[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2077-S2090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
  S. 2029. A bill to convert the temporary judgeship for the eastern 
district of Virginia to a permanent judgeship, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation to help ensure the continued effective 
administration of justice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am joined 
in the Senate on this initiative by my colleague Senator George Allen. 
Congressman Robert Scott is introducing similar legislation today in 
the House of Representatives.
  Simply put, the legislation we are introducing today will convert a 
temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia into a 
permanent one. Without swift passage of this legislation, the Eastern 
District of Virginia could lose an authorized judgeship, thus placing 
an even greater workload on the already hard working judges that serve 
in this judicial district.
  By way of background, in 1990, Congress authorized a temporary 
judgeship for the Eastern District of Virginia, bringing the total 
number of authorized judgeships in that district to ten, nine permanent 
judgeships and one temporary judgeship.
  In 2000, Congress looked closely at the heavy caseload the judges of 
the Eastern District of Virginia carried, and as a result Congress 
authorized one additional permanent judgeship. With the advice of 
Senator Allen and me, President Bush has nominated Mr. Henry Hudson to 
fill this judicial vacancy. I strongly support Mr. Hudson's nomination 
and look forward to him receiving a confirmation hearing and a vote in 
the full Senate. Mr. Hudson has been deemed ``well qualified'' by the 
American Bar Association.
  Thus, to date, eleven judgeships are currently authorized on the 
Eastern District of Virginia's bench. However, the temporary judgeship 
in the Eastern District of Virginia is set to expire with the first 
vacancy occurring after April 8, 2002. Thus, when one of the active 
judges on the Eastern District bench retires, takes senior status, or 
passes away, that position will not be filled, thus leaving the court 
with one less authorized judgeship than it has currently. It is 
important to note that Mr. Hudson's nomination will not be effected by 
the lapsing of the temporary judgeship.
  If the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia 
lapses, and this judicial district loses an authorized judgeship, an 
already overworked judiciary will be without relief.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States recommends that a 
district have a newly authorized judgeship when the weighted filings 
per judge exceed 430 cases. In 2001, the weighted caseload per judge on 
the Eastern District was 617. If Virginia's temporary judgeship 
expires, the per judge weighted caseload would sky-rocket to 679 cases 
per judge.
  Moreover, it is now clear based on experience that the Department of 
Justice has prosecuted and will continue to prosecute terrorist cases 
in the Eastern District of Virginia. Already, the Eastern District is 
proceeding with the cases of Zacaris Moussaoui and John Walker Lindh. 
While the judges

[[Page S2078]]

on the Eastern District bench stand ready to proceed with these and 
other cases, these cases could significantly increase the numbers of 
cases and the complexity of cases the judges on this bench preside 
over.
  Given its already high case load and given the fact that the Eastern 
District is facing the likelihood of even a higher caseload with the 
terrorist prosecutions, the Eastern District of Virginia is in a unique 
position. Converting the temporary judgeship to a permanent one will 
provide some relief.
  Accordingly, Congressman Scott, Senator Allen and I have joined 
together in support of this legislation that will simply allow the 
Eastern District to continue to maintain its current level of eleven 
district court judges.
  This request is inherently reasonable. We are simply asking to 
maintain the status-quo of eleven authorized judgeships on the Eastern 
District bench. Meanwhile, the Judicial Conference currently recommends 
one additional permanent judgeship and the conversion of a temporary 
judgeship to a permanent judgeship.
  I ask Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch to swiftly report this 
legislation from the Judiciary Committee, and I urge my colleagues to 
support final passage. Time is of the essence. We must ensure that the 
judicial system in the Eastern District of Virginia continues to be 
able to serve Virginians, and indeed the country, in an efficient 
manner.
  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. 2029

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
                   VIRGINIA.

       (a) Conversion of Temporary Judgeship to Permanent 
     Judgeship.--The existing judgeship for the eastern district 
     of Virginia authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial 
     Improvements Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public Law 101-
     650) shall, as of the date of enactment of this Act, be 
     authorized under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, 
     and the incumbent in that office shall hold the office under 
     section 133 of title 28, United States Code (as amended by 
     this Act).
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table 
     contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking the item relating to Virginia and 
     inserting the following:

``Virginia:

    Eastern.....................................................11 ....

    Western...................................................4''. ....

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 2030. A bill to establish a community Oriented Policing Services 
anti-methamphetamine grant program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation intended to 
marshal the resources of the Federal Government, the expertise of State 
and local law enforcement, and the eyes, ears, and caring of our 
Nation's communities, to work together to eradicate the scourge of 
methamphetamine from our Nation.
  Meth statistics are startling, not only for what they say about where 
we are currently, but even more important about the potential magnitude 
of the problem in our very near future. Nationwide U.S. Drug 
Enforcement Administration, DEA, meth lab seizures have increased 
seven-fold from 1994 to 2000. The North Dakota lab seizure numbers are 
even more dramatic: a nearly twenty-fold increase from 1998 to 2001. 
Among 2001 high school seniors, 6.9 percent had tried meth; the eighth-
grade figure was 4.4 percent. Even more startling perhaps is that 28.3 
percent of high school seniors said it was ``fairly easy'' or ``very 
easy'' to obtain meth. This is particularly alarming because meth is 
more addictive than cocaine, leading to paranoia, aggression, violent 
behavior, and hallucinations, and ultimately, and amazingly quickly, to 
brain damage similar to Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and epilepsy.
  The COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Act of 2002 has one aim, to focus the 
principles of community policing on the problem of methamphetamine. 
Since its inception in 1994, the Community Oriented Policing Services 
COPS, program has been a catalyst for establishing a partnership 
between police and the community, leading to a reduction in crime and a 
strengthening of our neighborhoods. It is now time to tightly focus the 
COPS success on our nation's meth scourge.
  Until now, meth use and production has too often occurred underground 
and below the radar screens of local law enforcement. My COPS 
methamphetamine initiative, by bringing the community and the local 
police closer together, will help law enforcement to react more quickly 
before a meth epidemic get ingrained in a locality, to weed it out 
before its roots get too deep. If a meth problem already exists in a 
neighborhood, the community-oriented policing model will allow police 
to have a better pulse on the drug market, on both the supply and the 
demand ends to better know the market's pressure points.
  My initiative calls for five years of grants, at $75 million a year, 
to be given to localities for programs aimed at anti-meth enforcement, 
production, prevention, treatment, training, and intelligence-gathering 
efforts. And because meth is such a problem in rural States like North 
Dakota, I include a mechanism to ensure that smaller localities get 
their fair share of funding.
  Meth is a continuing problem and challenge in our nation and in North 
Dakota, and I have been a strong supporter of providing the resources 
for local law enforcement to combat this drug. In 1998, for example, I 
was able to include North Dakota in the Midwest High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area, which has provided additional Federal funding to 
ensure that Federal, State, and local law enforcement works better as a 
team. The last piece of the puzzle is to ensure that local police are 
able to work as closely as possible with the community. It is simply 
imperative that if we are going to eradicate our Nation's spreading 
meth epidemic, and the countless associated shattered lives and futures 
lost, we all need to work together.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2030

       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 referred to as the ``COPS Anti-
     Methamphetamine Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       The Attorney General shall make grants on a competitive 
     basis to State and local community policing programs aimed at 
     anti-methamphetamine enforcement, production, prevention, 
     treatment, training, and intelligence gathering efforts.

     SEC. 3. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Grants made under section 2 may be used to 
     support personnel salary, equipment, and technology upgrades, 
     officer overtime, and training.
       (b) Assistance from COPS Office.--The Community Oriented 
     Policing Services (COPS) Office in the Department of Justice 
     shall work directly with participating State and local 
     community policing programs to assist in crafting innovative 
     anti-methamphetamine strategies.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

       Each eligible entity that desires a grant under this Act 
     shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such 
     time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as 
     the Attorney General may reasonably require.

     SEC. 5. SUPPLEMENT AND NOT SUPPLANT.

       Grant amounts received under this Act shall be used to 
     supplement, and not supplant, other funds received by State 
     and local community policing programs to assist in the 
     methamphetamine problem.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
       (b) Limitation.--Not less than 50 percent of the amount 
     appropriated in each fiscal year under subsection (a) shall 
     be awarded to local community policing programs that serve a 
     population of not more than 150,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 2031. A bill to restore Federal remedies for infringements of 
intellectual property by States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in June 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court issued 
a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to 
intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid versus College 
Savings Bank and

[[Page S2079]]

its companion case, College Savings Bank versus Florida Prepaid. The 
Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be 
held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of 
the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do 
enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.
  Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the 
same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the 
Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, 
unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, 
copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.
  I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the 
Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.
  First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal 
intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot 
tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual 
property system get legal protection but need not adhere to the law 
themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate 
a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the 
rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a 
floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid 
decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of 
affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their 
private sector competitors.''
  This concern is not just abstract. Consider this. In one recent 
copyright case, the University of Houston was able to avoid any 
liability by invoking sovereign immunity. The plaintiff in that case, a 
woman named Denise Chavez, was unable to collect a nickle in connection 
with the university's alleged unauthorized publication of her short 
stories. Now, just a short time later, another public university funded 
by the State of Texas is suing Xerox for copyright infringement.
  The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid 
decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of 
Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to-
four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' 
the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation 
with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In 
doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State 
sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of 
the Constitution.
  Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; 
but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away 
at the legitimate constitutional authority of the Federal Government. 
At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We 
are faced with a choice. We can respond, in a careful and measured way, 
by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is 
crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, 
abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, 
and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.
  Just last month, the Court decided to intervene in another copyright 
dispute, to decide whether Congress went too far in 1998, when we 
extended the period of copyright protection for an additional 20 years. 
Many of us on the Judiciary Committee cosponsored that legislation, and 
it passed unanimously in both Houses. A decision that the legislation 
is unconstitutional could place further limits on congressional power.
  About 4 months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I 
introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual 
Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore 
Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by 
states.
  I regret that the Senate did not consider my legislation during the 
last Congress. It has now been nearly 3 years since the Court decisions 
opened such a troubling loophole in our Federal intellectual property 
laws. We should delay no further.
  Last month, the Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on the 
issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual 
property. I want to thank again everyone who participated in that 
hearing, which helped greatly to clarify the issues and challenges 
posed by the Court's new jurisprudence.
  Today, I am pleased to be reintroducing the Intellectual Property 
Protection Restoration Act with my friend and fellow Judiciary 
Committee member, Senator Brownback. I commend the Senator from Kansas 
for taking a stand on this important issue. I am also proud to have the 
House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Coble 
and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill, H.R. 
3204.
  This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that 
the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual 
property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re-
engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and 
intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the 
Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has 
earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the 
endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American 
Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 
the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners 
Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion 
Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of 
America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.
  In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates 
reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in 
intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. 
States that choose not to waive their immunity within 2 years after 
enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of 
the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties 
that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for 
infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived 
their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.
  This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach 
conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property 
protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as 
Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of Federal funds 
under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach 
conditions to the Federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny 
the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or 
proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full 
protection for your Federal intellectual property rights, you must 
respect those of others.
  I hope we can all agree on the need for corrective legislation. A 
recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of 
intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available 
against State infringers, just a series of dead ends.
  We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign 
trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property 
becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual 
property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the 
international ramifications here. American trading interests have been 
well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective 
intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other 
international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole 
in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has 
created.
  The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores 
protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, 
under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping 
legislation earlier this decade, but were thwarted by the Supreme 
Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation 
without further delay.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S2080]]

                                S. 2031

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2002''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in this Act to the Trademark 
     Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks 
     used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain 
     international conventions, and for other purposes'', approved 
     July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) help eliminate the unfair commercial advantage that 
     States and their instrumentalities now hold in the Federal 
     intellectual property system because of their ability to 
     obtain protection under the United States patent, copyright, 
     and trademark laws while remaining exempt from liability for 
     infringing the rights of others;
       (2) promote technological innovation and artistic creation 
     in furtherance of the policies underlying Federal laws and 
     international treaties relating to intellectual property;
       (3) reaffirm the availability of prospective relief against 
     State officials who are violating or who threaten to violate 
     Federal intellectual property laws; and
       (4) abrogate State sovereign immunity in cases where States 
     or their instrumentalities, officers, or employees violate 
     the United States Constitution by infringing Federal 
     intellectual property.

     SEC. 3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REMEDIES EQUALIZATION.

       (a) Amendment to Patent Law.--Section 287 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d)(1) No remedies under section 284 or 289 shall be 
     awarded in any civil action brought under this title for 
     infringement of a patent issued on or after January 1, 2002, 
     if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any time the 
     legal or beneficial owner of such patent, except upon proof 
     that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a patent if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the patent, and, at the time of the purchase, 
     did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that 
     a State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the patent.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Amendment to Copyright Law.--Section 504 of title 17, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action brought under this title for infringement of 
     an exclusive right in a work created on or after January 1, 
     2002, if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any 
     time the legal or beneficial owner of such right, except upon 
     proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to an exclusive right if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the exclusive right, and, at the time of the 
     purchase, did not know and was reasonably without cause to 
     believe that a State or State instrumentality was once the 
     legal or beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Amendment to Trademark Law.--Section 35 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action arising under this Act for a violation of 
     any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office on or after January 1, 2002, or 
     any right of the owner of a mark first used in commerce on or 
     after January 1, 2002, if a State or State instrumentality is 
     or was at any time the legal or beneficial owner of such 
     right, except upon proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the violation commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a right of the registrant or owner 
     of a mark if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the right, and, at the time of the purchase, did 
     not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that a 
     State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Amendments to patent law.--
       (A) In general.--Section 296 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     29 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 296.
       (2) Amendments to copyright law.--
       (A) In general.--Section 511 of title 17, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 5 
     of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 511.
       (3) Amendments to trademark law.--Section 40 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1122) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b);
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``or (b)'' after 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR STATUTORY 
                   VIOLATIONS BY STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

       In any action against an officer or employee of a State or 
     State instrumentality for any violation of any of the 
     provisions of title 17 or 35, United States Code, the 
     Trademark Act of 1946, or the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), remedies shall be available against the 
     officer or employee in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as such remedies are available in an action against a private 
     individual under like circumstances. Such remedies may 
     include monetary damages assessed against the officer or 
     employee, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs, attorney 
     fees, and destruction of infringing articles, as provided 
     under the applicable Federal statute.

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY OF STATES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS 
                   INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

       (a) Due Process Violations.--Any State or State 
     instrumentality that violates any of the exclusive rights of 
     a patent owner under title 35, United States Code, of a 
     copyright owner, author, or owner of a mask work or original 
     design under title 17, United States Code, of an owner or 
     registrant of a mark used in commerce or registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office under the Trademark Act of 1946, 
     or of an owner of a protected plant variety under the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner 
     that deprives any person of property in violation of the 
     fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, shall 
     be liable to the party injured in a civil action in Federal 
     court for compensation for the harm caused by such violation.
       (b) Takings Violations.--
       (1) In general.--Any State or State instrumentality that 
     violates any of the exclusive rights of a patent owner under 
     title 35, United States Code, of a copyright owner, author, 
     or owner of a mask work or original design under title 17, 
     United States Code, of an owner or registrant of a mark used 
     in commerce or registered in the Patent and Trademark Office 
     under the Trademark Act of 1946, or of an owner of a 
     protected plant variety under the Plant Variety Protection 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner that

[[Page S2081]]

     takes property in violation of the fifth and fourteenth 
     amendments of the United States Constitution, shall be liable 
     to the party injured in a civil action in Federal court for 
     compensation for the harm caused by such violation.
       (2) Effect on other relief.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall prevent or affect the ability of a party to obtain 
     declaratory or injunctive relief under section 4 of this Act 
     or otherwise.
       (c) Compensation.--Compensation under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) may include actual damages, profits, statutory damages, 
     interest, costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees, as 
     set forth in the appropriate provisions of title 17 or 35, 
     United States Code, the Trademark Act of 1946, and the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act; and
       (2) may not include an award of treble or enhanced damages 
     under section 284 of title 35, United States Code, section 
     504(d) of title 17, United States Code, section 35(b) of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117 (b)), and section 
     124(b) of the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2564(b)).
       (d) Burden of Proof.--In any action under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) with respect to any matter that would have to be proved 
     if the action were an action for infringement brought under 
     the applicable Federal statute, the burden of proof shall be 
     the same as if the action were brought under such statute; 
     and
       (2) with respect to all other matters, including whether 
     the State provides an adequate remedy for any deprivation of 
     property proved by the injured party under subsection (a), 
     the burden of proof shall be upon the State or State 
     instrumentality.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to violations 
     that occur on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts shall have original 
     jurisdiction of any action arising under this Act under 
     section 1338 of title 28, United States Code.
       (b) Broad Construction.--This Act shall be construed in 
     favor of a broad protection of intellectual property, to the 
     maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution.
       (c) Severability.--If any provision of this Act or any 
     application of such provision to any person or circumstance 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and 
     the application of the provision to any other person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected.
                                  ____


  Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2002 Section-by-
                            Section Summary

       Recent Supreme Court decisions invalidated prior efforts by 
     Congress to abrogate State sovereign immunity in actions 
     arising under the federal intellectual property laws. The 
     Court's decisions give States an unfair advantage in the 
     intellectual property marketplace by shielding them from 
     money damages when they infringe the rights of private 
     parties, while leaving them free to obtain money damages when 
     their own rights are infringed. These decisions also have the 
     potential to impair the rights of private intellectual 
     property owners, discourage technological innovation and 
     artistic creation, and compromise the ability of the United 
     States to advocate effective enforcement of intellectual 
     property rights in other countries and to fulfill its own 
     obligations under international treaties. The Intellectual 
     Property Protection Restoration Act of 2002 creates 
     reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in 
     intellectual property cases and participate in the 
     intellectual property marketplace on equal terms with private 
     parties. The bill also provides new remedies for State 
     infringements that rise to the level of constitutional 
     violations.
       Sec. 1. Short Title; References. This Act may be cited as 
     the ``Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 
     2001.''
       Sec. 2. Purposes. Legislative purposes in support of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 3. Intellectual Property Remedies Equalization. Places 
     States on an equal footing with private parties by 
     eliminating any damages remedy for infringement of State-
     owned intellectual property unless the State has waived its 
     immunity from any damages remedy for infringement of 
     privately-owned intellectual property. Intellectual property 
     that the State owned before the enactment of this Act is not 
     affected.
       Sec. 4. Clarification of Remedies Available for Statutory 
     Violations by State Officers and Employees. Affirms the 
     availability of injunctive relief against State officials who 
     violate the Federal intellectual property laws. Such relief 
     is authorized under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 
     123 (1908), which held that an individual may sue a State 
     official for prospective relief requiring the State official 
     to cease violating federal law, even if the State itself is 
     immune from suit under the eleventh amendment. This section 
     also affirms that State officials may be personally liable 
     for violations of the intellectual property laws.
       Sec. 5. Liability of States for Constitutional Violations 
     Involving Intellectual Property. Establishes a right to 
     compensation for State infringements of intellectual property 
     that rise to the level of constitutional violations. 
     Compensation shall be measured by the statutory remedies 
     available under the federal intellectual property laws, but 
     may not include treble damages.
       Sec. 6. Rules of Construction. Establishes rules for 
     interpreting this Act.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Leahy in 
sponsoring S. 2031, a bill that will protect intellectual property 
rights fully and fairly by complying with the Court's new 
constitutional requirements. This bill builds upon the same common-
sense goals as the statutes that Senator Hatch championed a decade ago. 
I would like to commend both members for their outstanding leadership 
in this area. My hope is that S. 2031 will finally bring closure to our 
efforts in trying to clarify a complex and difficult issue for both 
Congress and the Courts.
  There are two sides to this issue and both are compelling. For 
individuals and companies who make the investment and take the risk in 
creating new products and services, their property rights are at stake 
when a state infringes upon their intellectual property. States on the 
other hand also want to protect their sovereignty under the 
Constitution and want to assert their intellectual property rights 
especially in the context of private/public partnerships where 
ownership issues may be in doubt, creating the prospect for protracted 
litigation.
  That is why this inherent conflict demands congressional action. With 
the arrival of the digital revolution where exact copies and 
reproductions can be made without limitations, this is an important 
economic issue for individuals and companies trying to compete in the 
marketplace. The question is how to fashion a legislative remedy in 
light of recent Supreme Court decisions that struck down previous 
attempts to bring clarity to the issue.
  I believe the Leahy/Brownback bill is a reasonable compromise 
solution without running afoul of the constitutional issues highlighted 
by the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe and the Florida Pre-paid cases.
  S. 2031 presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable 
incentives for States to waive their sovereign immunity in intellectual 
property cases. States that choose not to waive their immunity within 2 
years after enactment would continue to enjoy many of the benefits in 
the intellectual property marketplace. However, like private parties 
that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for 
infringement will not be able to recover any money damages unless they 
waive their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases. All 
other remedial actions will continue to be available to State 
litigants.
  As Chairman Leahy previously observed, this is clearly constitutional 
and avoids the concerns raised by the Courts with regard to past 
statutes addressing this matter. Under the Constitution's Article I 
spending power, Congress can attach limited conditions to a State's 
receipt of Federal funds. Similarly, it would seem to me that a State's 
receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under Article I's 
intellectual property power can similarly be conditioned. Especially in 
light of the commercial implications of this bill, it seems reasonable 
to expect that a condition to respect the rights of others is a 
necessary and logical complement to obtaining the full protections of 
the Federal intellectual property rights.
  I would also add that a recent GAO study initiated by Senator Hatch 
when he chaired the Judiciary Committee confirmed the lack of 
alternatives or remedies against State infringers.

  I would also like to add that this matter has repercussions which 
extend far beyond the domestic realm. The United States is one of the 
leading proponents for the enforcement of intellectual property rights 
throughout the world. That's why we cannot afford to be inconsistent in 
our own observance of intellectual property rights. Through 
international agreements such as TRIPs and NAFTA, the United States has 
vigorously challenged international institutions and other nations to 
adopt and enforce more extensive intellectual property laws. When 
States assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon 
intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United 
States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of 
our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of 
intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm 
American businesses, because of our

[[Page S2082]]

position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, 
information technology, and biotechnology.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill which provides a balanced 
and appropriate intellectual property remedy for American inventors and 
investors without compromising the sovereign rights of States under our 
Constitution.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 2033. A bill to authorize appropriations for the John H. Chafee 
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and 
Rhode Island, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
reauthorize funding for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley 
National Heritage Corridor. I am pleased to be joined by three of my 
colleagues, Senators Reed, Kerry and Kennedy, as original cosponsors of 
this legislation. Representative Patrick Kennedy is joining this effort 
by introducing companion legislation in the House today.
  Since the Corridor's inception on November 10, 1986, the Blackstone 
River Valley has undergone a profound rebirth. The Blackstone River, 
once polluted and neglected, has been transformed into an object of 
tremendous community pride and national importance. Historians 
recognize the Valley of the Blackstone River, gracefully winding 
through 24 communities in the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 
as the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. Slater Mill, 
founded by the textile maker Samuel Slater in the 1790's, was the first 
to adapt English machine technology to cotton-yard manufacturing 
powered by water wheels. The success of the Slater Mill heralded in 
America's first factory-based industry of mass production, with 
accompanying communities dedicated to the production of manufactured 
goods. Gradually, this new ``Rhode Island System of Manufacturing'' led 
to profound changes economically, socially and culturally across the 
new nation.
  This nationally significant story was all but forgotten when Senator 
John H. Chafee authored Federal legislation to establish the Blackstone 
River Valley National Heritage Corridor with the purpose of preserving 
and interpreting for present and future generations the uniqueness and 
significant historical value of the Blackstone Valley. A Corridor 
Commission, consisting of federally-appointed local and State 
representatives from Massachusetts and Rhode Island, was established to 
work in partnership with the National Park Service to carry out the 
mission of the Blackstone Corridor. For over 15 years, the Corridor 
Commission and its Heritage Partners have worked to instill a vision of 
community revitalization, historic preservation, and environmental 
protection in the Blackstone Corridor. The Corridor is a truly unique 
national park area, for the Federal Government does not own or manage 
any of the land or resources within the system. Yet, the Blackstone 
Corridor includes cities, towns, villages and almost 1 million people, 
and has become a model for other heritage corridors across the country.
  Working in partnership with two State governments, dozens of local 
municipalities, businesses, nonprofit historical and environmental 
organizations, educational institutions, and many private citizens, the 
Corridor Commission has instilled a sense of community and identity to 
the residents of the Blackstone Corridor. These partnerships have 
resulted in the reversal of a long-standing lack of investment in the 
Valley's historic, cultural and natural resources. A Valley-wide 
identity program has placed over 200 educational signs across the 
Corridor to guide visitors into the Blackstone and its heritage sites. 
Key historic districts and sites have been preserved through the 
assistance of the Commission and its partners working to identify 
critical historic preservation funding and assistance. The water 
quality of the Blackstone River has seen dramatic improvements through 
cooperative, community-driven projects that have worked to ensure more 
consistent water flows; the protection of open space along the valley; 
the initiation of local river cleanups; and the remediation of toxic 
sites along the river's banks.
  Since 1986, Congress has established three accounts for the 
management of the Corridor: the Operation Account providing funding for 
National Park Service staff support; the Technical Assistance Account 
to provide assistance to communities and Corridor partners; and the 
Development Fund to provide construction funding for the implementation 
of interpretive programming, river restoration, historic preservation, 
tourism and economic development and educational activities within the 
Corridor. A 10-year plan, completed by the Commission in 1998, outlines 
a strategy for the implementation of development funds by focusing on 
the ``resource protection needs and projects critical to maintaining or 
interpreting the distinctive nature of the Corridor.''
  The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senators Reed, 
Kerry, and Kennedy, will reauthorize the Development Fund account to 
provide $10 million in Federal funding from fiscal years 2003 through 
2006. This authorization is consistent with the Blackstone Corridor's 
10-year Plan guiding the Corridor's future development needs. 
Development funding will be used to move forward with projects that 
include a bi-State 45 mile long Blackstone bikeway; construction of 
river access points for recreational and tourism opportunities; 
renovation and reuse of historic structures and surrounding landscapes; 
and educational programs to raise the awareness of the Corridor's 
significance in the region.
  With over 15 years of success and a number of challenges lying ahead, 
we urge Congress' continued support for the John H. Chafee Blackstone 
River Valley National Heritage Corridor. The Blackstone Corridor tells 
the story of the beginnings of America's movement into the industrial 
era. We must allow the telling of this story to continue.
  I ask by unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2033

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 10 of Public Law 99-647 (16 U.S.C. 461 note) is 
     amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Development Funds.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out section 8(c) for the period of 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2006 not more than $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that has 
been filed today to reauthorize the development fund for the John H. 
Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. The bill is 
sponsored by Senator Chafee, and I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor.
  The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor 
was established by Congress in 1986 to recognize and preserve the 
natural, cultural and historical resources of the region. I would like 
to read a description of the Blackstone River written by the National 
Park Service. I think it captures its special nature.

       The Blackstone River Valley illustrates a major revolution 
     in America's past: the Age of Industry. The way people lived 
     during this turning point in history can still be seen in the 
     valley's villages, farms, cities and riverways--in a working 
     landscape between Worchester, Massachusetts and Providence, 
     Rhode Island. In 1790, American craftsmen built the first 
     machines that successfully used waterpower to spin cotton. 
     America's first factory, Slater Mill was built on the banks 
     of the Blackstone River. Here, industrial America was born. 
     This revolutionary way of using waterpower spread quickly 
     throughout the valley and New England. It changed nearly 
     everything. Two hundred years later, the story of the 
     American Industrial Revolution can still be seen and told in 
     the Blackstone River Valley. Thousands of structures and 
     whole landscapes show the radical changes in the way people 
     lived and worked. The way people lived before the advent of 
     industry also can be seen on the land, and the choices for 
     the future are visible as well. For good and bad, each 
     generation makes its choices and changes the character of 
     life in the valley. Today, the rural to city landscapes tell 
     the story of this revolution in American history. Native 
     Americans, European colonizers, farmers, craftsmen, 
     industrialists, and continuing waves of immigrants all left 
     the imprint of their work and

[[Page S2083]]

     culture on the land. The farms, hilltop market centers, mill 
     villages, cities, dams, canals, roads, and railroads are 
     physical products of tremendous social and economic power.

  With the assistance of the National Park Service, the Commission has 
forged collaborative partnerships with a new spirit of ownership among 
government leaders, private investors and residents for the river 
resources and communities. The Blackstone has been called ``America's 
hardest working river'' because of its industrial legacy. That same 
description could apply to the people who have decided themselves to 
making the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor a success 
today. The natural value and historical importance of the Blackstone 
and the dedication of the people involved is why I am eager to support 
Senator Chafee's legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        DeWine, and Mr. Warner).
  S. 2034. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to impose 
certain limits on the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
along with a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues, Senators Feingold, 
DeWine, Levin, and Warner that will allow States to finally obtain 
relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing 
into States like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
  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.
  Each year, Ohio receives well over one million tons of municipal 
solid waste from other States. Over the last four years, annual levels 
of waste imports have been steadily increasing, and estimates for 2000 
indicate that Ohio imported approximately 1.8 million tons of municipal 
solid waste. While these shipments are not near our record level of 3.7 
million tons in 1989, I believe an import level of nearly two million 
tons of trash is still entirely too high.
  Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, communities in a 
number of States have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks 
and shipped it to be landfilled in States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop.
  Many State and local governments in importing states 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. However, Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste 
numbers won't rise significantly, particularly in light of last year's 
closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. Unfortunately, 
the Federal courts have prevented States from enacting laws to protect 
our natural resources from being utilized as landfill space. 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, I set up a comprehensive recycling program when I was 
Governor that was meant to reduce the waste-stream and help protect our 
environment. However, the actions of other States have worked to 
undermine 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-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 from 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, of Indiana, Governor Engler of Michigan and 
Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon, of 
Pennsylvania--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow 
control legislation.
  In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked by congressional leaders to 
reach an agreement with Governor Whitman of New Jersey and Governor 
Pataki of new York on interstate waste provisions. The importing States 
quickly came to an agreement with Governor Whitman of 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 my colleagues and I are introducing today reflects the 
agreement that Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania reached with 
then-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, in 1996, Ohio EAP 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.
  In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators 
could not receive trash from other States until local governments 
approve its receipt. States could also freeze their out-of-state waste 
imports 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 beginning in 2007.
  States also could impose up to $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.
  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, we 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 merely 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 consider and pass 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.
  States like Ohio should not continue to be saddled with the 
environmental

[[Page S2084]]

costs of other States' inability to take care of their own solid waste. 
We in Ohio have worked hard to address our own needs. We are actively 
recycling and working to reduce our waste-stream to preserve our 
environment for future generations. 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 be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2034

       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 2002''.

     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.--
       ``(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, 2002.
       ``(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.

[[Page S2085]]

       ``(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;
       ``(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--
       ``(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.--

[[Page S2086]]

       ``(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.--
       ``(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 2003, 95 percent of the quantity 
     received in calendar year 1993.
       ``(B) In each of calendar years 2004 through 2007, 95 
     percent of the quantity received in the previous year.
       ``(C) In each calendar year after calendar year 2007, 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, 2003, 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, 2003, 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--
       ``(i) the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received for transfer during the preceding calendar year;
       ``(ii) each State of origin of the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received for transfer during the preceding 
     calendar year; and
       ``(iii) 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, 2003, 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.''.

[[Page S2087]]

     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-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 2003, 
     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 2002.
       ``(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--
       ``(A) not later than January 1, 2003, 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
       ``(B) not later than March 1, 2004--
       ``(i) establish the annual quantity of out-of-State 
     construction and demolition waste received during calendar 
     year 2003; and
       ``(ii) report the tonnage received during calendar year 
     2003 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 2002, not later than February 1, 
     2003; 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 2004, 95 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ii) in calendar year 2005, 90 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iii) in calendar year 2006, 85 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iv) in calendar year 2007, 80 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(v) in calendar year 2008, 75 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vi) in calendar year 2009, 70 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vii) in calendar year 2010, 65 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(viii) in calendar year 2011, 60 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ix) in calendar year 2012, 55 percent of the base year 
     quantity; and
       ``(x) in calendar year 2013 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 2002; 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--

[[Page S2088]]

       ``(i) in calendar year 2003, 95 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ii) in calendar year 2004, 90 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iii) in calendar year 2005, 85 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iv) in calendar year 2006, 80 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(v) in calendar year 2007, 75 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vi) in calendar year 2008, 70 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vii) in calendar year 2009, 65 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(viii) in calendar year 2010, 60 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ix) in calendar year 2011, 55 percent of the base year 
     quantity; and
       ``(x) in calendar year 2012 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--
       ``(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

[[Page S2089]]

     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
       ``(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

[[Page S2090]]

       ``(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.

                          ____________________