing these bills, whether it is Superfund or 
Medicare or this legislation, that we really want to just say, trust 
us, we will take care of it in conference committee.
  People in Medina County stand to lose $8 million under this bill. 
People in Arkansas and people in Virginia and people of this country 
stand to lose lots of taxpayers' dollars. We should protect their 
investment, take the bill back to committee, have hearings, let us 
write a good bipartisan piece of legislation.

[[Page H936]]

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I do not know whether the previous speaker is worried about the 
taxpayers paying. I will tell the gentleman something: If this bill 
does not become law, the taxpayers are going to pay through the nose, 
and that is why I am here supporting this legislation. I have counties 
like Dutchess County in upstate New York that have already been 
obligated to bonds that have to be paid off by the taxpayers unless we 
are able to get this kind of legislation through.
  Let us just say that we have people on both sides of this. The only 
way we are ever going to settle it, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley] has alluded to it, is to pass this piece of legislation, then go 
to conference with the Senate on the interstate waste, which is a very 
important piece of legislation.
  Once we are there, we have major Governors around this country who 
are concerned about this. Let us let Governor Pataki of New York, 
Governor Engler of Michigan, Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania, and 
Governor Voinovich of Ohio, let us let them sit down, work out these 
differences and then bring it back. I will commit, as chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, that when they have worked out their differences, 
let them come back here, and we will then bring this conference report 
to the floor and we will pass both the interstate waste, which is very 
important, as well as this flow control bill, which is extremely 
important, because if we do not, the taxpayers are going to pay through 
the nose, and we cannot let that happen.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
  Mr. PICKETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the municipal solid waste 
flow control legislation being offered today. It will have a 
dramatically adverse financial impact on the municipal governments I 
represent and it is a blatant repudiation of the principle of ``no 
unfunded mandates.''
  Late in the 1970's in the absence of any private alternative, eight 
municipal governments in my region joined together to create the 
Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia to manage, in an 
environmentally sound way, the rising volume of solid waste. In 
adopting this comprehensive waste management program, the participating 
communities all executed contracts prior to 1985 committing to dispose 
of their municipal solid waste to the authority. To construct the plant 
to convert the solid waste to energy for sale, the authority issued 
bonds that now amount to $275 million. In addition to guaranteeing the 
bonds, the municipalities are obligated by their contract with the 
authority to dispose of their solid waste to the authority and the 
authority is obligated under contract to deliver energy.
  This legislation before us will destroy this established and 
operating environmentally sound regional waste management system, 
undermine the value of the bonds issued by the authority, impose 
additional financial burden and hardship on the participating 
municipalities, and create a new avenue of intrusion by the Federal 
Government into a purely State and local governmental activity.
  This bill has been brought to the floor under a procedure that 
circumvents the committee process and precludes Members from offering 
amendments to protect their communities from financial distress. I urge 
Members to reject the flawed process under which we are considering 
this legislation and to vigorously oppose the flow control bill that is 
before us today.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Let me begin by thanking 
Chairman Tom Bliley for truly going the extra mile today; for his 
willingness to understand and address issues that are so vital to some 
of our States. I especially want to thank Mr. Bliley for the 
statesmanlike approach embodied in this compromise in meeting the 
legitimate needs of our colleagues intent on restricting the flow of 
waste into their States. And special thanks to Chairman Mike Oxley--in 
the House no one has worked as tenaciously as he on interstate waste 
legislation. And finally, special thanks to Chairman Jerry Solomon, who 
has worked hard to facilitate this bill.
  After 20 months of toil and good faith compromises by all sides of 
the issue, we are here today with a modest, extremely narrow, rescue 
bill for locales throughout the country who have waste management 
systems predicated on flow control and tied to public debt.
  Over $20 billion of public bonds and obligations of local communities 
and investors are today in grave jeopardy and desperately need this 
solution we are proposing. Our local governments--charged with managing 
their waste--are in desperate situations warranting immediate action.
  The festering crisis dictates that we wait no more and fast-track 
this emergency debt protection remedy.
  For communities across the country--who saw a legislative remedy 
vanish in the waning hours of the 103d Congress, a casualty of a failed 
UC request in the Senate--this is their only hope.
  Make no mistake, this legislation does not establish a broad 
authority for flow control. Instead it prescribes a narrow grant of 
authority and phases out of such activity allowing communities to make 
a smooth transition and ensuring that investments in public projects do 
not go belly up.
  Under the bill flow control is permitted for the limited purpose of 
paying off outstanding bonds and that is it. According to the EPA, less 
than 20 percent--one-fifth--of the solid waste market is expected to 
receive some type of protection under this flow control bill. And as 
each day passes, and municipalities pay off their bonds, this small 
share of the market will continue to diminish until it reaches zero.
  No one likes it when rules of the game change in midstream.
  The Carbone decision vitiated waste flow authority after States and 
local governments had devised comprehensive waste management plans--at 
the behest of the Federal Government--which relied on that authority to 
make the plan economically viable. In other words, decisions were made 
and funds expended or obligated based on assumptions that disappeared 
on May 16, 1994--the date the Carbone opinion was handed down.
  In the post-Carbone world, communities still have the responsibility 
to manage garbage--that is: collect, treat, and dispose of it--but some 
may no longer have the tools to carry it out efficiently.
  Flow control has been a difficult issue for the past 2 years because 
local governments and private industry have different opinions on how 
much of flow control is a good thing. State and local government 
organizations have historically supported the continuation of flow 
control authority as an important prerogative of State and local 
government and the best tool for safe and environmentally sound 
disposal of garbage. Members of the private waste industry believe 
there should be no constraints on the movement of waste.
  The bill before us today has opted for the private enterprise 
position--prohibiting any future flow control. The bill is drafted as 
an extremely narrow grandfather--allowing flow control only in 
jurisdictions that exercised it, designated the waste facility to 
receive the waste, and sold bonds--or executed put-or-pay contracts--to 
finance the facility--all prior to the Carbone decision. And once the 
bonds are paid off, with the narrow exception of retrofits mandated 
under the Clean Air Act, flow control ends forever.
  Importantly, because these flow control provisions are so narrow, 
they have achieved support from significant stakeholders on this issue: 
the national organizations representing State and local government 
interests, such as the National Association of Counties and the Solid 
Waste Association of North America; major companies from the waste 
industry, such as Waste Management Technologies, Inc. and Browning 
Ferris Industries; and the Public Securities Association, representing 
the concerns of bond holders and issuers. While all of them have a 
different bill of perfection in mind, they have reached a compromise 
that they can live with.

[[Page H937]]

  The situation in my home county of Mercer illustrates how urgent the 
situation is.
  At present, Mercer has incurred debt obligations of over $189 million 
to finance the project, with approximately $100 million more needed for 
completion of the project.
  Carbone has put the entire undertaking on the shelf and costs to 
build the waste-to-energy facility have increased by over $4 million. 
Accordingly to Mercer County executive, Bob Prunetti, each day of 
irresolution of this issue costs an additional $20,000 per day.
  In the 20 months that we have been debating the perfect flow control 
and interstate provisions, Mercer County's bonds have been downgraded 
and, last week on January 25, permits for the construction of our 
facility expired. The authority has petitioned the New Jersey State 
Department of Environmental Protection for an extension of this permit. 
It is unclear, at this time, whether or not there is precedence for 
such an extension.
  My State with our landfills nearing full capacity and with more than 
2.1 million tons exported per year to other States has attempted to act 
responsibly and earnestly to resolve our waste disposal problems and 
become self-sufficient. My county of Mercer exports 300,000 tons to 
Bucks County, PA, just across the river.
  If we are able to proceed with our waste-to-energy project at least 
220,000 tons of municipal sold waste will stay in Mercer County to be 
incinerated. That, it seems to me, nips the problem at the source.
  And let me remind Members that self-sufficiency has been our goal for 
20 years and flow control was--is--the requisite to achieving that 
goal. Nearly two decades ago, the State of New Jersey took the 
initiative to limit its exports on its own. The State's comprehensive 
solid waste management plan is meant to achieve self-sufficiency by the 
year 2000. But the plan hinges on the use of limited flow control--
without it, it just ain't gonna' happen. And worse, our 2.1 million 
tons of cross-State waste will only increase.
  Mercer's bond downgrading has not been unique. Other communities 
around the Nation especially Pennsylvania, Florida, California, New 
York, New Hampshire, and Illinois have had their credit ratings 
downgraded or have been put on credit watch because they have lost the 
ability to flow control.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress anxious to pass tough interstate 
restrictions on the transport of garbage, take note: I respectfully 
submit this is your opportunity to advance that prospect since you will 
get your day in conference with this legislation. Yet, I am here to 
tell you that passage of flow control authority by this Congress--
temporarily delinked from interstate--will only help alleviate the need 
to export garbage.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] study on flow control, 
released last year unequivocally states that: ``Flow control is one 
mechanism that State and local governments can use to foster 
development of in-State capacity to manage municipal solid waste.''
  To my friends who are disappointed that the interstate provisions 
will be considered on a day other than today let me say that I have no 
qualms with limiting interstate waste. There is a symbolic 
relationship, however that should not be overlooked. If the goal of my 
friends in the Midwest and Pennsylvania is to ban the interstate 
transport of waste, then by all means you should support efforts to 
allow States to flow control waste within their own borders. This, of 
course, will diminish the urgency to transport garbage outside of the 
State.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I remind our colleagues that the clock is 
ticking. I am hopeful that like the Senate, this body will now move on 
a proposal that offers real relief to communities in debt.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this process as well as 
to the final product that has come before the floor. With all due 
respect to Chairman Oxley, this is not the package we passed out of 
subcommittee, that we debated and we came to a compromise and 
conclusion on. The fact is that it is our responsibility in this House 
to do a good job on behalf of our constituents, to take to a conference 
a position that is good for them.
  With all due respect to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who speak of their 
communities who are in such danger, who have leveraged bonds, we have 
communities just like that. I have communities just like that. However, 
mine does not get a special fix in this bill, and it is very important 
for us to go to the drawing board and look at what is fair to everyone.
  I am absolutely amazed and disturbed that a bill such as the one we 
are considering today is being considered on the Suspension Calendar. 
This bill is not the product of Member negotiations, it is not the 
product of committee consideration, and it is not the product of the 
administration. However, it is a product of many interests downtown who 
have drafted a bill without Member input.
  As a Member who is supportive of flow control legislation and 
supportive of our communities in their efforts to effectively manage 
their solid waste, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill we are considering 
today. While this legislation does help some of the communities out 
there, it does not protect legitimate financial obligations incurred by 
many of our communities.
  I also urge a ``no'' vote on this bill because the whole legislative 
process has been circumvented. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and 
Hazardous Materials held a markup in May where amendments were adopted. 
The subcommittee-passed bill is now probably in one of those landfills 
out in the Midwest. What we are working on now is a piece of 
legislation that no Member has voted on, let alone seen or examined.
  The Suspension Calendar is a mechanism by which the House can 
consider relatively noncontroversial issues that have broad bipartisan 
support. This flow control legislation is not a worthwhile candidate 
for such consideration.
  This bill is controversial, not so much for what it contains but 
rather for what it does not contain. It does not contain relief for 
many communities holding legitimate debt, and it does not contain 
interstate waste provisions.
  It is our responsibility in this House to take care of those issues 
and then move it to conference. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman if she would just respond. 
Again, I am a proponent of prospective flow control. We did not win 
that one. We tried hard. There are a sufficient number of Members who 
disagree with that that we were unable to get that in there.
  The compromise that is struck here says that anybody who obligated 
funds, expended funds, or sold bonds prior to the Carbone decision on 
May 16, 1994, they are included, they are grandfathered. It is my 
understanding that those in your locale did so after the fact, after 
Carbone had been handed down.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, for those communities that did extend those bonds, they 
did so under the understanding that Congress was taking up that issue 
last year and the year before with the idea that these communities 
could be protected. They have extended their livelihood in those 
communities, their tax dollars and their resources, and many of the 
other communities, some of which have already been considered in this 
bill, did make those decisions after Carbone.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman 
Oxley, 

[[Page H938]]
for his allowing this bill to get to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House of Representatives works toward 
passage of flow control legislation with bipartisan support. The 
legislation is a fair compromise that would grandfather facilities 
designated prior to the 1994 Supreme Court decision, but phases out 
flow control as financial obligations expire.
  For example, this bill will protect the local government in Onondaga 
County to have the right to control the flow of municipal solid waste 
for financing their waste-to-energy plant and integrated waste program. 
Without such control, which had been put at risk by the Supreme Court 
ruling, the county would have been without sufficient cash flow to 
repay $180 million in bonds which provided funding for the plant.
  It is also very good news for taxpayers in central New York. Without 
the legislation, the county's credit rating could have been negatively 
affected for future bonding and all future public works projects put at 
risk.
  In addition, flow control is pro-environment--despite rhetoric to the 
contrary. If every municipality adopted a comprehensive solid waste 
program, they could handle their waste locally and not ship their 
garbage to other States. Our county's recycling program has received 
national recognition and awards for recycling over one-third of our 
waste stream. The community also benefits from the sale of electricity 
produced by the waste-to-energy facility.
  Working closely with Onondaga County officials, my colleagues in the 
New York delegation and the Commerce Committee, we were able to develop 
an excellent bill. This is the kind of cooperation between local and 
Federal Government that helps communities solve problems, and I urge my 
colleagues to support passage.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, and to the 
procedure under which the bill is being considered.
  The measure we are considering today, while well intentioned, is 
incomplete.
  This bill grandfathers the previous flow control arrangements of many 
communities.
  Unfortunately, the Hampton Roads communities of southeast Virginia 
were not grandfathered in this bill.
  That's not fair.
  These eight communities came together in the 1970's to create the 
Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia or SPSA.
  Now, like so many other localities, they are burdened with long-term 
bond debt.
  In SPSA's case, there is $275 million in bond debt due by 2018.
  The cities and towns who are served by SPSA need to be grandfathered 
in this bill so they can pay their debt.
  If you vote to pass this bill, you are legislating against some 
communities while you help others.
  Like all of you, I have a responsibility to the people I represent, 
and the communities in which they live.
  Under this procedure, I cannot do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure so we 
can make sure that all of our people can receive the same 
consideration. I do not think that is too much to ask. Under the 
procedures that this bill came under, it seems to me the plausible 
thing to do.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and 
I want to thank Chairman Bliley for the outstanding work that he has 
overseen as we have come to develop a bill that has earned strong 
bipartisan support.
  This bill is very important to me for a whole lot of reasons, but 
basic among those is that it will save taxpayers in my district an 
untold amount of money. Without this measure, three solid waste 
authorities in my district would be unable to pay off the bonds that 
they have issued without unsustainable tax increases. The people and 
their representatives from Oneida, Herkimer, Otsego, Montgomery, 
Schoharie and Madison Counties acted in good faith when they sold bonds 
in that manner. Now they will be able to have the waste stream they 
need to guarantee the operation of their facilities and to be able to 
pay off those bonds.
  I want to thank the solid waste authorities in my district for doing 
such a good job of educating me and my colleagues so that we would know 
how important it is to pass this very important flow control 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and it is most likely with the intention of closing debate at this 
particular point in time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple issue at this point. It is not 
really substantive. It is a question of whether or not we are going to 
have a proper use of the procedures of the House in order to deal with 
a very important piece of legislation which for the past 3\1/2\ years 
has been considered in the Committee on Commerce. Again, in the last 
session of Congress we dealt with this issue, we dealt with it on a 
bipartisan basis and we dealt with it in a comprehensive fashion.
  This bill is being dealt with on a piecemeal basis and in a partisan 
fashion. That is not necessary. We are being promised here on the floor 
that if we foreswear our concern legislatively for the interstate 
aspects of this bill, and, by the way, what could be more important to 
the States in the Midwest than how much waste is going to come into 
their States from other States? The States of New York and New Jersey, 
they are basically adopting Horace Greeley's philosophy, which is, ``Go 
west, trash deliverer, go west.'' That is the philosophy.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is that we have no guarantees, none 
at all. If we do not deal with this interstate issue and if the Senate 
acts on it, which we hope that it does--we are not sure that it does--
we are ceding our legislative responsibility to the Senate--something 
which I find to be highly undesirable generally given their overall 
conduct--that we should in fact deal with these issues ourselves. 
However, if in fact they deal with this interstate issue and they send 
it back, we are going to be dependent upon the Rules Committee to 
determine whether or not this issue is within the scope of the bill, 
given the fact that the House never in fact acted upon it.
  If the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
would get up and promise us that that bill will come out on the floor, 
no matter what, it will be out here on the floor, dealing with 
interstate waste, then that will give us all a lot more comfort. 
However, if that is not the case, we are going to be like Lucy holding 
the football for Charlie Brown. They are holding the ball for us right 
now, run up to the football, but at the end of the day, and I mean 
April or May when the bill comes back, we are not sure that the Rules 
Committee will ever allow an interstate bill to come out here.

  This is our opportunity to act. Vote ``no.'' Force this process, this 
House of Representatives, to produce a bill that deals with both 
aspects of this problem, and then we can go to the conference committee 
with the Senate with all of the cards on the table and a guarantee that 
the issues of the Midwest, the issues of all those States that might 
ultimately become the home to this waste, are dealt with properly.
  That is my message to the House today, that a vote ``no'' on this 
issue guarantees that we will get a good and comprehensive bill dealing 
with all aspects of this legislation.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Please remember on the separate issue we have a letter from 23 
Governors supporting interstate language. There is no way in the world 
that a conference committee will come back with anything less than a 
bill that will deal with interstate commerce.
  Mr. MARKEY. I respect the work the gentleman has done. The gentleman 

[[Page H939]]
  did good work at the subcommittee. I supported the gentleman's work. It 
should have come through the full committee and out here on the floor 
in a comprehensive way. We should not cede our responsibilities to the 
Senate.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the diligent work of our 
chairman of the full committee and subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. This is 
a very tough and complex issue, flow control and interstate waste.
  There has always been a fear, particularly from those of us in the 
Midwest, that one might pass without the other. Frankly, I was prepared 
to vote against this bill under suspension, in fact signed a bipartisan 
``Dear Colleague'' letter with a number of my colleagues asking us all 
to do so. But today's assurance that the Governors of the impacted 
States will in fact help forge an agreement that is acceptable to all 
of us helps resolve my goal of making sure that we will not see unfair 
control of interstate waste legislation move forward unless they in 
fact are dealt with together.

                              {time}  1500

  I accept Rules Committee Chairman Solomon's pledge of cooperation in 
working this out. In fact, I am going to go back to all of my 
colleagues to make sure that when this conference report comes out that 
it will be an acceptable bill.
  Out-of-State waste is a very important issue.
  Our landfills will fill up years ahead of schedule because cities 
like Chicago, New York, and Boston churn out garbage faster than they 
can deal with it.
  Interstate waste is an important tool. It allows States the ability 
to limit garbage that crosses my borders. My State should not be forced 
to accept other people's garbage. Michigan isn't a dumping ground for 
other States' mistakes.
  Michigan has had the foresight to develop a plan to dispose of our 
waste. We are now being forced to deal with garbage from States who 
haven't.
  I make no apologies--frankly, New York City, Boston, Chicago, your 
garbage isn't our problem.
  `We Recycle'--it says so right on the blue trash cans in my office. 
I've got to separate white paper from wet trash, glass from cardboard. 
But the Federal Government doesn't afford my communities with this 
luxury.
  Michigan communities shouldn't be forced to clog up their landfills 
with trash from cities hundreds of miles away. When it comes to dumping 
in landfills, it all gets thrown into the mix--Kalamazoo's, New York 
City's, Benton Harbor's, and Boston's--Michigan couldn't bar any State 
from dumping trash on us--until now.
   In a recent letter sent to Speaker Gingrich, Michigan Governor John 
Engler and several other Midwest Governors wrote ``Citizens constantly 
ask us why they should recycle in order to conserve space for other 
States' trash. We need assurances that we can conserve landfill space 
for our own State's disposal needs.''
   Governor, you got your assurance today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter:

         State of Ohio, State of Michigan, State of Indiana, 
           Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
                                                 January 25, 1996.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We are writing to express our opposition 
     to considering a flow control bill on the House floor under 
     suspension of the rules without the inclusion of interstate 
     waste provisions. As governors of states that have been 
     receiving considerable amounts of out-of-state waste, we feel 
     it is essential that the House move interstate waste and flow 
     control together as one bill.
       As you know, 23 governors wrote you in June to express 
     strong support for the interstate waste provisions in H.R. 
     2323, the State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control 
     Act of 1995, introduced by Congressman Mike Oxley and passed 
     by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous 
     Materials in May.
       For too long, states have had only limited ability to place 
     restrictions on shipments of municipal waste across state 
     lines. Although mandated by federal law to develop 
     comprehensive waste management plans, states' efforts to 
     enforce their own planning rules have been overturned 
     repeatedly by the federal courts. Lacking specific delegation 
     of authority from Congress, states that have acted 
     responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal 
     plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a 
     flood of out-of-state trash.
       We are not asking for outright authority to prohibit all 
     out-of-state waste. We are asking Congress to provide state 
     and local governments with the tools they need to manage 
     their own waste and limit waste from other states. Any 
     proposal to grant specific flow control authorities, 
     therefore, should not be considered without also including 
     these essential interstate waste provisions.
       We strongly believe that Congressman Oxley's interstate 
     waste provisions address many of our concerns. Twenty-three 
     governors and the Western Governors' Association have 
     supported the interstate waste provisions in this bill and 
     seek two strengthening amendments. One would allow states to 
     place a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste 
     that can be received at new facilities or major modifications 
     of existing facilities. The other would allow states to 
     authorize the collection of a $1-per-ton surcharge on waste 
     from other states.
       H.R. 2323 would give large exporting states sufficient time 
     to plan for the disposal of their own waste. It also would 
     give those states that have acted responsibly to implement 
     environmentally sound waste disposal and recycling plans 
     assurance that they can save space within their borders for 
     their own disposal needs.
       In addition, we oppose any provisions that would prohibit 
     interstate waste restrictions at facilities that are subject 
     to flow control authorities. Such a provision would prohibit 
     state and local governments that exercise flow control 
     authorities from having the opportunity to accept or reject 
     out-of-state waste shipments, and they could be forced to 
     receive it unwillingly. We strongly believe that one 
     community should not be forced to accept other states' waste 
     while another community has the opportunity to turn it away.
       Again, we respectfully urge that interstate waste and flow 
     control move together as one bill. By considering flow 
     control separately, Congress would only address one side of 
     the equation and would not give importing states the tools 
     they need to limit the large amounts of waste crossing their 
     borders.
           Sincerely,
     George V. Voinovich,
       Governor of Ohio.
     Evan Bayh,
       Governor of Indiana.
     John Engler,
       Governor of Michigan.
     Tom Ridge,
       Governor of Pennsylvania.

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  (Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the flow control 
legislation before us today.
  This compromise bill is now limited in scope and duration, a 
culmination of several months of negotiation between public and private 
stakeholders. Most importantly, this compromise bill protects local 
communities and preserves our commitment to free-market competition in 
the solid waste industry.
  Like many States, my State of Florida enacted a law requiring 
communities to manage their own waste, including a goal that 30 percent 
be recycled. My district, Dade County, invested nearly $200 million so 
they could meet this challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress should not break up monopolies, but this 
legislation will not do that.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
vitally important measure and ask my statement become a part of the 
Record.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I have been involved 
with for 4 years as have most of the Members speaking on this issue 
today.
  Frankly, I came to the floor prepared to vote against this measure, 
because of the real concern by dividing flow control from interstate 
garbage provisions, we were going to lose any consideration of 
interstate garbage. I am now told we have an extraordinary procedure 
involved here which will ensure that we will have a marriage of these 
two items before this thing comes back to the floor before it is 
ultimately resolved.

[[Page H940]]

  It is not as good as I would hope. I can assure you, given the 
concerns Pennsylvania has as the largest importer of interstate garbage 
in the country, that we could not possibly go for anything that does 
not include those provisions.
  I am persuaded, however, we are probably not going to see either flow 
control or interstate garbage provisions unless some procedure such as 
this is adopted. I still have some skepticism. I can assure you I will 
be fighting very hard if this thing comes back without adequate 
provisions for interstate garbage. But given that fact, unless a 
concern we not get either, this moves the process forward.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, to close debate on our side, I yield the 
balance of my time, 1 minute, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor], 
a member of the committee.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in support of this legislation. Although it is not the 
legislation I would have preferred to see out here, I would have 
preferred to see something closer to what we are dealing with in the 
Committee on Commerce. But I do so in part because of the assurances 
that interstate waste is going to be considered as a part of this 
conference committee.
  I supported both flow control legislation and interstate waste 
legislation, because they are, in fact, part and parcel of the same 
principle, and that principle is giving State and local government 
officials both the authority and the responsibility over waste 
management.
  The coupling of these two issues is supported by Governors from 
liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans, and I rise in support of 
this with the hope that this will give us the opportunity to come back 
with a conference committee report that deals with both of these 
important issues in a satisfactory way.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity as a 
Member of the New Jersey delegation to speak on behalf of S. 534, the 
Flow Control Act. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this bill with the 
understanding that it is going to address certain problematic 
situations that exist in my congressional district--namely, in Passaic 
and Essex Counties. This legislation is necessary for the protection of 
government entities who have operated in good faith under a State 
mandate for waste disposal. It would be unjust to both the taxpayers 
and the local entities if deregulation were to allow such law abiding 
local governments to default on their payment of debt.
  Following the Clarkstown versus Carbone decision of 1994, in which 
the Supreme Court struck down a local ordinance directing the shipment 
of waste to a local waste facility, local governments throughout New 
Jersey have been greatly affected by this decision. New Jersey, in an 
attempt to responsibly deal with the disposal of waste, has invested in 
facilities with the expectation that their cost could be financed with 
revenues accumulated by directing local waste to those facilities. The 
repayment of bonds depends on the practice of flow control. While I 
respect any decision passed down by the Supreme Court of the United 
States, I also respect the integrity of local governments that have in 
good faith supplied facilities to handle municipal solid waste.
  The idea of grandfathering certain facilities that were in process 
when the Carbone decision was rendered should not even be in question. 
I feel that it is our duty to protect the taxpayers' investments in 
such facilities. The Public Securities Association recognizes that this 
is our duty and has voiced their support for the legislation.
  It is also important to note the unique situation in the Garden 
State. New Jersey is the only State in our Nation in which all 
municipal solid waste is now flow controlled and has been flow 
controlled for over a decade. We must provide for preexisting 
arrangements of fiscally responsible local governments. The local 
entities in the eighth district of New Jersey should not be abandoned 
to default on several millions of dollars of outstanding bonds that 
support their waste program.
  For example, Passaic County in my congressional district has in 
excess of $80 million in outstanding bonds for transfer stations which 
deal with their waste. It is my understanding through my discussions 
with the Commerce Committee, as well as with Governor Whitman's office 
and Members of the New Jersey congressional delegation, transfer 
stations will be included among the in-state facilities whose debt will 
be protected. It is important to me that this legislation addresses the 
ability to pay all outstanding debt that is waste related, regardless 
of the particular nature of the waste facility.
  Furthermore, it is my understanding through such discussions that 
localities that send municipal solid waste through in-state transfer 
stations prior to sending that waste out-of-state are clearly covered 
under this legislation. With that in mind, I will support this bill.
  It is about time that we address the effect of the Carbone decision 
on local governments throughout the United States and protect the 
monetary commitments of those localities.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, through its constitutional authority to 
regulate interstate commerce and in response to the U.S. Supreme 
Court's Carbone decision, Congress sets forth in this legislation the 
limits and conditions on flow control authority. The impact on 
interstate commerce of the flow control authority exercised in 
conformance with the provisions of this legislation has been sanctioned 
by Congress and may not be challenged on commerce clause grounds.
  The legislation further sanctions flow control authority exercised by 
a particular State or local government before enactment of this 
legislation, to the extent the exercise of that flow control authority 
is in conformance with the provisions of this legislation. Congressman 
Nethercutt and others have asked for clarification on this point. The 
intent of this sanctioning by Congress of previously exercised flow 
control authority is to end pending litigation in which such exercise 
of flow control authority has been challenged as unconstitutional on 
commerce clause grounds. However, the legislation makes clear that this 
congressional sanction does not apply in cases where a final judicial 
decision no longer subject to judicial review has declared, before 
enactment of this legislation, the specific exercise of flow control 
authority by the State or local government to be unconstitutional. Of 
course, that same State or local government may exercise the flow 
control authority granted by this legislation after enactment of this 
legislation, if the State or local government meets the grandfather 
criteria set forth in the legislation.


               statement on use of flow control revenues

  This compromise legislation limits the use of revenues derived from 
the exercise of flow control. Such revenues may only be used to repay 
the principal and interest on eligible bonds issued by a grandfathered 
community, to repay the principal and interest on bonds issued for 
qualified environmental retrofits of designated facilities, or to repay 
the financial obligations incurred by a community pursuant to certain 
contracts specified in the bill. However, to protect the viability of a 
community's investment in a designated facility financed by a bond, the 
legislation provides that all expenses necessary for its intended 
operation and proper maintenance, such as operation and maintenance 
expense of the other integral facilities, may also be paid with 
revenues derived from the exercise of the flow control authority.


                      statement on sham recycling

  The legislation prohibits a community from exercising flow control 
authority over recycled materials unless such materials are voluntarily 
relinquished to the community by the generator or owner of the 
materials. The definition of recyclable materials in the legislation 
makes clear our intent that this prohibition is only to apply to 
materials that will be recycled, reclaimed, composted, or reused, and 
have been separated for these purposes from waste which is to be 
disposed. Our intent is to prevent sham recycling. Sham recycling 
occurs when an entity seeks to avoid a grandfathered community's 
exercise of flow control authority over a particular waste material by 
claiming that it intends to recycle the material but does not actually 
recycle, or recycles only very minimally, with the intent to dispose of 
the material at a non-flow controlled facility.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 534, 
legislation to reestablish a modest degree of local flow control for 
the disposal of municiple solid waste. The bill seeks to preserve local 
flow control authority for communities which had such rules in effect 
prior to the Supreme Court's Carbone decision in 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, Dutchess County, New York offers a good example of the 
desperate need to pass flow control legislation. The Dutchess County 
Resource Recovery Agency runs a waste-to-energy and recycling facility 
that was constructed with the belief that a steady stream of waste--and 
revenue--would be available to meet the financial obligations incurred 
by the county.
  However, the Supreme Court's Carbone decision invalidated local flow 
control ordinances under the view that they violate the interstate 
commerce clause of the Constitution. Since that time, revenue streams 
and the bond ratings for waste facilities have fallen off.
  In New York State alone, over $1.2 billion in public debt for solid 
waste management facilities and programs is threatened unless this can 
be resolved--$43 million of that debt was incurred by the Dutchess 
County Resources Recovery Agency. The loss of flow control authority 
resulted in a $3 million shortfall to the facility last year, and a 
similar shortfall is expected this year unless corrective action is 

[[Page H941]]
taken. Of course, in the end, Dutchess County taxpayers must make up 
the difference for any shortfall to the facility.
  Mr. Speaker, similar legislation passed the House of Representatives 
during the last session by an overwhelming margin. It was recognized 
then, as in the case today, that once the bond obligations have been 
met, flow control authority ceases and the free market takes over.
  I recognize that legitimate concerns remain with respect to the 
regulation of waste streams between States, but we cannot let this 
issue further delay the passage of this fair and commonsense 
legislation. Dutchess County, and many others around the country, can 
no longer afford to see the resolution of this issue delayed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation which restores 
limited local control over municipal solid waste.
  Local governments across this country would be burdened with enormous 
financial debts unless this Congress acts and approves legislation such 
as is before us today. Whether Members favor flow control or not, the 
fact of the matter is that local governments have been legitimately 
using this planning tool for over a decade, and have outstanding 
contractual agreements and obligations they are responsible to meet. 
This bill is a fair compromise that allows our local governments to 
basically keep their promises to investors and citizens on a good faith 
basis.
  This bill is not perfect. From my stand point, I support stronger 
flow control authority granted to the States, counties, and 
municipalities. I believe flow control provides State and local 
governments with the tools to manage waste disposal responsibility and 
effectively. A framework for solid waste recycling and disposal has 
been established in Minnesota and other States that is truly working 
with the underpinning of flow control. Solid waste disposal is 
certainly an issue that is inherently local, and State and local 
governments should have the authority to address the policy without 
being whipsawed between jurisdictions. The rationalization of sound 
solid waste policy responding to the environmental limits and reality 
is a key role of local government, surely we should permit them to do 
their job.
  This, of course, is the broader debate that Congress should be 
shaping. But until we face up to the total task, let us make certain 
that we do not let default and harm befall our States and local 
governments. They need certainty and predictability, not philosophic 
platitudes on the magic of the marketplace. Our local governments are 
facing an $18 billion debt. Local governments need flow control relief 
today that responds to their legal obligations, and this bill provides 
modest and necessary relief.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We cannot continue 
to leave our local and State governments swinging in the wind. 
Cooperation and responsible action should be our response to the 
circumstance; a commonsense pragmatic policy to the problem before us--
I urge positive support for this measure.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, 
but also to express the concerns of Hillsborough County, FL, in my 
district, concerns that I understand are held by other entities in 
other States regarding this legislation, as well.
  As is well known, the measure we consider today is intended to exempt 
from constitutional challenge State and municipal flow-control laws in 
effect on or before May 16, 1994. The necessity of this stems from the 
fact that the Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that solid waste flow-control 
was an unconstitutional interference in interstate commerce.
  Nevertheless, the States and municipalities in question depend upon a 
steady stream of waste material to their disposal facilities in order 
to repay bonds issued to finance construction of these facilities.
  Clearly, this matter needs to be addressed and this legislation seeks 
to do so. However, if we are to address it, we must ensure that our 
meaning is certain.
  This measure also grants flow-control authority to State and local 
government facilities if, among other requirements, eligible bonds were 
presented for sale on or before May 16, 1994. Such was the case with 
Hillsborough County, FL, but the county refinanced these bonds in July 
1994, with an expiration date on the new bond identical to that in 
place on May 16.
  This refinancing should in no way jeopardize the flow-control 
authority in this case.
  No changes in conditions were made other than the county's valid and, 
indeed, commendable desire to secure more favorable interest rates and 
a better financial deal for the ratepayers. Through discussions with 
members and staff of the Commerce Committee, it is my understanding 
that under this legislation this is, in fact, the case: the authority 
is not jeopardized.
  In view of this, I support this limited flow-control-authority 
legislation and urge its adoption by the House. I will continue to work 
with the committee and its members to assure the enactment of the 
soundest possible solid waste flow control legislation.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation to allow 
for limited flow control. As a representative of a State whose 
communities rely upon flow control for their solid waste disposal 
systems, I know first-hand the urgent need for this legislation.
  It has been almost 2 years since the Supreme Court ruled that State 
and local flow-control ordinances violate the Interstate Commerce 
clause without congressional authorization. Since then, thousands of 
communities in my State and across the Nation have had trouble meeting 
their legal obligations to provide for solid waste disposal. Many 
resource recovery facilities, which depend upon flow control to receive 
enough waste to pay back municipal bonds, are being denied a steady 
stream of revenue. Connecticut's resource recovery authorities alone 
have issued over half a billion dollars in bonds to finance 
construction of their facilities. Without flow control, those debts 
might not be repaid.
  In addition, the lack of flow-control authority may lead to increased 
taxes on millions of people if towns that entered into put-or-pay 
contracts with waste facilities before 1994 cannot deliver agreed-upon 
levels of waste. Worse, many States' solid waste disposal plans, 
adopted in accordance with Federal law, will be virtually unenforceable 
because communities will not be able to direct solid waste to resource 
recovery plants rather than landfills or other less environmentally 
preferred systems.
  Those of us who represent States with flow-control ordinances 
understand the concerns raised about this kind of policy. However, this 
legislation represents a reasonable middle ground which will 
grandfather in flow-control laws that were on the books prior to the 
Court ruling and would limit their duration. This makes sure that 
communities that entered into obligations to dispose of waste have the 
ability to fulfill those obligations until their conclusion.
  If we do not take this action today, the more likely it is that our 
country's waste disposal systems will be undermined, our environmental 
policies will be harmed, and our constituents will be forced to pay 
more taxes. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this desperately needed 
legislation.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 349 
and in strong support of flow control.
  New Jersey is facing a crisis situation that can only be averted by 
swift passage of this legislation. A recent court decision--the Carbone 
decision of May 1994--has placed New Jersey's waste management system 
in chaos.
  Currently, 17 of 21 New Jersey counties have public debt tied 
directly to flow control and more than $2 billion in outstanding debt 
backed by flow-control bonds. This debt was incurred in compliance with 
a State mandate for each waste region to become self-sufficient in 
managing its waste.
  While the Supreme Court has ruled that flow control is an undue 
interference with interstate commerce, the legislation that the House 
is voting on today allows flow control only in jurisdictions that 
exercised it, designated the waste facility to receive the waste, and 
actually sold bonds to finance the facility prior to the May 1994 
Carbone decision. This is expected to apply to less than 20 percent of 
the solid waste market. And, once the bonds are paid off, flow control 
ends. This gives densely populated States like New Jersey the 
opportunity to regroup and plan for the redirection of their municipal 
waste streams.
  Concern over the omission of coverage for construction and demolition 
debris language has been expressed by the Morris County Municipal 
Utilities Authority, and I will continue to work for the inclusion of 
these provisions which are important to Morris County and other New 
Jersey counties. However, in the meantime, I strongly support passage 
of this legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to commend the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley] and the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] for their 
bipartisan cooperation on this bill.
  To paraphrase Mark Twain, regulatory reform is a lot like the 
weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody ever does anything about 
it.
  We've had a lot of passionate debate on both sides of the aisle this 
year saying we all want regulatory reform, that we need to put a stop 
particularly to the old style of regulation that costs a lot but does 
very little to actually improve the environment. Well, this is our 
chance to prove we mean it.
  Unless we act, EPA will be forced to issue another one-size-fits-all 
regulation that will cost, by EPA's own estimate, $800 million per year 
to implement.
  EPA is asking for our help, because they know that little, if any, 
real risk reduction would occur if these rules are promulgated.
  What this means for me is that one chemical plant in my district 
could be forced to 

[[Page H942]]
spend about $34 million to replace a well-operated wastewater treatment 
system.
  Risk assessments performed by the company show that its surface 
impoundments already protect human health and the environment to RCRA 
risk standards. In fact, the emissions of highest risk hazardous 
constituents from all plant sources, including wastewater treatment, 
has been determined to have a lifetime cancer risk to the nearest 
receptor of less than one in a million.
  This plant has been growing and could put the resources to greater 
economic and environmental benefit.
  This bill represents a bipartisan agreement between Congress and the 
administration, and is the kind of targeted regulatory reform that many 
have been advocating. Chairman Oxley should be commended for 
recognizing the need to correct this court-imposed conflict between our 
environmental statutes. The administration also deserves credit for 
including this correction in its RCRA rifle-shot proposals.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Flow Control Act of 
1996. Since 1990, the United States has generated 195 million tons of 
municipal solid waste--more than any other country in the world for 
which data are available and almost double the amount generated by 
Japan and the European Union. The challenge before us today is to 
manage the flow of all this solid waste in a manner that strikes a 
balance which is both environmentally sound and protects free-market 
principles.
  The legislation we have before us on the floor attempts to strike 
this balance by partially restoring flow-control authority to some 
local governments so that they can pay off their debts without having 
to raise taxes. Some will argue that flow control is an unfunded 
mandate on taxpayers. Yet, the real unfunded mandate is the mandate the 
Federal Government leveled on State and local governments under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in 1976. Under this law, 
the Federal Government required the States to dispose of solid waste in 
an environmentally sensible fashion. To meet this unfunded Federal 
mandate, local governments in the State of Minnesota sold 400 million 
dollars' worth of municipal bonds--$48 million in my district--to build 
environmentally sound waste facilities, charged for their use, and 
directed the flow of waste to those facilities in order to pay for 
them. Despite the RCRA mandate, Congress never explicitly provided 
States and local governments the authority to control the flow of 
municipal solid waste.
  I'd like to illustrate the problem facing local governments by 
highlighting two counties in my district. Responding to Federal and 
State mandates, the counties of Wright and Martin built state-of-the-
art composting facilities in the early 1990's. Instead of landfilling, 
the waste is turned into composting material, which can be sold on the 
market and into refuse-derived fuel, which provides electricity needs 
for some Minnesota cities. As a result, the amount of solid waste 
headed for overcrowded landfills has been reduced by 80 percent, which 
benefits the environment.
  These facilities were built with public bond financing based on the 
premise that flow control would guarantee an adequate flow to the 
facilities to keep them financially stable. This stability was put in 
jeopardy in 1994 when the Supreme Court struck down local flow-control 
laws. The Court said that only Congress has the power to grant flow-
control authority. Since the 1994 decision, much of the waste is now 
going out of State, making it extremely difficult for counties to pay 
off their bonds.
  If Congress does not act to allow those counties to pay off their 
debts through flow control, the taxpayers will ultimately and unfairly 
be forced to pay higher property taxes to meet debt obligations. 
Certainly, this is not an outcome this Congress should condone. This is 
a result that no one wants, yet it is already happening in my district. 
For example, in Wright County, the county commissioners were forced to 
raise property taxes by $1.25 million in 1995 to make up for the 
shortfall of revenues caused by the diversion of waste out-of-state 
rather than to the county's compost facility. This is patently unfair, 
as it penalizes those who generate the least amount of waste by forcing 
them to pay higher taxes. With flow control in place, on the other 
hand, those who generate the most waste pay the highest fees, which is 
a fairer way to proceed. And in Martin County, commissioners are 
deciding whether to shut down their facility and just pass on the 
remaining $7 million in debt to the taxpayers absent congressional 
action.
  The legislation before the House is narrowly drafted. It is 
apparently intended to allow those facilities currently in operation to 
meet their debt obligations. Flow-control authority will expire after 
the bonds are paid off. Under the bill, an estimated 80 percent of the 
waste stream will be immediately available to the private sector. As 
grandfathered communities pay off their debt, the private sector will 
gradually assume responsibility for the remaining 20 percent of the 
waste stream. This compromise language was drafted after months of 
intense negotiations and is supported by local governments, the public 
securities community, and the waste industry. It should assure 
communities which have accumulated debt predicated on flow-control 
authority that they will have that important tool. At the same time, it 
ensures free-market competition in the solid waste industry.
  Unfortunately, there may be some drafting glitches in this bill that 
may handicap some communities. If these glitches unintentionally 
exclude some communities from being covered by this important 
legislation, then those glitches must be fixed in the conference 
committee. I expect the Chair shares my commitment to pressing for any 
corrections that are necessary to carry out the full intent of this 
bill.
  It is important that any legislation passed, balance the need to 
protect the environment with the need to promote free-market 
principles. I am confident that this legislation meets both of those 
tests. I do not believe this legislation goes far enough to protect 
taxpayer liability. However, it is a good basis to move forward on this 
issue and provide the beginning of relief to our local governments.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 534. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The Supreme Court decision in the case of C&A Carbone, Inc. versus 
Town of Clarkstown has significant implications for municipalities and 
taxpayers across the country. The case invalidated the use of flow 
control to manage solid waste generated within the borders of a 
community. The implications are far reaching because according to the 
Congressional Research Service [CRS], 41 States exercise flow control 
either through statute or other means. Many States have used flow 
control to ensure that municipal solid waste [MSW] is disposed of in 
accordance with several Federal laws and regulations.
  Flow control authority is especially important to communities across 
my State of Connecticut. Many small towns in eastern Connecticut have 
contracts with solid waste disposal facilities which require them to 
deliver a minimum amount of waste or face financial penalties, also 
known as put-or-pay requirements. Towns entered into these agreements 
because they believed that flow control ordinances, authorized under 
State law, would allow them to meet their contractual obligations. 
Without flow control, residents in communities such as Norwich, Vernon, 
Groton, Tolland, Westbrook, and many others will be forced to pay 
higher taxes to pay penalties for failing to deliver the minimum volume 
of waste.
  To make matters worse, the majority of solid waste disposal 
facilities in my State have been financed with State revenue bonds. 
Disposal authorities require a minimum amount of waste to operate at 
levels sufficient to generate revenue to repay these bonds. If 
facilities cannot make these payments, the bondholders could be forced 
to make the payments. According to Connecticut's attorney general, the 
State and its taxpayers could ultimately be responsible for 520 million 
dollars' worth of bonds. This would be fully disastrous for our State 
which is only beginning to fully recover from the recession.
  S. 534 will provide relief to these communities. It grandfathers 
existing flow control ordinances, statutes, and agreements. It also 
allows communities to flow control certain recyclable material provided 
that the material is voluntarily relinquished. This is especially 
important because flow controlling common household recyclables in 
urban areas helps to subsidize recycling efforts in rural communities. 
The bill makes it clear that such authority does not place an undue 
burden on interstate commerce.
  Contrary to what some opponents of the bill argue, this is a limited 
approach. Communities must have applied flow control through formal, 
legally binding methods on, or before, the date of the Supreme Court 
decision to qualify under the bill. In addition, flow control can only 
be exercised during the bond repayment period or life of a contract. As 
a result, flow control authority will expire when bonds are repaid and 
put-or-pay contracts have expired.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to comment on the charge flow 
control damages the environment. I am not aware of a single case where 
this argument has been proven conclusively. In fact, the vast majority 
of communities use flow control to direct waste to state-of-the-art 
disposal facilities. In my State, waste goes to transfer stations, 
landfills, and other facilities which meet strict State, Federal, and 
local standards designed to protect the air, water, and public health. 
Claims that flow control damages the environment are a red-herring 
designed to prevent Congress from providing important relief to small 
communities across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the House pass this legislation 
today. If we fail to act, taxpayers across the country could face much 
higher tax bills as their communities are penalized for failing to meet 
their contractual obligations. This is a balanced bill which provides 

[[Page H943]]
needed relief while placing reasonable limits on future flow control 
authority. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Flow Control Act 
of 1996. Prompt House action on this legislation is essential for 
people and counties of New Jersey, and their continued ability to 
dispose of solid waste.
  Although this is not the exact bill that I would have written by 
myself, the time has come for the House to take action on this very 
serious issue nevertheless.
  Essentially, this legislation will restore to towns and cities the 
ability to enact flow-control ordinances, which dictate the terms and 
conditions of how solid waste, or garbage as most people call it, is 
disposed of in New Jersey.
  In May 1994, the Supreme Court, in its Carbone versus Town of 
Clarkstown ruling, held that without congressional authorization, it 
was an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce for towns 
and cities to dictate the disposal of solid waste.
  At that point in time, 17 of the 21 counties in New Jersey had issued 
more than $2 billion in debt to finance the construction of solid waste 
disposal facilities. Thus, the Supreme Court's rulings immediately put 
all of these bonds--as well as the counties that issued them--in dire 
jeopardy, because the bonds had been floated based on the assumption 
that the ability to flow control waste would remain intact.
  The bill before us today grandfathers State and local flow-control 
arrangements made prior to the Carbone decision, as well as any 
existing lawful contracts entered into between May 16, 1994, and 
November 10, 1995. The grandfathering is in effect for the life of a 
county's bonded debt or an existing solid waste disposal contract, 
whichever is longer.
  In the 36 months since the Supreme Court's ruling, I have worked 
diligently with all of my House colleagues from New Jersey, most 
notably Congressman Chris Smith, to have the Congress pass legislation 
that restores to our State the authority to flow control solid waste.
  In fact, during the 103d Congress, a bipartisan effort to approve 
flow-control legislation as part of a larger solid waste bill was 
passed by the House, only to die in the Senate in the waning hours of 
the session. Although the need for flow-control legislation was urgent 
then, it is even more serious today, almost 15 months later.
  Last summer, the Senate passed its own version of solid waste 
legislation. The House cannot afford to delay anymore. With this in 
mind, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting 
passage of this bill.
  I recognize the fact that some of my colleagues are urging the House 
to defeat this bill. However, their opposition to this bill is not 
centered so much on the provisions of the bill before us today, as much 
as the process by which it has been brought to the floor.
  In the public arena, there is the old cliche ``Don't let the good be 
the enemy of the perfect.'' Clearly, today, the legislation before us 
today meets this test--it isn't perfect, but we know that it is good 
and worthy of our support. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote in 
support of its passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 
349.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________