[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 56 (Thursday, April 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4109-S4132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. COVERDELL:
S. 857. A bill to amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act of 1986 to cover Federal facilities; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
federal facilities community right to know act of 1999
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation--
the Federal Facilities Community Right-To-Know Act of 1999--which
provides that the federal government is held to the same reporting
requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Act (EPCRA) of 1986 as private entities. In 1986, Congress directed the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a national inventory
to inform the public about chemicals used and released in their
communities. Since enactment of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act, manufactures have been required to keep extensive
records on how they use and store hazardous chemicals and report
releases of
[[Page S4110]]
hundreds of hazardous chemicals annually. EPA compiles the reported
information into the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
The Toxic Release Inventory is a publicly available data base
containing specific chemical release and transfer information from
manufacturing facilities throughout the United States. The TRI is
intended to promote planning for chemical emergencies and to provide
information to the public regarding the presence and release of toxic
and hazardous chemicals in their communities.
In August 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, which
required Federal facilities to begin submitting TRI reports beginning
in calendar year 1994 activities. I commend President Clinton for
taking this action. However, this executive order does not have the
force of law and could be changed by a future Administration. The
National Governors Association's policy on federal facilities states
that ``Congress should ensure that federal and state `right to know'
requirements apply to federal facilities.'' My legislation simply
amends the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act to cover
federal facilities. It is important for the Federal government to
protect the environment and its citizens from hazardous substances.
People living near federal facilities have the right to know what
hazardous substances are being released into the environment by these
facilities so they can better protect themselves and their children
from these potential threats. It is my strong belief that federal
facilities should be treated the same as private entities. My
legislation attempts to move us closer towards that goal.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 859. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require a
refund value for certain beverage containers, to provide resources for
State pollution prevention and recycling programs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
national beverage container reuse and recycling act of 1999
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Earth Day
to introduce the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of
1999. I introduce this bill again today because I firmly believe that
deposit laws are a common sense, proven method to increase recycling,
save energy, create jobs, and decrease the generation of waste and
proliferation of landfills. Unfortunately, recycling rates for beverage
containers have recently dropped, making this legislation even more
important.
The experience of ten states, including Vermont, attest to the
success of a deposit law or bottle bill as it is commonly called. The
recycling rates in these states for aluminum cans is 80 percent, while
the overall national average in 1998 was only 55 percent. Cans recycled
in deposit states accounted for half of all cans recycled in the
country during this period. Although a national recycling rate of 55
percent may seem significant, every three seconds, 14,000 aluminum cans
are discarded as waste.
Such waste is rapidly overflowing landfills, washing up on our
beaches, and piling up on our roadways. Our country's solid waste
problems are very real, and they will continue to haunt us until we
take action. The throw-away ethic that has emerged in this country is
not insurmountable, and recycling is part of the solution.
The concept of a national bottle bill is simple: to provide the
consumer with an incentive to return the container for reuse of
recycling. Consumers pay a nominal cost per bottle or can when
purchasing a beverage and are refunded their money when they bring the
container back either to a retailer or redemption center. Retailers are
paid a fee for their participation in the program, and any unclaimed
deposits are used to finance state environmental programs.
Under my proposal, a 10-cent deposit on certain beverage containers
would take effect in states which have beverage container recovery
rates of less than 70 percent, the minimum recovery rate achieved by
existing bottle bill states. Labels showing the deposit value would be
affixed to containers, and retailers would receive a 2-cent fee per
container for their participation in the program.
This legislation I introduce today is consistent with our nation's
solid waste management objectives. A national bottle bill would reduce
solid waste and litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a
much needed partnership between consumers, industry, and local
governments. I urge my colleagues to join these ten states, including
Vermont, and support a nation-wide bottle deposit law. Because for our
children, the health of the planet may be our most enduring legacy.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hollings, and Mr.
Levin):
S. 860. A bill to require country of origin labeling of perishable
agricultural commodities imported into the United States and to
establish penalties for violations of the labeling requirements; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
imported produce labeling act of 1999
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would require country of origin labeling of perishable agricultural
commodities imported into the United States. I offer the ``Imported
Produce Labeling Act'' to ensure that Americans know the origin of
every orange, banana, tomato, cucumber, and green pepper on display in
the grocery store.
For two decades, Floridians shopping at their local grocery stores
have been able to make educated choices about the food products they
purchase for their families. In 1979, in my first year as Governor, I
proudly signed legislation to make country of origin labels commonplace
in produce sections all over Florida. This labeling requirement has
proven to be neither complicated nor burdensome for Florida's farmers
or retailers.
Country of origin labeling is not new to the American marketplace.
For decades, ``Made In'' labels have been as visible as price tags on
clothes, toys, television sets, watches, and many other products. It
makes little sense that such labels are nowhere to be found in the
produce section of grocery stores in the vast majority of states.
The current lack of identifying information on produce means that
Americans who wish to heed government health warnings about foreign
products or who have justifiable concerns about other nations' labor,
environmental, and agricultural standards are powerless to choose other
perishables. In fact, according to nationwide surveys, between 74 and
83 percent of consumers favor mandatory country of origin labeling for
fresh produce.
This is a low-cost, common sense method of informing consumers, as
retailers will simply be asked to provide this information by means of
a label, stamp, or placard. Implementation of this practice in Florida
resulted in an estimated cost of only $10 monthly per grocery store, a
remarkably small price to pay to provide American consumers with the
information they need to make informed produce purchases.
In addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that
twenty-six of our key trading partners require country of origin
labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables. By adopting this amendment,
our law will become more consistent with the laws of our global trading
partners.
Consumers have the right to know basic information about the fruits
and vegetables that they bring home to their families. Congress can
take a major step toward achieving this simple goal by passing the
``Imported Produce Labeling Act,'' thereby restoring American shoppers'
ability to make an informed decision.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reed, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 861. A bill to designate certain Federal land in the State of Utah
as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
AMERICA'S RED ROCK WILDERNESS ACT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act to protect an important part of our nation's natural
heritage. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act
[[Page S4111]]
designates 9.1 million acres of public land in Utah as wilderness.
Passage of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is essential to protect
a national treasure for future generations of Americans. It provides
wilderness protection for magnificent canyons, red rock cliffs and rock
formations unlike any on earth. The lands included in this legislation
contain steep slick rock canyons, high cliffs offering spectacular
vistas of rare rock formations, desert lands, important archeological
sites, and habitat for rare plant and animal species.
The areas designated for wilderness protection in America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act are based on a detailed inventory of lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management conducted by volunteers from the Utah
Wilderness Coalition. Between 1996 and 1998, UWC volunteers and staff
surveyed thousands of square miles of BLM land, taking over 50,000
photos and compiling documentation to ensure that these areas meet
federal wilderness criteria.
As a result of this inventory, an additional 3.4 million acres not
included in earlier Utah wilderness bills have been added to the
wilderness designations in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. Most of
the areas added to the bill are in the remote Great Basin deserts in
the western portion of the state and the red rock canyons in Southern
Utah, which had not been included in earlier inventories.
Recently, BLM completed a re-inventory of approximately 6 million
acres of federal land which had been proposed for wilderness
designation in previous wilderness bills. The results provide a
convincing confirmation of the inventory conducted by UWC volunteers.
Of the 6 million acres it re-inventoried, BLM found that 5.8 million
acres qualified for wilderness consideration. Almost all of these lands
are included in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
Theodore Roosevelt once stated, ``The Nation behaves well if it
treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the
next generation increased and not impaired in value.'' Unfortunately,
these fragile, scenic lands in Utah are threatened by oil, gas and
mining interests, destructive use by off-road vehicles, increased
commercial development, and proposals to construct roads, communication
towers, transmission lines, and dams. We must act now to protect these
lands for future generations.
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is supported by a broad coalition
of over 150 environmental, conservation, and recreational organizations
and citizen groups. In independent television and newspaper surveys and
public hearings on this issue, the citizens of Utah also have expressed
overwhelming support for a strong wilderness bill.
Yesterday was John Muir's birthday. He observed that ``Thousands of
tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out
that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a
necessity; that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as
fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.''
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act honors his vision.
The preservation of our nation's vital natural resources will be one
of our most important legacies. I urge my colleagues to join me as a
cosponsor of this important bill to protect the America's Red Rock
Wilderness area in Utah for future generations.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) as an original co-sponsor of legislation to
designate 9.1 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in
Utah as wilderness.
Though this is the second time this particular measure has been
introduced in this body, this year's legislation has been substantially
revised. As the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) has already
described, these revisions have been made on the basis of a citizen-led
re-inventory of the wilderness quality lands that remain on BLM lands
in Utah.
During the April recess I had an opportunity to travel to Utah. I
viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for
wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the
proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my
understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the
Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal, and inside
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek
Falls.
I support this legislation, for a few reasons, Mr. President, but
most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know
the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the
BLM lands of Southern Utah.
Second, Mr. President, I support this legislation because I believe
it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be
protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers
wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full
measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection.
This bill encompases all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senate has not, as we do today,
always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all
of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I
joined with the former Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley) in
opposing that Congress' Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained
provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state
of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of
the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such
protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded
designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of
Wisconsin. In writing to me last Congress, my constituents described
these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and
incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times,
a paper in Madison, WI, wrote:
Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first
daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all
Americans.
The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau
and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of
the last of our country's wilderness which is not fully
protected.
We must ask our elected officials to redress this
circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect
those national lands within the boundaries of Utah.
This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a
legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.
Some may say, Mr. President, that this legislation is unnecessary and
Utah already has the ``monument'' that Wallace Stegner wrote about,
designated by President Clinton on September 18, 1997. However, it is
important to note, the land of the Grand Staircase Escalante National
Monument comprises only about one tenth of the lands that will be
granted wilderness protection under this bill.
I supported the President's actions to designate the Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument. On September 17, 1997, amid reports of the
pending designation, I wrote a letter to President Clinton to support
that action which was co-signed by six other members of the Senate.
That letter concluded with the following statement ``We remain
interested in working with the Administration on appropriate
legislation to evaluate and protect the full extent of public lands in
Utah that meet the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness Act.''
I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish
that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in
the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the
culmination of more than 15 years and four Congresses of effort in the
other body beginning with the legislative work of the former
Congressman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by
any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct
terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert,
canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado
Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands
also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the
new National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American
outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.
Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I
am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin
would
[[Page S4112]]
co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September
13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in
Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and
adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect
these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over
wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti-
environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove
restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid
areas.''
Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe, Mr.
President, that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save
Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to
its stewardship of natural resources. For example, some in my home
state believe that among federal lands that comprise the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National
Forests there are lands that are deserving of wilderness protection.
These federal properties are incredibly important, and they mean a
great deal to the people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that,
should additional lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness
designation, the type of protection they expect from federal law is
still available to be extended because it had been properly extended to
other places of national significance.
What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some
in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah,
wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation.
Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future
generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which
is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by
extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly
codify that expectation and promise.
Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the
support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be
protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the
federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while
they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to
the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans.
Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely
be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to
protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be
involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best
stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has
completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the
last Congress by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and adjacent
areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more
than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness
protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a
formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it
suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate
over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward.
I am also watching closely the on-going dialogue between Governor
Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt regarding possible wilderness protection
for some of the West Desert lands that are contained in this
legislation, and the formal Section 202 process in which the BLM will
be engaged in Utah. I hope that the leaders of those efforts will look
to this legislation as a guide in identifying the areas that need to be
protected as wilderness.
I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) to
protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 862. A bill to protect Social Security surpluses and reserve a
portion of non-Social Security surpluses to strengthen and protect
Medicare; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Government Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977,
with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee
have thirty days to report or be discharged.
social security and medicare lock box act
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Conrad, I am
introducing legislation, the Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act,
to reserve budget surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. President, this bill is an alternative to the Abraham-Domenici-
Ashcroft lock box legislation now before the Senate. There are several
differences between the two versions. But I want to highlight this,
most importantly: the Republican proposal claims to protect Social
Security, but it doesn't even pretend to protect Medicare. This bill
would reserve surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare. And the
main question for the Senate is whether we care enough about Medicare
to provide it with a real lock box.
Mr. President, as I explained earlier, the Republican lock box has
three major flaws.
First, it fails to protect Social Security, and actually threatens
benefits.
Second, it reserves nothing for Medicare.
And, third, it could result in a government default, which could
trigger a world-wide economic catastrophe.
Our plan corrects each of these problems in a responsible way that
will work. It provides an ironclad guarantee that 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus will be saved for Social Security. It reserves
40 percent of the non-Social Security, on-budget surplus for Medicare.
And, the lock box is enforced not by a risky new limit on public debt,
but though the same budget procedures that produced the first budget
surplus in 30 years.
With respect to Social Security, Mr. President, our lock box would
create a new point of order against a budget resolution that spends the
Social Security surplus. This provision is also in the Republican
amendment. But our point of order requires a supermajority to waive
while theirs can be waived by a simple majority vote.
The Republican amendment also contains a trap door that would allow
Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than
Social Security benefits, such as risky new privatization schemes. Our
proposal includes no such trap door. To the contrary, its enforcement
procedures would remain in effect until legislation is enacted
certifying that Social Security's life has been extended for the long-
term.
In addition to protecting Social Security, Mr. President, our lock
box extends similar protections to the Medicare program. The proposal
creates supermajority points of order against a budget resolution or
any subsequent legislation that fails to reserve roughly 40 percent of
the on-budget surplus for Medicare over the next 15 years.
Mr. President, the Medicare Trust Fund is now expected to be bankrupt
by 2015. We should move quickly to reform and modernize the program.
But it's also clear that we'll need additional resources when the baby
boom generation starts to retire. Even with reforms that substantially
reduce costs, the revenues coming to the Medicare Trust Fund will not
support this larger number of beneficiaries. Nor will they provide the
resources needed to modernize the program or provide a prescription
drug benefit.
In case anyone has any doubt about that, consider the so-called
Breaux-Thomas plan that was considered by the bipartisan Medicare
Commission.
By their own calculation, that plan would save $100 billion over ten
years and extends the Trust Fund for only 3 additional years. In the
scheme of things, that's not very long. But even this meager extension
of the Trust Fund relies on several controversial proposals, including
raising the age of eligibility for Medicare, establishing unlimited
home health copayments, and completely eliminating the Direct Medicare
Education program from Medicare.
The bottom line, Mr. President, is that we need more resources for
Medicare. And our amendment would give us an opportunity to provide
them.
Under our proposal, in the short term, the Medicare reserve would be
used to reduce the debt. Over the next ten years, our proposal would
reduce debt held by the public by $30 billion more than the Republican
plan. By reducing debt held by the public, our lockbox would
dramatically reduce the government's interest costs. And that would
free up resources to allow the government to meet its existing
commitments to Medicare. By contrast,
[[Page S4113]]
under the Republican plan, every penny of the non-Social Security
surplus is consumed. That would increase interest costs and almost
guarantee further cuts in benefits in the future.
Mr. President, not only does our lockbox do more to protect Medicare
and reduce debt, it also has a stronger lock and more responsible
enforcement procedure for both Social Security and Medicare.
As I've explained, Mr. President, the Republican amendment includes a
reckless new scheme that relies on the threat of a default to enforce
its provisions. That not only could permanently damage our credit
standing, it could force the government to stop issuing Social Security
checks.
We have a better idea, Mr. President. As I said earlier, we have a
60-vote point of order against including Social Security in the budget
totals, as well as a 60-vote point of order against using any of the
Medicare reserve. Then, even if Congress tries to spend that money, our
lockbox blocks it through automatic across-the-board cuts, rather than
creating a crisis.
Mr. President, this is the best way to ensure fiscal restraint. Not
by causing a crisis after money has already been committed. But by
using the tools of the budget process to block those commitments in the
first place. That's why our legislation would enforce the lock box
through the tried and true mechanisms of the pay-go rules and across-
the-board cuts.
If Congress attempts to spend part of the Social Security surplus or
Medicare reserve, the sequester rules of the Balanced Budget Act would
make automatic spending cuts in order to keep the reserve intact. This
is far better than triggering a debt crisis, and threatening a
government default, as the Republican amendment proposes.
To sum up, Mr. President, the Republican amendment claims to protect
Social Security, but it really threatens Social Security benefits. Ours
is a real lockbox that protects both Social Security and Medicare. It's
a more responsible alternative that avoids the risk of default. And it
would reduce debt by more than the underlying amendment.
I hope my colleagues will support it and I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of the bill, along with certain related materials, be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 862
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security and Medicare
Lock Box Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(11) The term `Medicare surplus reserve' means the
surplus amounts reserved to strengthen and preserve the
Medicare program as calculated in accordance with section
316.''.
SEC. 3. PROTECTION BY CONGRESS
Congress reaffirms its support for the provisions of
section 13301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 that provides that the receipts and disbursements of the
Social Security trust funds shall not be counted for the
purposes of the budget submitted by the President, the
congressional budget, or the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
SEC. 4. SOCIAL SECURITY OFF-BUDGET POINT OF ORDER.
Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Social Security Off-Budget Point of Order.--It shall
not be in order in the House or the Senate to consider any
concurrent resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or
conference report on the resolution) that violates section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.''.
SEC. 5. MEDICARE SURPLUS RESERVE POINT OF ORDER.
Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Medicare Surplus Reserve Point of Order.--It shall
not be in order in the Senate to consider any concurrent
resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference
report on the resolution) that would decrease the surplus in
any of the fiscal years covered by the concurrent resolution
below the levels of the Medicare surplus reserve for those
fiscal years calculated in accordance with section 316.''.
SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT OF MEDICARE SURPLUS RESERVE.
Section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Enforcement of the medicare surplus reserve.--After a
concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed to, it
shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the
Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report that would cause a decrease in
the Medicare surplus reserve in any of the fiscal years
covered by the concurrent resolution. This paragraph shall
not apply to a provision that appropriates new subsidies from
the general fund to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund.''.
SEC. 7. SUPERMAJORITY.
Subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are amended by inserting
after ``301(i),'' the following: ``301(j), 301(k),
311(a)(4),''.
SEC. 8. MEDICARE SURPLUS RESERVE.
Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``medicare surplus reserve
``Sec. 316. (a) In General.--Subject to adjustment pursuant
to subsection (b), the amounts reserved for the Medicare
surplus reserve in each year are--
``(1) for fiscal year 2000, $0;
``(2) for fiscal year 2001, $3,000,000,000;
``(3) for fiscal year 2002, $26,000,000,000;
``(4) for fiscal year 2003, $15,000,000,000;
``(5) for fiscal year 2004, $21,000,000,000;
``(6) for fiscal year 2005, $35,000,000,000;
``(7) for fiscal year 2006, $63,000,000,000;
``(8) for fiscal year 2007, $68,000,000,000;
``(9) for fiscal year 2008, $72,000,000,000;
``(10) for fiscal year 2009, $73,000,000,000;
``(11) for fiscal year 2010, $70,000,000,000;
``(12) for fiscal year 2011, $73,000,000,000;
``(13) for fiscal year 2012, $70,000,000,000;
``(14) for fiscal year 2013, $66,000,000,000; and
``(15) for fiscal year 2014, $52,000,000,000.
``(b) Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--The amounts in subsection (a) for each
fiscal year shall be adjusted in the budget resolution each
fiscal year through 2014 by a fixed percentage equal to the
adjustment required to those amounts sufficient to extend the
solvency of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund through
fiscal year 2027.
``(2) Limit based on total surplus.--The Medicare surplus
reserve, as adjusted by paragraph (1), shall not exceed the
total baseline surplus in any fiscal year.''.
SEC. 9. PAY-AS-YOU-GO AND DISCRETIONARY CAP EXTENSION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, sections 251 and 252 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and section 202 of H.
Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) shall be enforced until
Congress enacts legislation that--
(1) ensures the long-term fiscal solvency of the Social
Security trust funds and extends the solvency of the Medicare
trust fund through fiscal year 2027; and
(2) includes a certification in that legislation that the
legislation complies with paragraph (1).
(b) Discretionary Cap Extension.--Section 251(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is
amended by adding after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) for each fiscal year after 2002, the current services
baseline based on the discretionary spending limit for fiscal
year 2002;''.
SEC. 10. ADJUSTMENT OF BUDGET LEVELS AND REPEAL.
(a) Adjustments.--Upon the enactment of this Act, the
Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget shall file with
their Houses appropriately revised budget aggregates,
allocations, and levels (including reconciliation levels)
under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this
Act.
(b) Repeal.--Section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68 (106th
Congress) is repealed.
Two Lock Box Proposals
republican lock box
The Republican lock box purports to protect Social Security
surpluses by establishing new limits on debt held by the
public. The proposal creates a new super majority point of
order against legislation that would increase the limits on
public debt. The limits are set at levels that would allow
all non-Social Security surpluses to be used for tax cuts or
spending.
The GOP lock box has three major problems:
(1) It does nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows
Congress to use funds needed for Medicare to provide tax
cuts.
(2) It threatens Social Security. If the economy slows, the
government could be unable to issue Social Security or other
benefit checks. Also, the GOP amendment includes a provision
that would allow Social Security surpluses to be used for
purposes other than Social Security benefits, if labeled as
``Social Security reform.''
(3) It threatens default. Secretary Rubin is concerned that
the proposal could permanently damage our credit standing.
The risk of default would increase interest costs for
American taxpayers.
In November 1995, a debt crisis was precipitated when
Government borrowing reached the debt limit and in January
Moody's credit rating service placed Treasury securities on
review for possible downgrade.
The proposal could trigger an actual default based on
factors beyond Congress's control. Although the GOP proposal
adjusts the debt ceiling for discrepancies between the actual
and projected Social Security surpluses, it does not make
similar corrections for unanticipated developments on the
non-Social Security side of the budget. This means that an
[[Page S4114]]
economic slowdown, a reduction in anticipated revenues, or an
unexpected increase in mandatory spending could cause
publicly held debt to exceed the new limits and create a debt
crisis.
democratic lock box
The Democratic Lock Box creates a supermajority point of
order against a budget resolution or any legislation that
does not save at least 40 percent of the on-budget surplus
for Medicare over the next 15 years and adds a new
supermajority point of order against a budget resolution that
violates the off-budget treatment of Social Security. (The
budget act already contains supermajority points of order
against a budget resolution or any legislation that reduces
the Social Security surplus.)
The Democratic Lock Box has several advantages over the
Republican approach.
(1) It protects Social Security. The language reserves all
Social Security surpluses for Social Security, and does not
allow these surpluses to be used for anything that does not
increase the Solvency of the Social Security program.
(2) It protects Medicare. The Democratic bill reserves 40
percent of the on-budget surplus for Medicare; allows
sufficient funding to extend the life of the Medicare HI
Trust Fund through at least 2027.
(3) It relies on responsible enforcement mechanisms. The
Democratic approach does not establish binding limits on
publicly held debt and does not create a risk of default.
Enforcement is through current budget procedures and across-
the-board cuts. The Lock Box also restores the current pay-
as-you-go point of order, which makes certain that no on-
budget surplus can be used. Without a change in law, the
Republican tax cuts will result in a pay-as-you-go sequester,
which will come largely from Medicare.
(4) It reduces more debt. The Democratic Lock Box reduces
more debt than the Republican proposal, which will lower
future interest costs and free up government resources to
meet its existing Social Security and Medicare obligations.
____
COMPARISON OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LOCK BOX PROPOSALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserves 77 percent of unified surplus for Claims to reserve 62 percent
Social Security and Medicare. of unified surplus for
Social Security but
includes ``trap door''
loophole.
Prevents Social Security surplus from Allows Social Security
being used for other purposes. surplus to be used for
anything labeled ``Social
Security reform'' including
tax cuts.
Reserves 40 percent of on-budget surplus Reserves nothing for
for Medicare; allows solvency through Medicare.
2027.
Enforcement through existing budget rules Enforcement through debt
and across-the-board cuts; procedures crisis; putting United
that created the first budget surplus States credit worthiness at
since 1969. risk and jeopardizing
Social Security benefits.
Requires 60 votes to violate off-budget Requires 60 votes to violate
treatment of Social Security or for using off-budget treatment of
Medicare reserve. Social Security; reserves
nothing for Medicare.
Reduces debt held by the public to $1.6 Reduces debt held by the
trillion in 2009, $300 billion below the public to $1.9 trillion in
Republicans. 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____
Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act
The ``Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act'' creates
new budget points of order and budget enforcement mechanisms
that would preclude any portion of the Social Security
surplus or any portion of the surplus reserved for Medicare
from being used for new spending or tax cuts. Over the next
15 years, the lockbox would save 77 percent of the total
unified surplus. The Medicare reserve would save 15 percent
of the unified surplus and 40 percent of the on-budget
surplus over the next 15 years.
Section 1: Short Title
Titles the bill the ``Social Security and Medicare Lock Box
Act.''
Section 2. Definitions
Amends section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by
adding a definition of the term ``Medicare surplus reserve.''
The Medicare surplus reserve refers to surplus amounts
reserved to strengthen and extend the Medicare program.
Section 3: Protection of Social Security Trust Funds
Section 3 reaffirms Congress's support for the off-budget
treatment of Social Security (section 13301 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990).
Section 4: Social security Off-Budget Point of Order
Section 4 creates a supermajority point of order in the
House and Senate against a budget resolution that violates
the off-budget treatment of Social Security (section 13301 of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990).
Section 5: Medicare Surplus Reserve Point of Order
Section 5 creates a supermajority point of order in the
House and Senate against a concurrent resolution on the
budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report on the
resolution) that would decrease the surplus in any of the
fiscal years covered by the budget resolution below the level
of the Medicare surplus reserve.
Section 6: Enforcement of Medicare Surplus Reserve
Section 6 creates a supermajority point of order in the
House and Senate against any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would decrease
the Medicare surplus reserve in any of the years covered by
the budget resolution.
Section 7: Supermajority points of order
Section 7 makes all new points of order created in this
amendment waivable only by a three-fifths supermajority vote.
Section 8: Medicare Surplus Reserve
Section 8 lists the amounts reserved for Medicare in each
year from 2000-2014. These amounts total $65 billion over
2000-2004; $376 billion over the period 2000-2009, and $707
billion for the period 2000-2014. This section also creates a
procedure that requires these amounts to be adjusted annually
in the budget resolution to make certain that they are
sufficient to extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund through 2027. The Medicare surplus reserve,
however, cannot exceed the total on-budget surplus in any
year so as not to deplete the Social Security surplus.
Section 9: Pay-As-You-Go and Discretionary Cap Extension
Section 9 extends current budgetary discipline embodied in
the discretionary spending caps, the paygo rule in the
Senate, and the paygo sequestration provisions of the Budget
Enforcement Act until Congress enacts legislation certifying
that it has ensured the long-term fiscal solvency of Social
Security and extend the solvency of Medicare through fiscal
year 2027.
Section 10: Adjustment of Budget Levels and Repeal
Section 10 directs the Chairmen of the Budget Committees to
revise the budget resolution to make it consistent with this
Act and repeals the provision of the budget resolution that
weakened the paygo rule in the Senate by allowing the on-
budget surplus to be used for tax cuts.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 863. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide for Medicaid coverage of all certified nurse practitioners and
clinical nurse specialists; to the Committee on Finance.
medicaid nursing incentive act
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicaid
Nursing Incentive Act, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement
for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists.
This legislation eliminates a counterproductive Medicaid payment
policy. Under current law, State Medicaid programs may exclude
certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists from
Medicaid reimbursement, even though these practitioners are fully
trained to provide many of the same services as those provided by
primary care physicians. This policy is both discriminatory and
shortsighted; it severs a critical access link for Medicaid
beneficiaries.
The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of
cost-effective primary care to our nation's most vulnerable citizens.
Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year
go without the health care services they need, because physicians
simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural
and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south
central Los Angeles and Lemmon, South Dakota.
Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent
years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to
care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner-city and
rural communities where many beneficiaries live. Fortunately, there is
an exception to the trend: nurse practitioners and clinical nurse
specialists frequently accept patients whom others will not treat and
serve in areas where others refuse to work.
Studies have shown that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse
specialists provide quality, cost-effective care. Their advanced
clinical training enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80
percent of the primary care services usually performed by physicians,
often at a lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction.
Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse
practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. For more than a decade,
CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practitioners. In 1990,
Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. The Medicare program, which
already covered nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialist
services in rural areas, was modified under the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 to provide coverage for these services in all geographic areas.
The bill I am introducing today establishes the same payment policy
under Medicaid.
[[Page S4115]]
Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the
Medicaid program and its beneficiaries. There is a broader lesson here
that applies to our effort to make cost-effective, high-quality health
care services available and accessible to all Americans.
One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of
primary and preventive care, delivered to individuals in convenient,
familiar places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2
million of our nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites--
in home health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and
schools. In places like South Dakota, nurses are often the only health
care professionals available in the small towns and rural counties
across the state.
These nurses and other nonphysician health professionals play an
important role in the delivery of care. And this role will only
increase as we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment
of illness to one that emphasizes primary preventive care and health
promotion.
But, first, we must reevaluate outdated attitudes and break down
barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their
training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health
Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being
fully utilized to deliver primary care services. The commission
recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying nurse
practitioners directly for the services they provide. This step will
help nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists expand access
to the primary care that so many communities currently lack.
As I have worked on access and reimbursement issues related to nurse
practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, I have encountered two
related issues I would also like to highlight.
Later this month, I plan to introduce legislation to increase the
reimbursement rate for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse
specialists who practice in rural and underserved areas. Currently,
physicians who serve in a health professional shortage area receive a
10 percent boost in their Medicare payment as an incentive to provide
services in the regions that need them the most. As we know, nurses are
already providing critical primary and preventive care in these areas
and deserve the bonus payments that physicians are already receiving.
I would also encourage my colleagues to closely monitor the impact of
Medicaid managed care on access to care provided by nurse practitioners
and clinical nurse specialists. In some areas of the country,
implementation of managed care has prevented patients from continuing
to receive health care services from nurse practitioners and clinical
nurse specialists because they are not listed as primary care providers
or preferred providers. Advanced practice nurses provide cost-
effective, local, quality care, and I am concerned about early reports
that access to these professionals is being limited by new health
delivery arrangements. We should certainly keep an eye on this issue as
Medicaid managed care systems develop.
Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will carefully consider the
issues I have raised and support the measure I am introducing today,
recognizing the critical role nurse practitioners and other
nonphysician health professionals play in our health care delivery
system, as well as the increasingly significant contribution they can
make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 863
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicaid Nursing Incentive
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF ALL CERTIFIED NURSE PRACTITIONER
AND CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(21) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) is amended to read as follows:
``(21) services furnished by a certified nurse practitioner
(as defined by the Secretary) or clinical nurse specialist
(as defined in subsection (v)) which the certified nurse
practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is legally
authorized to perform under State law (or the State
regulatory mechanism provided by State law), whether or not
the certified nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist
is under the supervision of, or associated with, a physician
or other health care provider;''.
(b) Clinical Nurse Specialist Defined.--Section 1905 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(v) The term `clinical nurse specialist' means an
individual who--
``(1) is a registered nurse and is licensed to practice
nursing in the State in which the clinical nurse specialist
services are performed; and
``(2) holds a master's degree in a defined area of clinical
nursing from an accredited educational institution.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall become effective with respect to payments for calendar
quarters beginning on or after January 1, 2000.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 864. A bill to designate April 22 as Earth Day; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
EARTH DAY ACT
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have sent to the desk
is being introduced on behalf of myself and Senator Chafee. It is
entitled ``The Earth Day Act.'' Its purpose is to designate April 22 as
Earth Day.
Today, of course, is April 22. Let me provide a little history for my
colleagues or anyone listening.
The first Earth Day was 29 years ago, in 1970, and I think we are all
aware that Earth Day was first conceived by our former colleague,
Senator Gaylord Nelson, who is universally considered the founder of
Earth Day.
He has written a short summary of what brought Earth Day about, how
it came about. In it he points out that in a speech that he gave in
Seattle in September of 1969, he announced that there would be a
national environmental teach-in in the spring of 1970. And the wire
services picked up that story. And the next thing he knew, there was a
movement afoot to actually have that happen.
That first Earth Day involved some 20 million Americans. Since then,
the concept and the idea of Earth Day has focused the attention of the
country, focused the attention of the world, in fact, on the importance
of our environment and the importance of preserving and maintaining our
environment. We have a great debt of gratitude we owe to former Senator
Nelson for his leadership on this.
We also owe a great debt of gratitude to the person that did the nuts
and bolts work of organizing that first Earth Day, and that, of course
is Denis Hayes. He is now president of the Seattle-based Bullitt
Foundation, but he has been recognized recently by Time magazine as one
of their heroes of the planet. I think his instrumental role, his
essential role in bringing about that first Earth Day, making such a
success of it, has been recognized by all.
He is now, of course, trying to get in place the organization to make
Earth Day 2000, which will occur exactly a year from today, an even
greater celebration than we have known before.
Mr. President, I firmly believe that it is appropriate that we
officially designate April 22 as Earth Day and that we permanently
designate it as Earth Day. It has come to be known as Earth Day--April
22--for all of us. There are celebrations and teach-ins, and
recognitions going on throughout our country today. As we hear the news
about Kosovo, which is bad, and the news about Littleton, Colorado, and
the terrible tragedy there, which is bad, and many of the other news
stories that bombard us, it is good to know that there is one news
story that we can all celebrate and rally around, and that is that
today, again, we will be able to celebrate Earth Day.
Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that Senator Chafee and I can
work in the next year to gain additional cosponsors and to obtain
enactment of this, so that by the time Earth Day 2000 arrives, we will
be able to have this in law, have it signed by the President. I am sure
it will be supported by all of our colleagues. I think we all recognize
the importance of this to many of the people we represent. I hope very
much that the bill can be enacted.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 865. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
the same tax treatment for danger pay allowance as for combat pay; to
the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S4116]]
DIPLOMATIC DANGER PAY
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I want to right a wrong--a small
wrong, but a wrong nevertheless. It affects a handful of our diplomats
who serve in the world's most dangerous places: Beirut, Bosnia, Kosovo,
the unsettled nations of Africa and the former Soviet Union and
elsewhere. And unfortunately, as the events of recent weeks prove, the
need for Americans--soldiers and diplomats alike--to go in harm's way,
is unlikely to abate.
Our diplomats, colleagues of those killed last summer in the tragic
embassy bombings in Africa, receive an allowance for their service in
the most frightening places in the world--a danger allowance.
This allowance is not unlike that paid to our military when they are
in combat. In fact, in some places, such as Bosnia, where our military
and diplomatic personnel serve side by side, both receive a special
allowance for their sacrifices.
The military justifiably receives this benefit tax-free. But our
diplomatic personnel do not. Through an oversight in the Internal
Revenue Code, diplomats are taxed on their danger pay, even though they
often face similar hardships and dangers. I think that's wrong.
I have a bill which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to right
this wrong. It affects just a handful of people. But to them it will
serve as recognition of the sacrifice they make when they represent the
American people in dangerous settings overseas. I urge its quick
passage.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 865
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF DANGER PAY ALLOWANCE.
(a) In General.--Subchapter C of chapter 80 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to provisions affecting more
than one subtitle) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 7874. TREATMENT OF DANGER PAY ALLOWANCE.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of the following
provisions, a danger pay allowance area shall be treated in
the same manner as if it were a combat zone (as determined
under section 112):
``(1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule where
deceased spouse was in missing status).
``(2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of certain
combat pay of members of the Armed Forces).
``(3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of members of
Armed Forces on death).
``(4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the Armed Forces
dying in combat zone or by reason of combat-zone-incurred
wounds, etc.).
``(5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating to combat
pay for members of the Armed Forces).
``(6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of phone
service originating from a combat zone from members of the
Armed Forces).
``(7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return where
individual is in missing status).
``(8) Section 7508 (relating to time for performing certain
acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone).
``(b) Danger Pay Allowance Area.--For purposes of this
section, the term `danger pay allowance area' means any area
in which an individual receives a danger pay allowance under
section 5928 of title 5, United States Code, for services
performed in such area.''
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter C of chapter 80 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 7874. Treatment of danger pay allowance.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to remuneration paid in taxable years ending
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, among the worst situations facing
spouses, children, and families of members of the United States Armed
Forces, is to be greeted by an official party, wearing their dress blue
uniforms, announcing the grim news that their loved one has been killed
or declared missing.
On Sunday, September 14, 1997 nine families endured such an
experience as the United States Air Force declared one of its C-141
Starlifter cargo planes, en route from Namibia to Ascension Island, was
overdue and presumed to have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean. At the
same time, a German military plane was also declared missing in the
same area, amid indications that the two planes had collided and
crashed into the Atlantic.
An extensive search was begun, during which only a few airplane
seats, a few papers, some debris from the U.S. cargo plane, remnants of
the German aircraft, and the body of one victim were recovered. No
other remains were recovered, and no survivors were located. On
Saturday, September 27, 1997 the search for the crewmen of the Air
Force jet ended and all were declared dead.
Mr. President, an investigation confirmed everyone's worst fears. In
fact, on that fateful day--September 13, 1997--a German Luftwaffe
Tupelov TU-154M collided with a U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter off the
coast of Namibia, Africa. As a result of that mid-air collision nine
United States Air Force Service members were killed. These are the
rank, name, age, assignment, and hometowns of those killed: Staff
Sergeant Stacy D. Bryant, 32, loadmaster, Providence, Rhode Island;
Staff Sergeant Gary A. Bucknam, 25, flight engineer, Oakland, Maine;
Captain Gregory M. Cindrich, 28, pilot, Byrans Road, Maryland; Airman
1st Class Justin R. Drager, 19, loadmaster, Colorado Springs, Colorado;
Staff Sergeant Robert K. Evans, 31, flight engineer, Garrison,
Kentucky; Captain Jason S. Ramsey, 27, pilot, South Boston, Virginia;
Staff Sergeant Scott N. Roberts, 27, flight engineer, Library,
Pennsylvania; Captain Peter C. Vallejo, 34, aircraft commander,
Crestwood, New York; and Senior Airman Frankie L. Walker, 23, crew
chief, Windber, Pennsylvania;
At McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, families and members of the
crewmen's squadron from the 305th Operation Group were trying to make
sense of what happened. Monica Cindrich, wife of the pilot, had to
explain to her 3 year-old son why his father would not be returning. On
the day following the crash, Sharla Bucknam went alone to her son
Andrew's third birthday party. Any Smart held out hope that her fiance,
Captain Ramsey, would return for their wedding, planned for the
following May. And Justin Drager's father, Larry, a retired Air Force
Master Sergeant prayed for a miracle. It was his son's very first
mission since the Air Force certified him as a loadmaster on the giant
cargo plane that would take the 19-year-old from Colorado Springs to
the faraway places he joined the military to see.
At a memorial service at McGuire Air Force Base, the nine crew
members were honored as heroes who gave their lives for a humanitarian
mission. The plane was returning home to McGuire after delivering
troops and 32,000 pounds of mine-clearing equipment to Namibia. As the
chaplain called the names of each crew member in a final roll call, a
squadron member answered ``Absent, sir.'' The crowd of more than 3,000
stood solemnly as a lone bugler played taps and three C-141s flew over
in formation.
Formal investigations by both the government of Germany and the
United States Air Force found that the German military plane was flying
at the wrong altitude. The two planes, occupying the same air space, at
the same altitude, closed on each other at a combined speed of over
1,000 miles per hour. The two planes hit almost nose to nose.
The German crew saw the U.S. plane about a second before impact and
struggled for two-and-a-half minutes to regain control of the TU-154 as
it crashed into the Atlantic.
The German military transport was carrying 12 German marines, two of
their spouses and 10 crew members. Unfortunately, there were no
survivors. The German Air Force plane was en route from Germany to Cape
Town, South Africa, where the marines were to have participated in a
boat race marking the 75th anniversary of the South African Navy.
The details concerning the crash are unsettling and I doubt anyone
would want to die in the manner that the crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201''
did. While the German crew had about a one-and-one-half second warning
that they were going to collide with another aircraft, the crew aboard
the C-141 literally did not know what hit them.
The cockpit voice recorder aboard the American aircraft chillingly
captures the conversations of the ``MISSION REACH 4201'' crew as fate
cruelly
[[Page S4117]]
steers the two military transports toward a deadly collision. Reviewing
the transcript shows that Captains Greg Cindrich and Peter Vallejo--the
two pilots of the Starlifter--had no inclination that a collision was
imminent until it was too late. The two officers were discussing topics
such as Social Security and the exploration of Mars.
The tape indicates that the crew survived for at least 13 seconds
following the impact with the German transport. In those 13 seconds,
the C-141 and crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201'' began hurtling toward the
Atlantic Ocean. They spent the last 13 seconds of the flight, of their
lives, strapping on oxygen masks and looking for flashlights to cope
with a failed electrical system. Aviation experts have determined that
it is possible that the nine doomed men may have actually survived for
as long as 30-seconds before the C-141 exploded. For thirteen to 30
seconds, these men fought to survive, fought to right their plane,
fought for their very lives. If thirteen to 30 seconds sounds like a
short amount of time, I challenge anyone to try holding their hand over
a burning match for that amount of time, let alone spend that amount of
time aboard a multi-ton aircraft as it plummets toward the ocean. These
men were able to contemplate for thirteen to 30 seconds that their
aircraft was damaged and diving toward the ocean from an altitude of
35,000 feet. That was thirteen to 30 seconds that these men could have
been thinking that no C-141 had successfully survived a crash landing
in water. It was thirteen to 30 seconds for these men to realize that
they were about to die.
Somewhere between thirteen and thirty seconds after the collision,
the C-141 of ``Mission Reach 4201'' exploded and what did not vaporize
became debris that was spread on the surface of the ocean, or sunk to
its cold and murky depths. Needless to say, rescuers and salvage
operators never recovered much of the American aircraft or crew. The
Air Force ultimately found a few parts of the airplanes and 15 pounds
of human remains of such minute quantities that DNA testing had to be
conducted to determine who was who. As a point of comparison, a bag of
cement is approximately 20 pounds. You could have put the entire
remains of nine adult men in a bag that is used to hold cement and have
room left over. There were not enough remains left of any one of the
crew members to afford their families the comfort of laying their sons,
fathers, brothers, and husbands to rest. Instead, only mementos were
placed in caskets and buried.
Accident investigations conducted by the United States Air Force and
the German Ministry of Defense both concluded that fault for the
collision and deaths lay with the German crew, who not only filed an
inaccurate flight plan, but were flying at the wrong altitude. The crew
of the C-141 were operating appropriately, and were exactly where they
were supposed to be when they met their untimely deaths. These nine men
died through no fault or negligence of their own, the United States Air
Force, or the government of the United States.
The families of each of the nine victims have endured not only
tremendous mental anguish and suffering, but significant financial
losses, and understandably, they are seeking compensation from the
German government. Sadly, despite the fact that this crash took place
almost two-years-ago, the German government has still to make the first
pfenning of compensation to any of the victims' families.
I rise today to offer a Sense of the Senate resolution that calls
upon the German government to make quick and generous compensation to
these families. Just as this Body agreed by unanimous consent on March
23, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make humanitarian relief
payments of up to $2 million to each of the families killed in
Cavalese, Italy when a Marine Corps jet struck a ski gondola, we should
go on the record as expecting equitably fair and expeditious relief for
the families of our servicemen killed through the negligence of the
German government.
It gives me no pleasure to offer this resolution. The German
government and people are unquestionably among the closest of allies
and the best of friends. We stood side-by-side during the Cold War,
facing down the Eastern threat; we are working side-by-side in the
Balkans now; our economies are linked; and we value the strong
relationship between our two nations. Nevertheless, the Federal
Republic of Germany has an undeniable responsibility to make quick and
generous compensation to the nine families who lost loved ones aboard
``MISSION REACH 4201'' and I have pledged to Monica Cindrich, the widow
of Captain Gregory Cindrich and the mother of their four-year-old son,
that I will do all within my power to bring not only compensation to
her, but closure to this tragedy. Passing this sense of the Senate
resolution will help do just that.
Each of us gets into public service because we desire to help people,
to do what is right, and to fight for fairness. This Sense of the
Senate resolution allows us to achieve each of those goals. By securing
compensation for the deaths of the nine men killed, we will
unquestionably be helping their families; we will be making a stand for
what is right by making a stand for our military families; and finally,
we will be fighting for fairness. Just as our government has recognized
our responsibility in the case of the Italian ski gondola incident, it
is only fair that the German government recognize their responsibility
and obligation in this matter.
It is my hope that this resolution will pass with the support of an
overwhelming majority of Senators. By voting for this provision, each
of you will not only be sending an unmistakable message to the German
government, but perhaps even more importantly, you will be signaling to
our men and women in uniform that their elected officials will always
stand by them.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 866. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to revise existing regulations concerning the conditions of
participation for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers under the
Medicare program relating to certified registered nurse anesthetists'
services to make the regulations consistent with State supervision
requirements; to the Committee on Finance.
Anesthesia Service Preservation Act
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which would help clarify an issue that relates to Medicare coverage for
anesthesia services and its impact on rural health care.
As a senator representing a predominantly rural state, I know only
too well the difficulties facing rural health care needs. Access to
care in rural areas is slowly worsening as more and more rural
hospitals close their doors in the face of overwhelming cost pressures.
Clearly, one aspect of access to care is access to surgical procedures.
And without anesthesia services, general surgery becomes impossible.
Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) tend to be the
predominant anesthesia provider in rural and undeserved urban areas. In
fact, CRNAs are the sole anesthesia provider in 65% of rural hospitals
and in addition, provide at least 65% of the nation's anesthesia needs.
The simple fact is that anesthesiologists have not been moving into
rural areas in any significant numbers, and are not expected to do so
in the foreseeable future. Given this trend, if rural hospitals are
going to stay open, they desperately need CRNAs for their anesthesia
and ultimately their surgical needs. That means we have to maintain a
healthy supply of CRNAs to maintain access to care for rural Medicare
beneficiaries.
Unfortunately, current Medicare rules with respect to supervision
provide a disincentive for hospitals to use nurse anesthetists.
Medicare's regulations require physician supervision of CRNAs as a
condition for hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers to receive
Medicare reimbursement, despite many state laws that allow nurse
anesthetists to practice without such supervision. Although HCFA has
issued a proposed rule that would drop this requirement and defer to
states on the issue of supervision, this rule has never been finalized.
The federal supervision requirement creates several problems for
CRNAs. First, some surgeons and hospitals have been dissuaded from
working with
[[Page S4118]]
CRNAs, in the face of arguments that the physicians may be subjecting
themselves to liability for engaging in supervision. But the truth is,
the attending physician--or the hospital--is no more legally liable for
the CRNAs actions than he or she is for the acts of an
anesthesiologist. Second, the federal restriction is anti-competitive,
acting as a disincentive for CRNAs to be used. Finally, the restriction
creates an inaccurate perception among some surgeons that they have an
obligation to direct or control the substantive course of the
anesthetic process, even though there is no such obligation.
The legislation I am introducing today would eliminate the Federal
supervision requirement and instead direct Medicare to defer to state
law requirements on supervision. By eliminating this prescriptive
federal regulation, we can better maximize the use of nurse
anesthetists and eliminate the confusion surrounding CRNA supervision.
At a time when the Congress is seeking ways to reduce costs for the
Medicare program without sacrificing quality or access to care,
increasing the use of nurse anesthetists seems particularly
appropriate.
In terms of quality of care, there are no significant differences
between anesthesia provided by CRNAs or that provided by
anesthesiologists. Notwithstanding the claims of anesthesiologists, it
is clear from a careful reading of the studies that there are no
quantifiable differences in outcomes when CRNAs work with
anesthesiologists, or when anesthesiologists provide anesthesia alone.
CRNAs have been providing anesthesia services for more than a century.
They have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas in
every war the United States has been engaged in since World War I.
CRNAs have received medals and accolades for their dedication,
commitment and competence. And CRNAs perform the same anesthesia
delivery function as anesthesiologists and work in every setting in
which anesthesia is delivered: traditional hospital suites, obstetrical
delivery rooms, dentist's offices, HMO's ambulatory surgical centers,
Veterans Administration facilities and others.
Mr. President, the Federal Government is deferring to state judgment
on a whole host of issues, so it seems completely consistent to let
states decide how best to use nurse anesthetists, particularly in light
of CRNA's long track record of success. States, which have the primary
responsibility for regulating nurse practice, have generally not seen
any need for a physician supervision requirement in non-Medicare
settings. Twenty-nine states do not require supervision of CRNAs in
nurse practice acts or board of nursing rules. This clearly indicates
that many states, as a matter of public policy, do not believe it is
necessary to require physician supervision of CRNAs. It is easy to
understand why. Anesthesia is provided only when necessary to permit
some medical procedure or intervention. Thus, as a practical matter
even when supervision is not required as a matter of law, a surgeon,
podiatrist, or dentist will be in the room when anesthesia is provided,
and would be capable of handling any emergency that might arise.
Finally, I would note that when CRNAs were given direct Medicare
reimbursement in 1986, there was no statutory requirement that CRNAs be
supervised by physicians in order to receive reimbursement. This was
not a requirement imposed by Congress then, nor has there been one
since. Had Congress believed that such a requirement was appropriate,
it would have been imposed as a condition of reimbursement at that
time. Moreover, HCFA routinely defers to the states on scope of
practice issues as its relates to other health care professionals.
This proposed change is supported by the American Hospital
Association and the National Rural Health Association. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation and let the states make their
own decisions about how to regulate a health care professional's scope
of practice. Rural and undeserved urban areas need CRNAs and it's time
the federal government removed impediments in regulations so that
consumers' access to anesthesia care, particularly in rural areas, will
not be jeopardized.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Torricelli,
Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 867. A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge as wilderness; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
arctic national refuge wilderness act of 1999
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower had the
wisdom to set aside a portion of America's Arctic for the benefit and
enjoyment of future generations. His Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
protected the highest peaks and glaciers of the Brooks Range, North
America's two largest and most northerly alpine lakes, and nearly 200
different wildlife species, including polar bears, grizzlies, wolves,
caribou, and millions of migratory birds.
Eisenhower's Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton called the new Arctic
Range, ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in
North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere.
With this in mind, I reintroduce legislation today, Earth Day 1999,
that designates the coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the
moment this area is a national wildlife refuge--one of our most
beautiful and last frontiers. This legislation, the Arctic National
Refuge Wilderness Act of 1999, would forever safeguard this great
national treasure from oil exploration and development.
And I can't stress how important this is.
The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our
Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish
and visit for our soul's good.
The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and
glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep,
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans,
black brant, and more. Birds from the Arctic Refuge fly to or through
every state in the continental U.S. In all, Mr. President, about 165
species use the coastal plain.
It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse
and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up
for winters of unspeakable severity.
The fact is Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the
lands that belong to our future.
Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came
across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner.
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation,
he wrote that it is `the most splendid part of the American habitat; it
is also the most fragile.' And we cannot enter `it carrying habits that
[are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.'
What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its
long-term needs.
Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy,
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an
environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams.
[[Page S4119]]
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 867
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE AS WILDERNESS.
Section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(p) Designation of Certain Land as Wilderness.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a portion of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska comprising
approximately 1,559,538 acres, as generally depicted on a map
entitled `Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--1002 Area.
Alternative E--Wilderness Designation, October 28, 1991' and
available for inspection in the offices of the Secretary of
the Interior, is designated as a component of the National
Wilderness Preservation System under the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).''.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to again join with Senator
Roth in the very important bipartisan effort to designate the coastal
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--forever.
Today is Earth Day 1999. The introduction of the Arctic Wilderness
Act is particularly appropriate on Earth Day because it will provide
permanent protection for the unique and irreplaceable natural resources
of an area that is the ``biological heart'' of the North Slope of
Alaska. The coastal plain is a vital part of the tundra ecosystem that
some have referred to as ``America's Serengetti.''
On Earth Day, we should take extra measure of special, rare, and
threatened places. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain is
one of these places. It is one natural treasure that we must protect as
wilderness for current and future generations.
The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife refuge represents
the wildest and most pristine arctic coastal ecosystem in the United
States. The coastal plain is where the calves of the awe-inspiring
Porcupine caribou herd are born every year. It is also where snow geese
feed in the fall and many female polar bears choose to den.
During the summer, migratory birds such as the red-throated loon,
American golden-plover, and semipalmated sandpiper and others flock to
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in great
numbers. In the fall, they return southward to and through the state of
Connecticut among other places. By dedicating the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, we can help ensure that
this ancient natural rite continues into the 21st Century.
For more than a decade, Congress has repeatedly debated the
advisability of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal
plain to oil and gas exploration and development. Time and again,
Congress and the American people have rejected the notion that we
should sacrifice our last vestige of arctic coastal plain to petroleum
development. The decision to prohibit coastal plain petroleum
development reflects the tremendous value Americans place in the
preservation of our great wilderness areas.
The degradation caused by developing oil and gas in places worthy of
wilderness designation is irreversible. Once developed, the wilderness
value of a place is lost.
The Alaska Wilderness Act designates the coastal plain of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--an area to remain wild and
undeveloped in perpetuity--and thereby preserves one of the last great
natural treasures on the North American continent for generations to
come.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Earth Day is a celebration of the value
and importance of our natural environment and a reminder of our duty to
protect, rather than carelessly exploit and deplete, our natural
heritage. Our commitment to future generations is something we in
Minnesota take very seriously. It is a commitment to ensure that the
environmental legacy we pass on to our children and grandchildren is
not marred by failures such as the poisoning of our oceans, rivers,
lakes and streams, the destruction of the natural habitat, and the
irreversible extinction of species.
Environmental concerns have always been very important to me and to
Minnesotans, and I am proud of the progress that we are making in
protecting the environment. However, while recognizing the progress we
have made, we Minnesotans also realize how much more needs to be done.
That is why I feel it is very appropriate that Senator Roth, myself,
and several of our colleagues, are introducing legislation on this day
to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska
as wilderness. My good friend Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota,
along with over 150 of his colleagues, have introduced similar
legislation in the House, called the Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act.
This legislation is a tremendous step forward, crucial to preserving
the biodiversity of one of our nation's last remaining frontiers.
This bill will designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as
wilderness, protecting 1.5 million acres of some of the most unspoiled
wilderness remaining in the United States. The Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is a one-of-a-kind national treasure, home to many unique
species of plant and animal life, several of which are considered
endangered or threatened. This magnificent wilderness contains a
complete spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems, which can be
found nowhere else on the continent.
Moreover, the fragile balance of life in this wilderness is critical
to the survival of the native Gwich'in Athabascan Indians of northeast
Alaska, who depend on the land to maintain their centuries-old nomadic
way of life. The Gwich'in rely on the 150,000-strong Porcupine River
caribou herd, whose calving grounds are on the coastal plain.
Unfortunately, a few multinational oil companies have set their
sights on this crown jewel of America's wilderness to extract their
short-term profits. Oil drilling on the coastal plain would mean
despoliation of this pristine land with hundreds of oil rigs,
pipelines, air strips, and other industrial facilities. It would
destroy one of the most magnificent wilderness areas in North America.
And it would do so much harm for so little gain. Allowing these
multinationals to boost their profits by drilling oil would do nothing
to solve our energy problems. The amount of oil that could potentially
be recovered from the Refuge is relatively small, and most of it would
likely be exported to Asia.
Instead of promoting oil drilling that destroys our natural
environment, we should be promoting renewable sources of energy. In so
doing, we could save more energy than would ever be extracted from the
coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.
Polls show that Americans strongly support protection of the Arctic
Refuge. Yet the oil lobby in Washington has never suffered from a lack
of representation. The oil multinationals pressure Congress every year
to open up this coastal plain to drilling. It's time Congress stood up
for the public interest, rather than the economic interests of the
largest oil companies.
We have a responsibility to protect the environment for future
generations. We must voice our protest and prevent those reckless
policies which ignore the real costs of exhausting our natural
resources and permanently distort our ecosystem's fragile balance.
We must continue to be a world leader in deterring the destruction of
our natural heritage. We must continue to facilitate and promote
successful programs that help us conserve and use our lands and
resources wisely.
As we celebrate the last official Earth Day of the twentieth century,
we must ensure that we will have cause to celebrate Earth Day in the
twenty-first century. This legislation represents a significant step in
the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to join us in
cosponsoring this legislation on this very special day.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
S. 868. A bill to make forestry insurance plans available to owners
and operators of private forest land, to encourage the use of
prescribed burning and fuel treatment methods on private forest land,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
[[Page S4120]]
FORESTRY INITIATIVE TO RESTORE THE ENVIRONMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have asked recognition this afternoon to
commend the firefighters providing relief to the State of Florida and
its citizens, which is once again besieged by fire due to excessive
drought conditions. This, unfortunately, is not the first occasion on
which I have risen to speak about forest fires in Florida.
The natural conditions in the State have been altered to the point
where fires, normally a natural and essential part of the pine forests
of this region, have burned uncontrollably, causing damage to local
communities, private homes, and to the Florida forestry industry.
Last year, Florida sustained almost $300 million in private fire-
related damage, and State and local governments spent over $100 million
in responding to wild fires. Approximately 500,000 acres of forest were
completely destroyed in 1998. And in 1999, fires in Florida have again
commenced a process with severe consequences. As of today, 2,542 fires
have burned more than 58,000 acres; 18 divisional forestry firefighters
have been injured; 59 structures have been destroyed, and another 81
were damaged by fire.
Florida is not alone. Similar fires are occurring in Georgia, North
Carolina, Arizona and New Mexico. My heart goes out to the unfortunate
victims of these fires, as well as to the firefighters and volunteers
who are working bravely to save families, homes and communities. As we
speak, Americans from Alabama, Delaware, and Georgia, are fighting side
by side with Floridians to prevent these fires in my State from
endangering more lives, homes, and property. National Guardsmen,
meteorologists, insurance specialist, and volunteers have converged in
Florida to assist in response and recovery. These individuals' bravery
and willingness to support people who they never met reaffirms our
belief in the selflessness and vitality of the human spirit.
Mr. President, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. I
would like to draw your attention to the front page of the St.
Petersburg Times of Tuesday, April 20, which has this dramatic picture
of the Everglades afire. The Everglades, home to many endangered
species, and the water source for millions of Floridians, has for the
last several days been besieged by fire.
Now, fire is a natural phenomenon in the Everglades. It serves an
important part in maintaining the ecosystem. However, human
manipulation of this system has decreased water levels, making the
Everglades more susceptible to fire and more ravaging consequences of
that fire. This condition mirrors circumstances throughout Florida and
many other States where efforts to prevent fires have allowed a large
quantity of undergrowth to accumulate in our forestry lands.
As many of you know, the long-leaf pine ecosystem, which is prevalent
in Florida and other southeastern States, depends heavily on the role
of natural fire to rejuvenate the ecosystem. Prescribed burning mimics
naturally occurring lightening fires, clears excess underbrush, which
can rob lower plants of sunlight. This frequent, low-intensity fire
retains the rich flora of the healthy long-leaf pine ecosystem. Without
these frequent fires, underbrush robs lower plants, which in drought
condition creates a ready fuel source for a fire. It is this situation
that has led to severe wildfires in Florida.
Mr. President, today, I will be introducing legislation that is aimed
at the prevention of the recurrence in the future and to assure that
this tragedy does not bring a second tragedy--a permanent loss of our
forest lands in Florida and in the southeast. I am introducing the
Forestry Initiative to Restore the Environment Act of 1999 to mitigate
the damages and prevent fire disasters in the future.
What exactly does mitigation of losses mean for us today? Let me
focus on my State of Florida. There are currently 16 million acres of
forested lands, making up 47 percent of the State's total land area.
The majority of this land--over 7 million acres--is owned by private
farmers and individual corporate landowners. The State of Florida is
continuing to grow at an explosive pace. It already has over 15 million
people, and in 25 years it is projected to have over 20 million people.
This rapid growth is creating pressure on land values throughout
Florida and creating a circumstance in which there could be a massive
conversion of this 7 million acres of privately owned timberland for
development purposes.
These 7 million acres not only provide a substantial amount of forest
products for the Nation but also provide critical habitats for a unique
group of plants and animals.
These 7 million acres help to contain a human population explosion
that would create additional demands on the already scarce water supply
in Florida and lead to degradation of water quality.
It is therefore in our Nation's interest to maintain Florida's
existing timber lands for community use.
This legislation provides a long-term plan to restore and protect
private forestry lands damaged by wildfires and other natural
disasters. It directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to act on its
existing authority to develop a crop insurance program for small
forestry landowners.
This type of program--which allows producers to invest in their own
future to protect themselves from natural disasters such as fires,
hurricanes, or tornadoes--will provide the same protection for forestry
producers as is provided through USDA insurance plans for crops such as
wheat or corn.
The availability of this support in times of disaster will provide
incentives for private landowners to retain lands in forestry after
disasters such as the current wildfires that we are experiencing in
1999.
The second part of our legislation will help to reduce the severity
of future fire disasters by increasing the incentives for prescribed
burning.
The State of Florida has an active prescribed burning program and
burns an average of two million acres per year, including forestry,
grasslands, and agricultural lands.
However, as evidenced by this week's events, existing levels of
prescribed burning are not enough.
Large quantities of brush fuel accompanied by drought have created
dangerous wildfire conditions.
One solution is to increase the frequency of prescribed burning to
reduce fuel levels and the severity of fires when they occur.
In a study conducted by the Florida Division of Forestry, Orlando
District, for the period 1981 to 1990, it was shown that an increase in
prescribed burning leads to a decrease in the frequency of wildfires.
The study compared two counties--Osceola County and Brevard County
which differ in the amount of prescribed burning they conduct.
Approximately five-hundred thousand acres are burned in Osceola
County every 2 or 4 years. This compares with just over two-hundred and
fifty thousand acres of lands in Brevard County on which prescribed
burning is conducted.
The study found that the number of wildfires, the acres burned, and
the average wildfires per acre were lower in Osceola County than
Brevard County.
Our legislation attempts to encourage the use of prescribed burning
as a forest management tool on private lands.
First, it authorizes the U.S. Forest Service to provide both
technical and financial assistance for prescribed burning to states.
Grants to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of carrying out prescribed
burns would be made to private landowners.
Second, our legislation seeks to enhance public support for the use
of prescribed fire by addressing one of the most challenging issues--
the misunderstanding of urban and suburban residents of the purpose of
prescribed burning.
In the urban interface zone where much of Florida's forested lands
are located, the opposition of local residents to smoke plumes can stop
any efforts to conduct prescribed burning.
Our bill requires that the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental
Protection Agency develop education and outreach programs on this topic
and make them available to state environmental and forest management
agencies.
With these actions, this legislation will create a system to mitigate
damages from wildfires. It will help to reduce the severity of future
fires by removing obstacles for private landowners to conduct
prescribed burns.
[[Page S4121]]
I hope you will join me in our long-term efforts to create a system
for mitigating damages from natural disasters and reducing the severity
of future wildfires by encouraging prescribed burning.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two items be printed in
the Record.
The first is an April 18 article from the Miami Herald describing
some of the wildfire damage which occurred in that city last week.
The second is an Associated Press story summarizing remarks made by
the Secretary of the Interior supporting the use of prescribed burning
at a wildlife conference in Gainesville, Florida this week.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Miami Herald, Apr. 18, 1999]
``Huge Wave'' of Fire Stuns Port St. Lucie
(By Curtis Morgan)
Port St. Lucie.--When Don Tagner pulled into his driveway
at 4 p.m., the faint smoke curling in the pine scrub looked
as harmless as late morning fog.
The fire seemed at a safe distance, a dozen blocks away.
But as a precaution he sent his daughters off with a
neighbor. Then he called around to cancel that evening's
soccer practice.
When a neighbor pounded on his door 30 minutes later,
Tagner opened it to a world he described as ``hell on a
rampage.''
Black smoke blotted out the sun. He ran to his backyard
just in time to recoil from a towering wall of fire rolling
in like ``a huge wave. It sounded like a subway coming
through. Whoosh.''
Like that, it engulfed Frank Schultz's home next door.
Tagner rushed back in his home, grabbed his car keys and as
he turned up a street toward safety, houses two blocks up San
Sebastian Avenue turned into roaring red balls.
For the hundreds who fled it and the hundreds who fought
it, Thursday's blaze truly was hellish, the wickedest, most
destructive one-day wildfire in Florida in almost 15 years.
In a bit more than four hours, it raced three miles north-
northeast from its starting point in southernmost Port St.
Lucie--destroying 43 homes, damaging 33 others and scorching
545 acres in the heavily wooded neighborhoods east of
Interstate 95.
``I've seen them travel fast before but I've never seen
anything of this magnitude in the 16 years I've been fighting
fires,'' said a weary, soot-stained Lt. Mike Gablemann of the
St. Lucie County Fire District, who led a crew dousing
hundreds of hot spots Friday--including a smoldering file
cabinet in the Schultz home.
drought index peaked
An unlucky combination of factors turned the small brush
fire into a full-blown inferno.
Like most of Florida, a record drought has left much of
rural St. Lucie County bone-dry and crisp as kindling.
``Just look at the grass,'' said Gene Madden, safety
director for the state Division of Forestry. ``It's not
green, it's brown. It crunches when you walk on it.''
At 1 p.m. Thursday, forecasters warned Treasure Coast
counties that conditions for wildfires would peak that
afternoon.
When the blaze flared up, so did the winds. It was like
blowing on a hot coal.
a fire storm
Fire crews rushing to contain the blaze battled to keep up,
but couldn't, Gabelmann said. They were outmanned and
outmaneuvered by the relentless winds. As quickly as trucks
pulled up to one house, flames would appear in treetops a
quarter of a mile away.
``No fire department, no fire personnel are going to get
out in front of it and stop a fire like this,'' Madden said.
Fires leapt from point to point and house to house in a
path a mile wide, with destruction as unpredictable as wind
currents.
``What we saw was the definition of a fire storm,'' said
Lt. Ron Parish of the St. Lucie County Fire District.
Firefighters were frustrated by their inability to do what
they normally do: Put out fires. This was more like triage.
Sometimes, they had to drive past one burning house to get to
another where they believed people were trapped.
``Having to leave a house unprotected . . . gives you a
sick feeling,'' Parrish said.
unpredictable pattern
The random patterns of damage showed just how difficult it
was to predict where the fires would turn next.
On one block, two homes back-to-back burned but a wooden
swing set between them wasn't even singed. Hundreds of brush-
choked undeveloped lots and wood-framed homes provided
plentiful fuel--enough for the fire to jump the 100-foot-wide
C-24 Canal.
Franklin Navas, a former firefighter from Costa Rica and
now an equipment manager, credited the survival of his home
to clearing brush a few feet behind his property line. Flames
left the vinyl siding on one side of his home drooping like
limp spaghetti--but the home stood.
Ironically, a large group of Port St. Lucie residents had
opposed bringing city water to their neighborhoods--and even
sued the town to block the process. Hydrants had been
scheduled for the area within two years.
no time to get dressed
Navas and his wife, Mayra, and two sisters visiting from
New Jersey left at 4 p.m. as police began rolling through the
neighborhood ordering evacuations by loud-speakers.
``Just in time,'' he said. As they pulled away, the flames
had hit the lot next door.
For many, there was little time to pack family papers or
heirlooms or even to get dressed.
Mike Azbell said his wife, Shelby, pulled children Marissa,
4, and Tyler, 2, into the car in a panic once she got word.
``Tyler was running around the house naked and he left
naked.''
At 5 p.m., Florida Power & Light shut off power to about
5,000 customers--a move to protect firefighters from live,
fallen wires. it also left remaining homeowners defenseless.
Without power, their pumps couldn't pull water from their
wells for the garden hoses that some tried to use in mostly
fruitless efforts to halt flames.
Outside the roadblocks, homeowners worried about what they
would find when they returned or pitched in to help others
protect their homes.
About 50 evacuees gathered at Mike Schachter's house a
block outside the cordoned-off area. Some helped hose down
his house, while Schachter's mother, Barbara, fed others and
baby-sat panicky children--including Mike's son, who
celebrated his first birthday that night.
``Everyone just tried to help everyone else,'' Mike
Schachter said.
surveying the damage
By 7:30 that night, man and nature combined to tame the
wildfire.
`'Mother Nature started it and Mother Nature pinched it
off,'' Madden said.
Local firefighters managed with the help of crews that came
from as far south as Hollywood and vital reinforcements from
water-bearing helicopters and a tanker plane.
Several hundred residents spent the night in a Red Cross
shelter at the Port St. Lucie Community Center. At daylight
on Friday residents returned to neighborhoods that, while
devastated in spots, could have been hit much worse. No one
was killed or hurt and the number of homes that escaped
damage far outnumbered those lost.
Martha Brann began crying when she thought about all she
lost: photos of her children, her mother's gold wedding band
and the diamond ring from her former husband--mementos
representing the special people in her life.
``I couldn't get nothing,'' said Brann, 59.
But Tagner found all: His wood-framed home remained almost
as he had left it. Grass had burned to within a foot of his
patio and he lost two plastic garbage cans and a recycling
bin, which, as it burned, slightly charred a small section of
his garage.
``Everybody keeps asking me what my secret was,'' he said.
``It was just luck.''
____
Babbitt Advocates Prescribed Burning
Gainesville, Fla. (AP)--State and local governments need to
get more aggressive in preventing wildfires by using
prescribed burns, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said
Tuesday.
``By taking fire off the land, we've actually increased the
fire hazard,'' Babbitt said. ``We must abandon a warfare
suppression model and find a thoughtful, scientific,
cooperative way to acknowledge this force of nature and
harness it to provide a better balance on the landscape.''
In addition to the controlled burns, which are
intentionally set fires ignited to reduce fuel for wildfires,
Babbitt also advocated requiring stringent building
requirements that help fireproof communities.
Babbitt, whose office oversees national parkland, spoke to
about 300 foresters at the University of Florida's John Gray
Distinguished Lecture Series.
Babbitt said most legislators haven't done enough to plan
for prescribed burns and push private property owners to act.
``In Oakland, Calif., after the fire in the early '90s
which just about wiped out the city, Alameda County actually
passed an ordinance requiring brush control,'' Babbitt said.
``For landowners who didn't do it, the county would do it
and add the costs to their property taxes. I don't know if
that's the right answer, but it's a way to do it,'' he said.
In Florida, the state's Division of Forestry said it has
authorized prescribed burns for 700,000 acres of land this
year.
There is no statewide plan for specific prescribed burns,
though private and public landowners have their own plans. A
state forestry official said landowners are encouraged to
perform prescribed burns, but they can't be forced.
``We can designate areas as high fire hazards and by
designating that we can burn it for them, but we can't tell
them that they're going to burn one-third of their acreage,''
said Jim Brenner, fire management administrator for the
forestry division.
As for fireproofing communities, Babbitt said local
governments need to ensure that homes get built with fire
resistant roofing. He also said the homes should be far
enough away from thick woods and hanging trees, such as
pines, to prevent damage from an approaching fire.
Babbitt also said if Florida's fires tap the state's
firefighting resources, federal authorities will help provide
the needed manpower and equipment.
[[Page S4122]]
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 870. A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.) to increase the efficiency and accountability of Offices of the
Inspector General within Federal departments, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Inspector
General Act Amendments of 1999. I am very pleased to be joined by my
colleagues, Senators Roth, Grassley, and Bond, who have demonstrated
unparalleled leadership on IG issues in the Senate. Indeed, Senator
Roth is one of the architects of the inspector general law, having
advocated its creation in 1978 and, in 1982, having introduced
legislation that created IGs in the Departments of Defense, Justice,
and the Treasury. In such distinguished company, I am confident that my
legislation hits the mark of improving an already invaluable program.
As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, one of
my top priorities since coming to the Senate has been the seemingly
never-ending fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. We have all heard
the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads built to nowhere. The
waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of
taxpayers, but also places severe financial pressures on already
overburdened programs, in some cases forcing cutbacks in the delivery
of vital Government services.
Over the past 2 years in my capacity as the subcommittee's chairman,
I have seen disturbing fraud and waste firsthand in a wide variety of
programs. Last year, for example, the subcommittee held several
hearings to shine a spotlight on the massive fraud in the Medicare
Program. To cite just one example of the subcommittee's findings, our
investigation revealed that the Federal Government had been sending
Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies. These companies
provided absolutely no services to our senior citizens at all. Indeed,
the address listed by one such company did not even exist, and if it
had existed, it would have been located in the middle of the runway of
the Miami International Airport.
The fraud we uncovered was stunning. It costs taxpayers millions of
dollars each year, diverting scarce resources from the elderly and
legitimate health care providers in a program already under enormous
financial strain.
The Medicare fraud investigation and others like it were undertaken
by my subcommittee working hand in hand with the inspectors general for
a variety of Federal agencies. The inspectors general are charged with
identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs
administered by the agencies they monitor.
Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the IG Act, the law that
Congress passed to create these guardians of the public purse. As we
recognize this important milestone, it is important for Congress to
take a close look at the IG system. We must build on its strengths and
remedy its weaknesses.
Over the past 21 years, the inspector general community has grown
from 12 in 1978 to 58 inspectors general today. Offices of Inspectors
General receive more than a billion dollars in annual funding and
employ over 12,000 auditors, criminal investigators, and support
personnel. Each Office of Inspector General shoulders tremendous
responsibilities and is given considerable power to uncover waste,
fraud, and abuse within Federal programs.
By and large, the IG community has performed in an outstanding
manner. IGs have made thousands of recommendations to Congress,
ultimately saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Inspectors general
have conducted investigations that have resulted in the recovery of
hundreds of millions of dollars from companies and individuals who have
defrauded the Federal Government.
The inspectors general have a demonstrated record of success over the
past 20 years. But as with all Government entities, we must ensure that
the IG community is as well-managed, accountable, and effective as
possible. IGs are public watchdogs, but they, too, must be watched.
With these principles in mind and drawing on my extensive work with the
inspectors general over the past 2 years, I am today introducing
legislation to improve the accountability, independence, and efficiency
of the inspectors general program.
The legislation I am introducing is designed to increase the
accountability of inspectors general while retaining and, in some
aspects, strengthening the provisions in law that guarantee their
independence from the agencies they oversee.
My bill establishes a renewable 9-year term of office for each of the
inspectors general who are appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate. Currently, Presidential IGs serve for an indeterminate
term.
The IG community has testified that having a fixed term of office
would provide them with the assurances they need to be able to perform
their vital but, in some cases, unpopular oversight responsibilities in
a more independent environment.
The 9-year term also would enhance IG autonomy because it would
extend beyond two Presidential administrations.
There has been considerable turnover in some of the IG positions, and
the establishment of a fixed term would also encourage inspectors
general to serve for longer periods of time, thus, adding experience to
the IG community. Finally, by providing a defined term of service, an
appropriate framework is provided for the evaluation of the performance
of each IG to determine if re-appointment is warranted. Thus, Mr.
President, the 9-year term I am proposing would both enhance the
independence of the IGs while improving their accountability.
My legislation also takes steps to streamline the IG offices
themselves, making them more efficient and flexible, by consolidating
existing offices and by reducing the frequency with which IGs must
prepare and file resource-intensive reports.
Some of the IGs' offices that exist today are very small, with just a
handful of employees. They could be made more efficient and effective
by transferring their functions to larger IG offices that oversee
similar programs.
For example, my legislation consolidates the current stand-alone
office of the Federal Labor Relations Authority IG, which has just one
employee, into the Office of Personnel Management, thus eliminating
unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy but continuing the vital audit and
oversight capacity of both agencies. In total, three existing small
IGs' offices would be consolidated into the IG offices of major
departments and two smaller IG offices would be consolidated into one
office.
Currently, Mr. President, the Offices of Inspectors General are
required by law to provide semiannual reports to Congress. To increase
the value of these reports, I am reducing this requirement to a single
annual report and streamlining the information presented. In this way,
Congress can focus on high-risk areas before they get worse and before
the problems become more difficult to solve.
Mr. President, the inspectors general have made very valuable
contributions to the efficient operation of the Federal Government.
Their record, however, is not without blemish. For example, the
community's record was tarnished by the activities of the inspector
general at the Department of Treasury. After an extensive
investigation, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found this
particular IG violated Federal contract laws in her award of two
noncompetitive, sole source contracts.
These actions not only wasted thousands of dollars but also shook the
confidence of Congress, the agency, and the public in the IG's ability
to operate with the highest degree of integrity. It was extremely
disturbing to find that this inspector general was herself guilty of
wasting resources and abusing the public trust. At the conclusion of
our investigation, one could not help but wonder, who is watching the
watchdogs?
Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that in my view, problems like the
ones we uncovered in the Treasury Department are very unusual. They are
not characteristic of the IG community. They are not widespread.
However, because the inspectors general are the very officials in the
Government responsible for combating waste, fraud, and abuse, they
should be held
[[Page S4123]]
to the very highest ethical standards. Even one example of impropriety
is cause for concern.
To increase accountability, my legislation requires independent
external reviews of each IG office every 3 years. It gives each office
the flexibility to choose the most efficient method of review, but it
does require that the watchdogs themselves submit to oversight by a
qualified third party. This provision is intended to help ensure public
confidence in the management and the efficiency of the IG offices and
will provide valuable guidance to Congress in fulfilling our oversight
responsibilities.
Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the National Commission
on the Separation of Powers has endorsed my recommendation that such an
independent, external review be conducted of each IG office. The
Commission is a bipartisan committee sponsored by the Miller Center for
Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and includes among its
members former Senator Howard Baker, former White House Counsel Lloyd
Cutler, former U.S. Attorney William Barr, former Secretary of State
Lawrence Eagleburger, and former Director of Central Intelligence
William Webster. I am very proud that my proposal has been endorsed by
such an esteemed organization.
Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents a major
step toward improving the effectiveness, the independence, and the
accountability of the inspectors general program. I urge my colleagues
to join me in this effort to strengthen and improve the inspectors
general program as we approach the next century.
Thank you, Mr. President.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 871. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure
that veterans of the United States Armed Forces are eligible for
discretionary relief from detention, deportation, exclusion, and
removal, and for other reasons; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
fairness to immigrant veterans act of 1999
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would ensure that veterans of the United States Armed Forces are not
summarily deported from this country. This bill would correct a grave
injustice wrought by the recent changes in immigration policy, which
has resulted in decorated war veterans being deported without any
administrative or judicial consideration of the equities.
Under the immigration ``reform'' legislation enacted in 1996,
Congress passed and the President endorsed a broad expansion of the
definition of what makes a legal resident deportable. In the rush to be
the toughest on illegal immigration, the bill also vastly limited
relief from deportation and imposed mandatory detention for thousands
of permanent residents in deportation proceedings.
The zealousness of Congress and the White House to be tough on aliens
has successfully snared permanent residents who have spilled their
blood for our country. As the INS prepares to deport these American
veterans, we have not even been kind enough to thank them for their
service with a hearing to listen to their story and consider whether,
just possibly, their military service or other life circumstances
outweighs the government's interest in deporting them.
Here is the cold and ugly side of our ``tough'' immigration policies.
Here are the human consequences of legislating by 30-second political
ad. Unfortunately the checks and balances of our government have failed
these veterans because Congress and this Administration are determined
not to be outdone by each other. ``Tough'' in this case means blinding
ourselves to the personal consequences of these people. It means
substituting discretion with a cold rubber stamp that can only say
``no.''
Our national policy on deportation of veterans is particularly
outrageous at a time when we are sending tens of thousands of U.S.
servicemen and women, including untold numbers of permanent residents,
into harms way. Why has Congress asked the INS to devote its limited
resources to hunting down non-citizens who previously answered this
country's call to duty, some of whom were permanently disabled in the
course of their service?
Interestingly, it appears that even the INS agrees that military
service or other life circumstances may, on occasion, outweigh the
government's interest in deportation. In one recent case, which I
brought to the attention of INS Commissioner Meissner, the INS
eventually reached this conclusion. I am honored if my intervention
played a part in obtaining some semblance of justice for Sergeant
Rafael Ramirez and his family. However, Sergeant Ramirez's example
confirms the need to ensure that every veteran's case is carefully
reviewed by an immigration judge empowered to do justice.
The legislation that I introduce today restores for veterans the
opportunity to go before an immigration judge to present the equities
of their case and to have a Federal court review any deportation
decision. It also provides veterans with an opportunity to be released
from detention while their case is under consideration.
The injustice addressed by this bill is just one egregious example of
how recent immigration ``reform'' has resulted in the break-up of
American families and the deportation of people who have contributed to
our country. This Congress needs to address the broader injustices that
our prior one-upmanship caused. In the meantime, this bill is an
important step in the right direction.
______
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Abraham,
Mr. Levin, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 872. A bill to impose certain limits on the receipt of out-of-
State municipal solid waste, to authorize State and local controls over
the flow of municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
municipal solid waste interstate transportation and local authority act
of 1999
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
along with my colleague, Senator Bayh, that will allow states to
finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste
that is flowing into states like Ohio and Indiana and many others.
Our bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and
Local Authority Act,'' gives state and local governments the tools they
need to limit garbage imports from other states and manage their own
waste within their own states.
Ohio receives about 1.4 million tons of municipal solid waste
annually from other states. While I am pleased that these shipments
have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I
believe it is still entirely too high.
Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, other states have
simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to
states like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is
wrong and it has to stop.
Many state and local governments have worked hard to develop
strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As
Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-
state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill
operators and agreements with other states. We saw limited relief. But
honestly Mr. President, Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state
waste numbers won't rise significantly with the upcoming closure of the
Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001.
However, the federal courts have prevented states from enacting laws
to protect our natural resources. What has emerged is an unnatural
pattern where Ohio and other states--both importing and exporting--have
tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local
disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at
every turn.
Quite frankly, state and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a
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
waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because
Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill
space when it is being used for other states' trash. Our citizens
already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of-
[[Page S4124]]
state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and
litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses.
Ohio and many other states have taken comprehensive steps to protect
our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However,
excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal in other states has limited the
ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I
do not believe the commerce clause requires us to service other states
at the expense of our own citizens' efforts.
A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio
in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor
Bayh (now Senator Bayh), Governor Engler and Governor Casey, and later
Governors Ridge and O'Bannon--to try to pass effective interstate waste
and flow control legislation.
In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked to reach an agreement with
Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our states
quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey--the second largest
exporting state--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions
with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of
their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill.
The bill that Senator Bayh and I are introducing today reflects the
agreement that our two states, along with Michigan and Pennsylvania,
reached with Governor Whitman.
For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for
states to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the
option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a state to impose a
percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new
facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually.
Or, a state could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny
a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a
local or in-state regional need for that facility.
These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other states that new
facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving
out-of-state waste. For instance, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a
landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--
approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would
have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully
this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste
company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is
not enough need for the facility in the state and they need to ensure a
steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible.
With the announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill, it is even
more critical to Ohio that states should receive the authority to place
limits on new facilities and expansions of existing facilities. The
Congressional Research Service estimates that when Fresh Kills closes,
there will be an additional 13,200 tons of garbage each day diverted to
other facilities. However, CRS also points out that there is only about
1,200 tons per day of capacity available in the entire state of New
York. Even if New York handles some of that 13,200 tons a day in-state,
it is estimated that about 4 million tons per year will still need to
be managed outside the state from that landfill alone.
In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators
could not receive trash from other states until local governments
approve its receipt. States also could freeze their out-of-state waste
at 1993 levels, while some states would be able to reduce these levels
to 65 percent by the year 2006. This bill also allows states to reduce
the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50
percent in 2007 at the earliest.
States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge
on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide states with the
funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs.
And finally, the bill grants limited flow control authority in order
for municipalities to pay off existing bonds and guarantee a dedicated
waste stream for landfills or incinerators.
Flow control is important to states like New Jersey, which has taken
aggressive steps to try to manage all of its trash within its borders
by the year 2000. New Jersey communities have acted responsibly to
build disposal facilities to help meet that goal. However, if Congress
fails to protect existing flow control authorities, repayment of the
outstanding $1.9 billion investment in New Jersey alone will be
jeopardized.
I am deeply concerned that responsible decisions made by Ohio, New
Jersey and other states have been undermined and have put potentially
large financial burdens on communities and have encouraged exporting
states to pass their trash problems onto the backs of others.
Twenty-four Governors, including Governor Whitman, and the Western
Governors' Association have sent letters to Congress strongly
supporting the provisions that are in our bill.
Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of-
state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban
all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, Senator Bayh and I are not
asking for outright authority for states to prohibit all out-of-state
waste, nor are we seeking to prohibit waste from any one state.
We are asking for reasonable tools that will enable state and local
governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit
unreasonable waste imports from other states. Such measures would give
substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around our
own states' needs.
I believe the time is right to move an effective interstate waste
bill. The bill we are introducing today is a consensus of importing and
exporting states--states that have willingly come forward to offer a
reasonable solution.
Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other
affected states the relief they need from the truckloads of waste
passing through their communities. We have waited too long for a
solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading
further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East
better manage the trash they generate.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a letter
from Governors O'Bannon, Taft, Engler and Whitman and one from Governor
Ridge be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 872
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Municipal Solid Waste
Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT RECEIPT OF OUT-OF-
STATE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT EXISTING
FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 4011. AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT RECEIPT OF OUT-
OF-STATE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT EXISTING
FACILITIES.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Affected local government.--The term `affected local
government', with respect to a facility, means--
``(A) the public body authorized by State law to plan for
the management of municipal solid waste for the area in which
the facility is located or proposed to be located, a majority
of the members of which public body are elected officials;
``(B) in a case in which there is no public body described
in subparagraph (A), the elected officials of the city, town,
township, borough, county, or parish selected by the Governor
and exercising primary responsibility over municipal solid
waste management or the use of land in the jurisdiction in
which the facility is located or proposed to be located; or
``(C) in a case in which there is in effect an agreement or
compact under section 105(b), contiguous units of local
government located in each of 2 or more adjoining States that
are parties to the agreement, for purposes of providing
authorization under subsection (b), (c), or (d) for municipal
solid waste generated in the jurisdiction of 1 of those units
of local government and received in the jurisdiction of
another of those units of local government.
``(2) Authorization to receive out-of-state municipal solid
waste.--
``(A) In general.--The term `authorization to receive out-
of-State municipal solid waste' means a provision contained
in a host community agreement or permit that specifically
authorizes a facility to receive out-of-State municipal solid
waste.
``(B) Specific authorization.--
[[Page S4125]]
``(i) Sufficient formulations.--For the purposes of
subparagraph (A), only the following, shall be considered to
specifically authorize a facility to receive out-of-State
municipal solid waste:
``(I) an authorization to receive municipal solid waste
from any place within a fixed radius surrounding the facility
that includes an area outside the State;
``(II) an authorization to receive municipal solid waste
from any place of origin in the absence of any provision
limiting those places of origin to places inside the State;
``(III) an authorization to receive municipal solid waste
from a specifically identified place or places outside the
State; or
``(IV) a provision that uses such a phrase as `regardless
of origin' or `outside the State' in reference to municipal
solid waste.
``(ii) Insufficient formulations.--For the purposes of
subparagraph (A), either of the following, by itself, shall
not be considered to specifically authorize a facility to
receive out-of-State municipal solid waste:
``(I) A general reference to the receipt of municipal solid
waste from outside the jurisdiction of the affected local
government.
``(II) An agreement to pay a fee for the receipt of out-of-
State? municipal solid waste.
``(C) Form of authorization.--To qualify as an
authorization to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste,
a provision need not be in any particular form; a provision
shall so qualify so long as the provision clearly and
affirmatively states the approval or consent of the affected
local government or State for receipt of municipal solid
waste from places of origin outside the State.
``(3) Disposal.--The term `disposal' includes incineration.
``(4) Existing host community agreement.--The term
`existing host community agreement' means a host community
agreement entered into before January 1, 1999.
``(5) Facility.--The term `facility' means a landfill,
incinerator, or other enterprise that received municipal
solid waste before the date of enactment of this section.
``(6) Governor.--The term `Governor', with respect to a
facility, means the chief executive officer of the State in
which a facility is located or proposed to be located or any
other officer authorized under State law to exercise
authority under this section.
``(7) Host community agreement.--The term `host community
agreement' means a written, legally binding agreement,
lawfully entered into between an owner or operator of a
facility and an affected local government that contains an
authorization to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste.
``(8) Municipal solid waste.--
``(A) In general.--The term `municipal solid waste' means--
``(i) material discarded for disposal by--
``(I) households (including single and multifamily
residences); and
``(II) public lodgings such as hotels and motels; and
``(ii) material discarded for disposal that was generated
by commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, to the
extent that the material--
``(I) is essentially the same as material described in
clause (i); or
``(II) is collected and disposed of with material described
in clause (i) as part of a normal municipal solid waste
collection service.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste'
includes--
``(i) appliances;
``(ii) clothing;
``(iii) consumer product packaging;
``(iv) cosmetics;
``(v) disposable diapers;
``(vi) food containers made of glass or metal;
``(vii) food waste;
``(viii) household hazardous waste;
``(ix) office supplies;
``(x) paper; and
``(xi) yard waste.
``(C) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' does
not include--
``(i) solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste
under section 3001, except for household hazardous waste;
``(ii) solid waste resulting from--
``(I) a response action taken under section 104 or 106 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606);
``(II) a response action taken under a State law with
authorities comparable to the authorities contained in either
of those sections; or
``(III) a corrective action taken under this Act;
``(iii) recyclable material--
``(I) that has been separated, at the source of the
material, from waste destined for disposal; or
``(II) that has been managed separately from waste destined
for disposal, including scrap rubber to be used as a fuel
source;
``(iv) a material or product returned from a dispenser or
distributor to the manufacturer or an agent of the
manufacturer for credit, evaluation, and possible potential
reuse;
``(v) solid waste that is--
``(I) generated by an industrial facility; and
``(II) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage,
or disposal to a facility (which facility is in compliance
with applicable State and local land use and zoning laws and
regulations) or facility unit--
``(aa) that is owned or operated by the generator of the
waste;
``(bb) that is located on property owned by the generator
of the waste or a company with which the generator is
affiliated; or
``(cc) the capacity of which is contractually dedicated
exclusively to a specific generator;
``(vi) medical waste that is segregated from or not mixed
with solid waste;
``(vii) sewage sludge or residuals from a sewage treatment
plant; or
``(viii) combustion ash generated by a resource recovery
facility or municipal incinerator.
``(9) New host community agreement.--The term `new host
community agreement' means a host community agreement entered
into on or after the date of enactment of this section.
``(10) Out-of-state municipal solid waste.--
``(A) In general.--The term `out-of-State municipal solid
waste', with respect to a State, means municipal solid waste
generated outside the State.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `out-of-State municipal solid
waste' includes municipal solid waste generated outside the
United States.
``(11) Receive.--The term `receive' means receive for
disposal.
``(12) Recyclable material.--
``(A) In general.--The term `recyclable material' means a
material that may feasibly be used as a raw material or
feedstock in place of or in addition to, virgin material in
the manufacture of a usable material or product.
``(B) Virgin material.--In subparagraph (A), the term
`virgin material' includes petroleum.
``(b) Prohibition of Receipt for Disposal of Out-of-State
Waste.--No facility may receive for disposal out-of-State
municipal solid waste except as provided in subsections (c),
(d), and (e).
``(c) Existing Host Community Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility
operating under an existing host community agreement may
receive for disposal out-of-State municipal solid waste if--
``(A) the owner or operator of the facility has complied
with paragraph (2); and
``(B) the owner or operator of the facility is in
compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the host
community agreement.
``(2) Public inspection of agreement.--Not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this section, the owner
or operator of a facility described in paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) provide a copy of the existing host community
agreement to the State and affected local government; and
``(B) make a copy of the existing host community agreement
available for inspection by the public in the local
community.
``(d) New Host Community Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility
operating under a new host community agreement may receive
for disposal out-of-State municipal solid waste if--
``(A) the agreement meets the requirements of paragraphs
(2) through(5); and
``(B) the owner or operator of the facility is in
compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the host
community agreement.
``(2) Requirements for authorization.--
``(A) In general.--Authorization to receive out-of-State
municipal solid waste under a new host community agreement
shall--
``(i) be granted by formal action at a meeting;
``(ii) be recorded in writing in the official record of the
meeting; and
``(iii) remain in effect according to the terms of the new
host community agreement.
``(B) Specifications.--An authorization to receive out-of-
State municipal solid waste shall specify terms and
conditions, including--
``(i) the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste
that the facility may receive; and
``(ii) the duration of the authorization.
``(3) Information.--Before seeking an authorization to
receive out-of-State municipal solid waste under a new host
community agreement, the owner or operator of the facility
seeking the authorization shall provide (and make readily
available to the State, each contiguous local government and
Indian tribe, and any other interested person for inspection
and copying) the following:
``(A) A brief description of the facility, including, with
respect to the facility and any planned expansion of the
facility, a description of--
``(i) the size of the facility;
``(ii) the ultimate municipal solid waste capacity of the
facility; and
``(iii) the anticipated monthly and yearly volume of out-
of-State municipal solid waste to be received at the
facility.
``(B) A map of the facility site that indicates--
``(i) the location of the facility in relation to the local
road system; and
``(ii) topographical and general hydrogeological features;
``(iii) any buffer zones to be acquired by the owner or
operator; and
``(iv) all facility units.
``(C) A description of--
``(i) the environmental characteristics of the site, as of
the date of application for authorization;
``(ii) ground water use in the area, including
identification of private wells and public drinking water
sources; and
``(iii) alterations that may be necessitated by, or occur
as a result of, operation of the facility.
``(D) A description of--
[[Page S4126]]
``(i) environmental controls required to be used on the
site (under permit requirements), including--
``(I) run-on and run off management;
``(II) air pollution control devices;
``(III) source separation procedures;
``(IV) methane monitoring and control;
``(V) landfill covers;
``(VI) landfill liners or leachate collection systems; and
``(VII) monitoring programs; and
``(ii) any waste residuals (including leachate and ash)
that the facility will generate, and the planned management
of the residuals.
``(E) A description of site access controls to be employed
by the owner or operator and road improvements to be made by
the owner or operator, including an estimate of the timing
and extent of anticipated local truck traffic.
``(F) A list of all required Federal, State, and local
permits.
``(G) Estimates of the personnel requirements of the
facility, including--
``(i) information regarding the probable skill and
education levels required for job positions at the facility;
and
``(ii) to the extent practicable, a distinction between
preoperational and postoperational employment statistics of
the facility.
``(H) Any information that is required by State or Federal
law to be provided with respect to--
``(i) any violation of environmental law (including
regulations) by the owner or operator or any subsidiary of
the owner or operator;
``(ii) the disposition of any enforcement proceeding taken
with respect to the violation; and
``(iii) any corrective action and rehabilitation measures
taken as a result of the proceeding.
``(I) Any information that is required by Federal or State
law to be provided with respect to compliance by the owner or
operator with the State solid waste management plan.
``(J) Any information that is required by Federal or State
law to be provided with respect to gifts and contributions
made by the owner or operator.
``(4) Advance notification.--Before taking formal action to
grant or deny authorization to receive out-of-State municipal
solid waste under a new host community agreement, an affected
local government shall--
``(A) notify the State, contiguous local governments, and
any contiguous Indian tribes;
``(B) publish notice of the proposed action in a newspaper
of general circulation at least 15 days before holding a
hearing under subparagraph (C), except where State law
provides for an alternate form of public notification; and
``(C) provide an opportunity for public comment in
accordance with State law, including at least 1 public
hearing.
``(5) Subsequent notification.--Not later than 90 days
after an authorization to receive out-of-State municipal
solid waste is granted under a new host community agreement,
the affected local government shall give notice of the
authorization to--
``(A) the Governor;
``(B) contiguous local governments; and
``(C) any contiguous Indian tribes.
``(e) Receipt for Disposal of Out-of-State Municipal Solid
Waste by Facilities Not Subject to Host Community
Agreements.--
``(1) Permit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility
for which, before the date of enactment of this section, the
State issued a permit containing an authorization may receive
out-of-State municipal solid waste if--
``(i) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this section, the owner or operator of the facility notifies
the affected local government of the existence of the permit;
and
``(ii) the owner or operator of the facility complies with
all of the terms and conditions of the permit after the date
of enactment of this section.
``(B) Denied or revoked permits.--A facility may not
receive out-of-State municipal solid waste under subparagraph
(A) if the operating permit for the facility (or any renewal
of the operating permit) was denied or revoked by the
appropriate State agency before the date of enactment of this
section unless the permit or renewal was granted, renewed, or
reinstated before that date.
``(2) Documented receipt during 1993.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility
that, during 1993, received out-of-State municipal solid
waste may receive out-of-State municipal solid waste if the
owner or operator of the facility submits to the State and to
the affected local government documentation of the receipt of
out-of-State municipal solid waste during 1993, including
information about--
``(i) the date of receipt of the out-of-State municipal
solid waste;
``(ii) the volume of out-of-State municipal solid waste
received in 1993;
``(iii) the place of origin of the out-of-State municipal
solid waste received; and
``(iv) the type of out-of-State municipal solid waste
received.
``(B) False or misleading information.--Documentation
submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be made under penalty
of perjury under State law for the submission of false or
misleading information.
``(C) Availability of documentation.--The owner or operator
of a facility that receives out-of-State municipal solid
waste under subparagraph (A)--
``(I) shall make available for inspection by the public in
the local community a copy of the documentation submitted
under subparagraph (A); but
``(II) may omit any proprietary information contained in
the documentation.
``(3) Bi-state metropolitan statistical areas.--
``(A) In general.--A facility in a State may receive out-
of-State municipal solid waste if the out-of-State municipal
solid waste is generated in, and the facility is located in,
the same bi-State level A metropolitan statistical area (as
defined and listed by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget as of the date of enactment of this
section) that contains 2 contiguous major cities, each of
which is in a different State.
``(B) Governor agreement.--A facility described in
subparagraph (A) may receive out-of-State municipal solid
waste only if the Governor of each State in the bi-State
metropolitan statistical area agrees that the facility may
receive out-of-State municipal solid waste.
``(f) Required Compliance.--A facility may not receive out-
of-State municipal solid waste under subsection (c), (d), or
(e) at any time at which the State has determined that--
``(1) the facility is not in compliance with applicable
Federal and State laws (including regulations) relating to--
``(A) facility design and operation; and
``(B)(i) in the case of a landfill--
``(I) facility location standards;
``(II) leachate collection standards;
``(III) ground water monitoring standards; and
``(IV) standards for financial assurance and for closure,
postclosure, and corrective action; and
``(ii) in the case of an incinerator, the applicable
requirements of section 129 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7429); and
``(2) the noncompliance constitutes a threat to human
health or the environment.
``(g) Authority To Limit Receipt of Out-of-State Municipal
Solid Waste.--
``(1) Limits on quantity of waste received.--
``(A) Limit for all facilities in the state.--
``(i) In general.--A State may limit the quantity of out-
of-State municipal solid waste received annually at each
facility in the State to the quantity described in paragraph
(2).
``(ii) No conflict.--
``(I) In general.--A limit under clause (i) shall not
conflict with--
``(aa) an authorization to receive out-of-State municipal
solid waste contained in a permit; or
``(bb) a host community agreement entered into between the
owner or operator of a facility and the affected local
government.
``(II) Conflict.--A limit shall be treated as conflicting
with a permit or host community agreement if the permit or
host community agreement establishes a higher limit, or if
the permit or host community agreement does not establish a
limit, on the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste
that may be received annually at the facility.
``(B) Limit for particular facilities.--
``(i) In general.--An affected local government that has
not executed a host community agreement with a particular
facility may limit the quantity of out-of-State municipal
solid waste received annually at the facility to the quantity
specified in paragraph (2).
``(ii) No conflict.--A limit under clause (i) shall not
conflict with an authorization to receive out-of-State
municipal solid waste contained in a permit.
``(C) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this subsection
supersedes any State law relating to contracts.
``(2) Limit on quantity.--
``(A) In general.--For any facility that commenced
receiving documented out-of-State municipal solid waste
before the date of enactment of this section, the quantity
referred to in paragraph (1) for any year shall be equal to
the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste received
at the facility during calendar year 1993.
``(B) Documentation.--
``(i) Contents.--Documentation submitted under subparagraph
(A) shall include information about--
``(I) the date of receipt of the out-of-State municipal
solid waste;
``(II) the volume of out-of-State municipal solid waste
received in 1993;
``(III) the place of origin of the out-of-State municipal
solid waste received; and
``(IV) the type of out-of-State municipal solid waste
received.
``(ii) False or misleading information.--Documentation
submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be made under penalty
of perjury under State law for the submission of false or
misleading information.
``(3) No discrimination.--In establishing a limit under
this subsection, a State shall act in a manner that does not
discriminate against any shipment of out-of-State municipal
solid waste on the basis of State of origin.
``(h) Authority To Limit Receipt of Out-of-State Municipal
Solid Waste to Declining Percentages of Quantities Received
During 1993.--
[[Page S4127]]
``(1) In general.--A State in which facilities received
more than 650,000 tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste
in calendar year 1993 may establish a limit on the quantity
of out-of-State municipal solid waste that may be received at
all facilities in the State described in subsection (e)(2) in
the following quantities:
``(A) In calendar year 2000, 95 percent of the quantity
received in calendar year 1993.
``(B) In each of calendar years 2001 through 2006, 95
percent of the quantity received in the previous year.
``(C) In each calendar year after calendar year 2006, 65
percent of the quantity received in calendar year 1993.
``(2) Uniform applicability.--A limit under paragraph (1)
shall apply uniformly--
``(A) to the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste
that may be received at all facilities in the State that
received out-of-State municipal solid waste in calendar year
1993; and
``(B) for each facility described in clause (i), to the
quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste that may be
received from each State that generated out-of-State
municipal solid waste received at the facility in calendar
year 1993.
``(3) Notice.--Not later than 90 days before establishing a
limit under paragraph (1), a State shall provide notice of
the proposed limit to each State from which municipal solid
waste was received in calendar year 1993.
``(4) Alternative authorities.--If a State exercises
authority under this subsection, the State may not thereafter
exercise authority under subsection (g).
``(i) Cost Recovery Surcharge.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Cost.--The term `cost' means a cost incurred by the
State for the implementation of State laws governing the
processing, combustion, or disposal of municipal solid waste,
limited to--
``(i) the issuance of new permits and renewal of or
modification of permits;
``(ii) inspection and compliance monitoring;
``(iii) enforcement; and
``(iv) costs associated with technical assistance, data
management, and collection of fees.
``(B) Processing.--The term `processing' means any activity
to reduce the volume of municipal solid waste or alter the
chemical, biological or physical state of municipal solid
waste, through processes such as thermal treatment, bailing,
composting, crushing, shredding, separation, or compaction.
``(2) Authority.--A State may authorize, impose, and
collect a cost recovery charge on the processing or disposal
of out-of-State municipal solid waste in the State in
accordance with this subsection.
``(3) Amount of surcharge.--The amount of a cost recovery
surcharge--
``(A) may be no greater than the amount necessary to
recover those costs determined in conformance with paragraph
(5); and
``(B) in no event may exceed $3.00 per ton of waste.
``(4) Use of surcharge collected.--All cost recovery
surcharges collected by a State under this subsection shall
be used to fund solid waste management programs, administered
by the State or a political subdivision of the State, that
incur costs for which the surcharge is collected.
``(5) Conditions.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a
State may impose and collect a cost recovery surcharge on the
processing or disposal within the State of out-of-State
municipal solid waste if--
``(i) the State demonstrates a cost to the State arising
from the processing or disposal within the State of a volume
of municipal solid waste from a source outside the State;
``(ii) the surcharge is based on those costs to the State
demonstrated under subparagraph (A) that, if not paid for
through the surcharge, would otherwise have to be paid or
subsidized by the State; and
``(iii) the surcharge is compensatory and is not
discriminatory.
``(B) Prohibition of surcharge.--In no event shall a cost
recovery surcharge be imposed by a State to the extent that--
``(i) the cost for which recovery is sought is otherwise
paid, recovered, or offset by any other fee or tax paid to
the State or a political subdivision of the State; or
``(ii) to the extent that the amount of the surcharge is
offset by voluntary payments to a State or a political
subdivision of the State, in connection with the generation,
transportation, treatment, processing, or disposal of solid
waste.
``(C) Subsidy; non-discrimination.--The grant of a subsidy
by a State with respect to entities disposing of waste
generated within the State does not constitute discrimination
for purposes of subparagraph (A).
``(j) Implementation and Enforcement.--A State may adopt
such laws (including regulations), not inconsistent with this
section, as are appropriate to implement and enforce this
section, including provisions for penalties.
``(k) Annual State Report.--
``(1) Facilities.--On February 1, 2000, and on February 1
of each subsequent year, the owner or operator of each
facility that receives out-of-State municipal solid waste
shall submit to the State information specifying--
``(A) the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste
received during the preceding calendar year; and
``(B) the State of origin of the out-of-State municipal
solid waste received during the preceding calendar year.
``(2) Transfer stations.--
``(A) Definition of receive for transfer.--In this
paragraph, the term `receive for transfer' means receive for
temporary storage pending transfer to another State or
facility.
``(B) Report.--On February 1, 2000, and on February 1 of
each subsequent year, the owner or operator of each transfer
station that receives for transfer out-of-State municipal
solid waste shall submit to the State a report describing--
``(A) the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste
received for transfer during the preceding calendar year;
``(B) each State of origin of the out-of-State municipal
solid waste received for transfer during the preceding
calendar year; and
``(C) each State of destination of the out-of-State
municipal solid waste transferred from the transfer station
during the preceding calendar year.
``(3) No preclusion of state requirements.--The
requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) do not preclude any
State requirement for more frequent reporting.
``(4) False or misleading information.--Documentation
submitted under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be made under
penalty of perjury under State law for the submission of
false or misleading information.
``(5) Report.--On March 1, 2000, and on March 1 of each
year thereafter, each State to which information is submitted
under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall publish and make available
to the public a report containing information on the quantity
of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal
and received for transfer in the State during the preceding
calendar year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by
adding after the item relating to section 4010 the following:
``Sec. 4011. Authority to prohibit or limit receipt of out-of-State
municipal solid waste at existing facilities.''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO DENY PERMITS FOR OR IMPOSE PERCENTAGE
LIMITS ON RECEIPT OF OUT-OF-STATE MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE AT NEW FACILITIES.
(a) Amendment.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) (as amended by section 2(a)), is
amended by adding after section 4011 the following:
``SEC. 4012. AUTHORITY TO DENY PERMITS FOR OR IMPOSE
PERCENTAGE LIMITS ON RECEIPT OF OUT-OF-STATE
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT NEW FACILITIES.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Terms defined in section 4011.--The terms
`authorization to receive out-of-State municipal solid
waste', `disposal', `existing host community agreement',
`host community agreement', `municipal solid waste', `out-of-
State municipal solid waste', and `receive' have the meaning
given those terms, respectively, in section 4011.
``(2) Other terms.--The term `facility' means a landfill,
incinerator, or other enterprise that receives out-of-State
municipal solid waste on or after the date of enactment of
this section.
``(b) Authority to Deny Permits or Impose Percentage
Limits.--
``(1) Alternative authorities.--In any calendar year, a
State may exercise the authority under either paragraph (2)
or paragraph (3), but may not exercise the authority under
both paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(2) Authority to deny permits.--A State may deny a permit
for the construction or operation of or a major modification
to a facility if--
``(A) the State has approved a State or local comprehensive
municipal solid waste management plan developed under Federal
or State law; and
``(B) the denial is based on a determination, under a State
law authorizing the denial, that there is not a local or
regional need for the facility in the State.
``(3) Authority to impose percentage limit.--A State may
provide by law that a State permit for the construction,
operation, or expansion of a facility shall include the
requirement that not more than a specified percentage (which
shall be not less than 20 percent) of the total quantity of
municipal solid waste received annually at the facility shall
be out-of-State municipal solid waste.
``(c) New host community agreements.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(3), a
facility operating under an existing host community agreement
that contains an authorization to receive out-of-State
municipal solid waste in a specific quantity annually may
receive that quantity.
``(2) No effect on state permit denial.--Nothing in
paragraph (1) authorizes a facility described in that
paragraph to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste if
the State has denied a permit to the facility under
subsection (b)(2).
``(d) Uniform and nondiscriminatory application.--A law
under subsection (b) or (c)--
``(1) shall be applicable throughout the State;
``(2) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against
any particular facility; and
``(3) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against
any shipment of out-of-
[[Page S4128]]
State municipal solid waste on the basis of place of
origin.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901)
(as amended by section 1(b)) is amended by adding at the end
of the items relating to subtitle D the following:
``Sec. 4012. Authority to deny permits for or impose percentage limits
on new facilities.''.
SEC. 4. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE.
(a) Amendment.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) (as amended by section 3(a)), is
amended by adding after section 4012 the following:
``SEC. 4013. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Terms defined in section 4011.--The terms `affected
local government', `Governor', and `receive' have the
meanings given those terms, respectively, in section 4011.
``(2) Other terms.--
``(A) Base year quantity.--The term `base year quantity'
means--
``(i) the annual quantity of out-of-State construction and
demolition debris received at a State in calendar year 2000,
as determined under subsection (c)(2)(B)(i); or
``(ii) in the case of an expedited implementation under
subsection (c)(5), the annual quantity of out-of-State
construction and demolition debris received in a State in
calendar year 1999.
``(B) Construction and demolition waste.--
``(i) In general.--The term `construction and demolition
waste' means debris resulting from the construction,
renovation, repair, or demolition of or similar work on a
structure.
``(ii) Exclusions.--The term `construction and demolition
waste' does not include debris that--
``(I) is commingled with municipal solid waste; or
``(II) is contaminated, as determined under subsection (b).
``(C) Facility.--The term `facility' means any enterprise
that receives construction and demolition waste on or after
the date of enactment of this section, including landfills.
``(D) Out-of-state construction and demolition waste.--The
term `out-of-State construction and demolition waste' means--
``(i) with respect to any State, construction and
demolition debris generated outside the State; and
``(ii) construction and demolition debris generated outside
the United States, unless the President determines that
treatment of the construction and demolition debris as out-
of-State construction and demolition waste under this section
would be inconsistent with the North American Free Trade
Agreement or the Uruguay Round Agreements (as defined in
section 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3501)).
``(b) Contaminated Construction and Demolition Debris.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of determining whether
debris is contaminated, the generator of the debris shall
conduct representative sampling and analysis of the debris.
``(2) Submission of results.--Unless not required by the
affected local government, the results of the sampling and
analysis under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the
affected local government for recordkeeping purposes only.
``(3) Disposal of contaminated debris.--Any debris
described in subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) that is determined to be
contaminated shall be disposed of in a landfill that meets
the requirements of this Act.
``(c) Limit on Construction and Demolition Waste.--
``(1) In general.--A State may establish a limit on the
annual amount of out-of-State construction and demolition
waste that may be received at landfills in the State.
``(2) Required action by the state.--A State that seeks to
limit the receipt of out-of-State construction and demolition
waste received under this section shall--
``(i) not later than January 1, 2000, establish and
implement reporting requirements to determine the quantity of
construction and demolition waste that is--
``(I) disposed of in the State; and
``(II) imported into the State; and
``(ii) not later than March 1, 2001--
``(I) establish the annual quantity of out-of-State
construction and demolition waste received during calendar
year 2000; and
``(II) report the tonnage received during calendar year
2000 to the Governor of each exporting State.
``(3) Reporting by facilities.--
``(A) In general.--Each facility that receives out-of-State
construction and demolition debris shall report to the State
in which the facility is located the quantity and State of
origin of out-of-State construction and demolition debris
received--
``(i) in calendar year 1999, not later than February 1,
2000; and
``(ii) in each subsequent calendar year, not later than
February 1 of the calendar year following that year.
``(B) No preclusion of state requirements.--The requirement
of subparagraph (A) does not preclude any State requirement
for more frequent reporting.
``(C) Penalty.--Each submission under this paragraph shall
be made under penalty of perjury under State law.
``(4) Limit on debris received.--
``(A) Ratchet.--A State in which facilities receive out-of-
State construction and demolition debris may decrease the
quantity of construction and demolition debris that may be
received at each facility to an annual percentage of the base
year quantity specified in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Reduced annual percentages.--A limit on out-of-State
construction and demolition debris imposed by a State under
subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
``(i) in calendar year 2001, 95 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(ii) in calendar year 2002, 90 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(iii) in calendar year 2003, 85 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(iv) in calendar year 2004, 80 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(v) in calendar year 2005, 75 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(vi) in calendar year 2006, 70 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(vii) in calendar year 2007, 65 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(viii) in calendar year 2008, 60 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(ix) in calendar year 2009, 55 percent of the base year
quantity; and
``(x) in calendar year 2010 and in each subsequent year, 50
percent of the base year quantity.
``(5) Expedited implementation.--
``(A) Ratchet.--A State in which facilities receive out-of-
State construction and demolition debris may decrease the
quantity of construction and demolition debris that may be
received at each facility to an annual percentage of the base
year quantity specified in subparagraph (B) if--
``(i) on the date of enactment of this section, the State
has determined the quantity of construction and demolition
waste received in the State in calendar year 1999; and
``(ii) the State complies with paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(B) Expedited reduced annual percentages.--An expedited
implementation of a limit on the receipt of out-of-State
construction and demolition debris imposed by a State under
subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
``(i) in calendar year 2000, 95 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(ii) in calendar year 2001, 90 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(iii) in calendar year 2002, 85 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(iv) in calendar year 2003, 80 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(v) in calendar year 2004, 75 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(vi) in calendar year 2005, 70 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(vii) in calendar year 2006, 65 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(viii) in calendar year 2007, 60 percent of the base year
quantity;
``(ix) in calendar year 2008, 55 percent of the base year
quantity; and
``(x) in calendar year 2009 and in each subsequent year, 50
percent of the base year quantity.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901)
(as amended by section 3(b)), is amended by adding at the end
of the items relating to subtitle D the following:
``Sec. 4013. Construction and demolition debris.''.
SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL.
(a) Amendment of Subtitle D.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) (as amended by section
4(a)) is amended by adding after section 4013 the following:
``SEC. 4014. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.
``(a) Flow Control Authority for Facilities Previously
Designated.--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 the suspension date,
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, as such jurisdiction was in effect on
the suspension date.
``(2) Such flow control authority is imposed through the
adoption or execution of a law, ordinance, regulation,
resolution, or other legally binding provision or official
act of the State or political subdivision that--
``(A) was in effect on the suspension date;
``(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 or
partial suspension thereof by legislative or official
administrative action of the State or political subdivision
expressly because of the existence of an injunction or other
court order of the type described in subparagraph (B) issued
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
``(3) The State or a political subdivision thereof has, for
one or more of such designated facilities--
[[Page S4129]]
``(A) on or before the suspension date, presented eligible
bonds for sale;
``(B) on or before the suspension date, issued a written
public declaration or regulation stating that bonds would be
issued and held hearings regarding such issuance, and
subsequently presented eligible bonds for sale within 180
days of the declaration or regulation; or
``(C) on or before the suspension date, executed a legally
binding contract or agreement that--
``(i) was in effect as of the suspension date;
``(ii) obligates the delivery of a minimum quantity of
municipal solid waste or recyclable materials to one or more
such designated waste management facilities or facilities for
recyclable materials; and
``(iii) either--
``(I) obligates the State or political subdivision 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; or
``(II) otherwise imposes liability for damages resulting
from such failure.
``(b) Waste Stream Subject to Flow Control.--Subsection (a)
authorizes only the exercise of flow control authority with
respect to the flow to any designated facility of the
specific classes or categories of municipal solid waste and
voluntarily relinquished recyclable materials to which such
flow control authority was applicable on the suspension date
and--
``(1) in the case of any designated waste management
facility or facility for recyclable materials that was in
operation as of the suspension date, only if the facility
concerned received municipal solid waste or recyclable
materials in those classes or categories on or before the
suspension date; and
``(2) in the case of any designated waste management
facility or facility for recyclable materials that was not
yet in operation as of the suspension date, only of the
classes or categories that were clearly identified by the
State or political subdivision as of the suspension date to
be flow controlled to such facility.
``(c) Duration of Flow Control Authority.--Flow control
authority may be exercised pursuant to this section with
respect to any facility or facilities only until the later of
the following:
``(1) The final maturity date of the bond referred to in
subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B).
``(2) The expiration date of the contract or agreement
referred to in subsection (a)(3)(C).
``(3) The adjusted expiration date of a bond issued for a
qualified environmental retrofit.
The dates referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be
determined based upon the terms and provisions of the bond or
contract or agreement. In the case of a contract or agreement
described in subsection (a)(3)(C) that has no specified
expiration date, for purposes of paragraph (2) of this
subsection the expiration date shall be the first date that
the State or political subdivision that is a party to the
contract or agreement can withdraw from its responsibilities
under the contract or agreement without being in default
thereunder and without substantial penalty or other
substantial legal sanction. The expiration date of a contract
or agreement referred to in subsection (a)(3)(C) shall be
deemed to occur at the end of the period of an extension
exercised during the term of the original contract or
agreement, if the duration of that extension was specified by
such contract or agreement as in effect on the suspension
date.
``(d) Indemnification for Certain Transportation.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no State
or political subdivision may require any person to transport
municipal solid waste or recyclable materials, or to deliver
such waste or materials for transportation, to any active
portion of a municipal solid waste landfill unit if
contamination of such active portion is a basis for listing
of the municipal solid waste landfill unit 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 landfill unit has indemnified that person
against all liability under that Act with respect to such
waste or materials.
``(e) Ownership of Recyclable Materials.--Nothing in this
section shall authorize any State or political subdivision to
require any person to sell or transfer any recyclable
materials to such State or political subdivision.
``(f) Limitation on Revenue.--A State or political
subdivision may exercise the flow control authority granted
in this section only if the State or political subdivision
limits the use of any of the revenues it derives from the
exercise of such authority to 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)(C).
``(4) Other expenses necessary for the operation and
maintenance and closure of designated facilities and other
integral facilities identified by the bond necessary for the
operation and maintenance of such designated facilities.
``(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 the suspension date. The
amount and nature of payments described in this paragraph
shall be fully disclosed to the public annually.
``(g) Interim Contracts.--A contract of the type referred
to in subsection (a)(3)(C) 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 the applicable State or political subdivision;
or
``(2) after the applicable State or political subdivision
refrained pursuant to legislative or official administrative
action from enforcing flow control authority expressly
because of the existence of a court order of the type
described in subsection (a)(2)(B) issued by a court of the
same State or the Federal judicial circuit within which such
State is located 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.
``(h) 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.
``(2) Additional flow control authority.--A State or any
political subdivision of a State that meets the requirements
of paragraph (1) may exercise flow control authority over all
classes and categories of municipal solid waste that were
subject to flow control by that State or political
subdivision on May 16, 1994, by directing municipal solid
waste from any waste management facility that was designated
as of May 16, 1994 to any other waste management facility in
the State without regard to whether the political subdivision
in which the municipal solid waste is generated had
designated the particular waste management facility or had
issued a bond or entered into a contact referred to in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(3), respectively.
``(3) 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).
``(i) Effect on Authority of States and Political
Subdivisions.--Nothing in this section shall be interpreted--
``(1) to authorize a political subdivision to exercise the
flow control authority granted by this section in a manner
inconsistent with State law;
``(2) to permit the exercise of flow control authority over
municipal solid waste and recyclable materials to an extent
greater than the maximum volume authorized by State permit to
be disposed at the waste management facility or processed at
the facility for recyclable materials;
``(3) to limit the authority of any State or political
subdivision to place a condition on a franchise, license, or
contract for municipal solid waste or recyclable materials
collection, processing, or disposal; or
``(4) to impair in any manner the authority of any State or
political subdivision to adopt or enforce any law, ordinance,
regulation, or other legally binding provision or official
act relating to the movement or processing of municipal solid
waste or recyclable materials which does not constitute
discrimination against or an undue burden upon interstate
commerce.
``(j) 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. Such provisions, other
than subsection (d), shall also apply to the exercise by any
State or political subdivision of flow control authority
before such date of enactment, except that nothing in this
section shall affect any final judgment that is no longer
subject to judicial review as of the date of enactment of
this section insofar as such judgment awarded damages based
on a finding that the exercise of flow control authority was
unconstitutional.
``(k) State Solid Waste District Authority.--In addition to
any other flow control authority authorized under this
section a solid waste district or a political subdivision of
a State may exercise flow control authority for a period of
20 years after the enactment of this section, for municipal
solid waste and for recyclable materials that is generated
within its jurisdiction if--
``(1) the solid waste district, or a political subdivision
within such district, is required through a recyclable
materials recycling program to meet a municipal solid waste
reduction goal of at least 30 percent by the year 2005, and
uses revenues generated by the exercise of flow control
authority strictly to implement programs to manage municipal
solid waste and recyclable materials, other than incineration
programs; and
[[Page S4130]]
``(2) prior to the suspension date, the solid waste
district, or a political subdivision within such district--
``(A) was responsible under State law for the management
and regulation of the storage, collection, processing, and
disposal of solid wastes within its jurisdiction;
``(B) was authorized by State statute (enacted prior to
January 1, 1992) to exercise flow control authority, and
subsequently adopted or sought to exercise the authority
through a law, ordinance, regulation, regulatory proceeding,
contract, franchise, or other legally binding provision; and
``(C) was required by State statute (enacted prior to
January 1, 1992) to develop and implement a solid waste
management plan consistent with the State solid waste
management plan, and the district solid waste management plan
was approved by the appropriate State agency prior to
September 15, 1994.
``(l) Special Rule for Certain Consortia.--For purposes of
this section, if--
``(1) two or more political subdivisions are members of a
consortium of political subdivisions established to exercise
flow control authority with respect to any waste management
facility or facility for recyclable materials;
``(2) all of such members have either presented eligible
bonds for sale or executed contracts with the owner or
operator of the facility requiring use of such facility;
``(3) the facility was designated as of the suspension date
by at least one of such members;
``(4) at least one of such members has met the requirements
of subsection (a)(2) with respect to such facility; and
``(5) at least one of such members has presented eligible
bonds for sale, or entered into a contract or agreement
referred to in subsection (a)(3)(C), on or before the
suspension date, for such facility,
the facility shall be treated as having been designated, as
of May 16, 1994, by all members of such consortium, and all
such members shall be treated as meeting the requirements of
subsection (a)(2) and (3) with respect to such facility.
``(m) Recovery of Damages.--
``(1) Prohibition.--No damages, interest on damages, costs,
or attorneys' fees may be recovered in any claim against any
State or local government, or official or employee thereof,
based on the exercise of flow control authority on or before
May 16, 1994.
``(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to cases
commenced on or after the date of enactment of the Solid
Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of
1999, and shall apply to cases commenced before such date
except cases in which a final judgment no longer subject to
judicial review has been rendered.
``(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 bond.
``(2) Bond issued for a qualified environmental retrofit.--
The term `bond issued for a qualified environmental retrofit'
means a bond described in paragraph (4)(A) or (B), 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), (B), or (C) that is applicable to such
facility and no later than December 31, 1999.
``(3) Designated.--The term `designated' means identified
by a State or political subdivision for receipt of all or any
portion of the municipal solid waste or recyclable materials
that is generated within the boundaries of the State or
political subdivision. Such designation includes designation
through--
``(A) bond covenants, official statements, or other
official financing documents issued by a State or political
subdivision issuing an eligible bond; and
``(B) the execution of a contract of the type described in
subsection (a)(3)(C),
in which one or more specific waste management facilities are
identified as the requisite facility or facilities for
receipt of municipal solid waste or recyclable materials
generated within the jurisdictional boundaries of that State
or political subdivision.
``(4) Eligible bond.--The term `eligible bond' means--
``(A) a revenue bond or similar instrument of indebtedness
pledging payment to the bondholder or holder of the debt of
identified revenues; or
``(B) a general obligation bond,
the proceeds of which are used to finance one or more
designated waste management facilities, facilities for
recyclable materials, or specifically and directly related
assets, development costs, or finance costs, as evidenced by
the bond documents.
``(5) Flow control authority.--The term `flow control
authority' means the regulatory authority to control the
movement of municipal solid waste or voluntarily relinquished
recyclable materials and direct such solid waste or
recyclable materials to one or more designated waste
management facilities or facilities for recyclable materials
within the boundaries of a State or political subdivision.
``(6) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid
waste' has the meaning given that term in section 4011,
except that such term--
``(A) includes waste material removed from a septic tank,
septage pit, or cesspool (other than from portable toilets);
and
``(B) does not include--
``(i) any substance the treatment and disposal of which is
regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act;
``(ii) waste generated during scrap processing and scrap
recycling; or
``(iii) construction and demolition debris, except where
the State or political subdivision had on or before January
1, 1989, issued eligible bonds secured pursuant to State or
local law requiring the delivery of construction and
demolition debris to a waste management facility designated
by such State or political subdivision.
``(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) 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.
``(9) Suspension date.--The term `suspension date' means,
with respect to a State or political subdivision--
``(A) May 16, 1994;
``(B) the date of an injunction or other court order
described in subsection (a)(2)(B) that was issued with
respect to that State or political subdivision; or
``(C) the date of a suspension or partial suspension
described in subsection (a)(2)(C) with respect to that State
or political subdivision.
``(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 in section
1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901)
(as amended by section 4(b)), is amended by adding at the end
of the items relating to subtitle D the following:
``Sec. 4014. Congressional authorization of State and local government
control over movement of municipal solid waste and
recyclable materials.''.
SEC. 6. EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
No action by a State or affected local government under an
amendment made by this Act shall be considered to impose an
undue burden on interstate commerce or to otherwise impair,
restrain, or discriminate against interstate commerce.
____
State of Indiana, State of Ohio, State of Michigan, and
State of New Jersey
April 22, 1999.
Hon. George V. Voinovich.
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Evan Bayh,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich and Senator Bayh: We are writing to
express our strong support for the Municipal Solid Waste
Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999,
which you plan to introduce this week. This legislation would
at long last give state and local governments federal
authority to establish reasonable limitations on the flow of
interstate waste and protect public investments in waste
disposal facilities needed to address in-state disposal
needs.
Both of you know firsthand the problems states face in
managing solid waste, as required by federal law. During your
terms of office as Governors, you worked to support the
passage of effective federal legislation that would vest
states with sufficient authority to plan for and control the
disposal of municipal solid waste, including noncontaminated
construction and demolition debris. The need for such
legislation arose from various U.S. Supreme Court rulings
applying the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to
state laws restricting out-of-state waste and directing the
flow of solid waste shipments.
We are committed to working with all states and building
upon the broad state support which exists to pass legislation
in the 106th Congress that will provide a balanced set of
controls for state and local governments to use in limiting
out-of-state waste shipments and directing intrastate
shipments. The need for congressional action on interstate
waste/flow control legislation is becoming more urgent. Last
year, the Congressional Research Service reported that its
most recent data showed interstate waste shipments increasing
to a total of over 25 million tons. The closing of the Fresh
Kills landfill in New York City is likely to dramatically
increase that figure.
Your bill includes provisions which we believe are
important for state and local governments such as the general
requirement that local officials formally approve the receipt
of out-of-state municipal solid waste
[[Page S4131]]
prior to disposal in landfills and incinerators. The
legislation does include a number of important exemptions for
current flows of waste. It also provides authority for states
to establish a statewide freeze of waste shipments or, in
some cases, implement reductions. In addition, the
legislation explicitly authorizes states to implement laws
requiring an assessment of regional and local needs before
issuing facility permits or establishing statewide out-of-
state percentage limitations for new or expanded facilities.
The legislation would also allow states to impose a $3-per-
ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste and would
provide additional authority for states to reduce the flow of
noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. Under a
separate set of provisions, states would also be authorized
to exercise limited flow control authority necessary to
protect public investments.
We recognize that the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate
Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999 would not
establish an outright ban on out-of-state waste shipments;
instead, it would gives states and localities the tools they
need to better manage their in-state waste disposal needs and
protect important natural resources. We pledge our support
for your efforts to ensure that no state is forced to become
a dumping ground for solid waste. We believe your bill will
enjoy wide support and look forward to working with you to
secure its passage.
Sincerely,
Frank O'Bannon,
Governor, State of Indiana.
John Engler,
Governor, State of Michigan.
Bob Taft,
Governor, State of Ohio.
Christine T. Whitman,
Governor, State of New Jersey.
____
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Office of the Governor,
Harrisburg, PA, April 22, 1999.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Evan Bayh,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich and Senator Bayh: I am writing to
express my strong support for the Municipal Solid Waste
Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999,
which you plan to introduce this week. This legislation would
at long last give state and local governments federal
authority to establish reasonable limitations on the flow of
interstate waste and protect public investments in waste
disposal facilities needed to address in-state disposal
needs.
Both of you know firsthand the problems states face in
managing solid waste, as required by federal law. During your
terms of office as Governors, you worked to support the
passage of effective federal legislation that would vest
states with sufficient authority to plan for and control the
disposal of municipal solid waste, including noncontaminated
construction and demolition debris. The need for such
legislation arose from various U.S. Supreme Court rulings
applying the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to
state laws restricting out-of-state waste and directing the
flow of solid waste shipments.
I am committed to working with all states and building upon
the broad state support which exists to pass legislation in
the 106th Congress that will provide a balanced set of
controls for state and local governments to use in limiting
out-of-state waste shipments and directing intrastate
shipments. The need for congressional action on interstate
waste/flow control legislation is becoming more urgent. Last
year, the Congressional Research Service reported that its
most recent data showed interstate waste shipments increasing
to a total of over 25 million tons. The closing of the Fresh
Kills landfill in New York City is likely to dramatically
increase that figure.
Your bill includes provisions which I believe are important
for state and local governments such as the general
requirement that local officials formally approve the receipt
of out-of-state municipal solid waste prior to disposal in
landfills and incinerators. The legislation does include a
number of important exemptions for current flows of waste. It
also provides authority for states to establish a statewide
freeze of waste shipments or, in some cases, implement
reductions. In addition, the legislation explicitly
authorizes states to implement laws requiring an assessment
of regional and local needs before issuing facility permits
or establishing statewide out-of-state percentage limitations
for new or expanded facilities.
The legislation would also allow states to impose a $3-per-
ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste and would
provide additional authority for states to reduce the flow of
noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. Under a
separate set of provisions, states would also be authorized
to exercise limited flow control authority necessary to
protect public investments.
I recognize that the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate
Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999 would not
establish an outright ban on out-of-state waste shipments;
instead, it would give states and localities the tools they
need to better manage their in-state waste disposal needs and
protect important natural resources. I pledge our support for
your efforts to ensure that no state is forced to become a
dumping ground for solid waste. I believe your bill will
enjoy wide support and look forward to working with you to
secure its passage.
Sincerely,
Tom Ridge,
Governor.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, states have been struggling for years to
ensure safe, responsible management of out-of-state municipal solid
waste. As Governor of Indiana, I tried to ensure that Indiana's
disposal capacity would meet Indiana's municipal solid waste needs.
Efforts to institute effective waste management policies were--and
continue to be--thwarted by two obstacles. The first is the massive and
unpredictable amounts of out-of-state waste flowing into state disposal
facilities. States' attempts to address that problem run into the
second obstacle. The Supreme Court has established, in a series of
opinions, that Congress must first provide the states the authority to
regulate interstate waste.
I rise with my colleague today to introduce legislation to do just
that.
Senator Voinovich and I, as Governors, participated in a cooperative
effort to develop a set of principles for federal action on interstate
waste. The Voinovich/Bayh interstate waste control bill is based on
those principles. Mr. President, the need for controls in interstate
waste is even more acute today than when I was a Governor. Current
governors supporting our bill know this better than anyone.
In Indiana, waste imports are again on the rise. After decreasing
from 1992 to 1994, waste imports increased significantly in 1995 and
doubled in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, out-of state waste received by
Indiana facilities increased by 32 percent to their highest level in
the last seven years. In fact, in 1998, 2.8 million tons of out-of-
state waste were disposed of in Indiana--that's 19 percent of all the
waste disposed of in Indiana's landfills. Our Department of
Environmental Management has predicted that the state will run out of
landfill space in 2011--or earlier, so the time for action is now.
Senator Voinovich and I believe we have crafted a comprehensive,
equitable approach to interstate waste management. Our bill will give
states the power to ensure manageable and predictable waste flows by
freezing waste imports at 1993 levels. States bearing the greatest
burden of interstate waste--those that disposed of more than 650,000
tons in 1993--could reduce imported waste to 65 percent of the 1993
level by 2006. Our bill will give states the power to set a percentage
limitation on the amount of out-of-state waste that new or expanding
facilities could receive and give states the option to deny a permit to
a new or expanding facility if there is no regional or in-state need
for the facility. Local governments would have more power to determine
whether they want to accept out-of-state waste. They would be able to
prohibit local disposal facilities that didn't receive out-of-state
waste in 1993 from starting to take it until the local government
approved. This presumptive ban on interstate waste would not interfere
with facilities operating under existing host community agreements or
permits.
This bill is the culmination of the work we did as Governors and the
coalition we are building as Senators. It attempts to forge a new and
workable compromise between the needs and rights of importing and
exporting states and gives the people who must live with waste planning
decisions the power to make them. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to move this important legislation forward.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 873. A bill to close the United States Army School of the
Americas; to the Committee on Armed Services.
[[Page S4132]]
____________________