[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14566-14567]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND LOCAL AUTHORITY 
                              ACT OF 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on June 10, 1999 I joined as a co-
sponsor of legislation introduced by my Midwestern colleagues, the 
Junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, and the Junior Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Bayh, S. 872, The Municipal Solid Waste Interstate 
Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999. I am pleased to be 
working with them on this very important issue. I know that they, as 
former Governors, are intimately aware of the concerns that the growing 
trash trade poses for the States we represent.
  We in the Midwest, especially those of us fortunate enough to be from 
the Great Lakes States, enjoy a very high quality of life--beautiful 
scenery, small, neighborly towns, and spectacular natural resources. We 
hold it as a particular point of pride that we, in many instances, have 
the luxury of avoiding many environmental problems and we have 
structured our State and local governments in Wisconsin to try to be 
sure that we continue to avoid them. However, Mr. President, we in 
Wisconsin are unable to protect our communities, which have done a good 
regulatory job, from having to deal with the solid waste mess created 
by our neighboring communities in other States. Instead, my State has 
been forced to accept other States' municipal solid waste in ever 
increasing amounts.
  We need to enact legislation to re-empower States to be able to 
control the flow of waste into state-licensed landfills from out-of-
state sources. This legislation would give States the tools to do just 
that. It gives states, like mine, the power to freeze solid waste 
imports at the 1993 levels. States that did not accept out of State 
waste in 1993 would be presumed to prohibit receipt of out-of-State 
waste until the affected unit of local government approves it. 
Facilities that already have a host community agreement or permit

[[Page 14567]]

that accepts out-of-State waste would remain exempt from the ban. 
States would also be allowed to set a State-wide percentage limit on 
the amount of waste that new or expanding facilities could accept. The 
limit can not be lower than 20 percent. Finally, States, under this 
bill, are also given the ability to deny the creation of either new 
facilities or the expansion of existing in-State facilities if it is 
determined that there is no in-State need for the new capacity.
  My home State has tried to address this issue repeatedly on its own, 
without success. On January 25, 1999, a federal appeals court struck 
down as unconstitutional a 1997 Wisconsin law that prohibits landfills 
from accepting out-of-State waste from communities that don't recycle 
in compliance with Wisconsin's law. We are now examining options for 
limiting out-of-State trash in Wisconsin including: appealing the 
decision to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear an 
appeal of a similar Wisconsin case in 1995, passing new State 
legislation, or pursuing the option before us today--seeking specific 
authority from Congress to regulate trash from other States.
  Wisconsin's law bans 15 different recyclables from State landfills. 
Under the law, communities using Wisconsin landfills must have a 
recycling program similar to those required of Wisconsin communities 
under Wisconsin law, regardless of the law in their home State. About 
27 Illinois towns rely on southern Wisconsin landfills. Since the law 
took effect, waste haulers serving those communities have had to find 
alternative landfills for their clients, incurring higher 
transportation costs in the process. IL-based Waste Management Inc. and 
the 1,300-member National Solid Waste Management Association were the 
entities that challenged Wisconsin's law, arguing that the law violated 
the Interstate Commerce Clause.
  By recycling, Wisconsin residents have reduced the amount of 
municipal waste heading to landfills. Since the State's previous out-
of-State waste law was struck down by the appeals court in 1995, the 
amount of non-Wisconsin waste in Wisconsin landfills has tripled. When 
the law was in effect, 7.7 percent of the municipal waste in Wisconsin 
came from out of State. That has risen to more than 22.9 percent since 
the law was struck down. Though this legislation will not afford 
Wisconsin the ability to block garbage containing recyclables from our 
landfills, it will at least give my State the ability to address the 
overall volume of waste entering our State.
  In 1995, I supported flow control legislation sponsored by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and drawn substantially from the 
work of the former Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats. I have been shocked 
that the Senate, which passed that bill by a significant majority vote 
of 94-6, has not taken up legislation to address this issue since that 
time, shocked until I examined the relationship between the interests 
opposing that legislation and political campaigns. According to the 
Center for Responsive Politics, in the 1998 election cycle, one of the 
interests that opposes flow control legislation, Waste Management Inc., 
contributed $422,275 in soft money to the two major political parties--
$85,000 to the Democratic Party and $337,275 to the Republican Party. 
Mr. President, the issue of interstate waste control effects my home 
State and 23 other States. For years States have been faced with the 
challenge of ensuring safe responsible management of out-of-State 
waste, and the need for State control is even more acute today than in 
was in 1995. Congress is the only body that can give the States the 
relief they need from being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of trash. We 
have not acted on a problem that effects nearly half of our States, and 
citizens are left to try to understand our inaction by following the 
money trail behind the trash truck.
  We need to take prompt action on this matter, and I think this 
legislation is a good first step. I urge my other colleagues to 
consider lending this bill their support.

                          ____________________