[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7262-7285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COVERDELL:
  S. 857. A bill to amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act of 1986 to cover Federal facilities; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


         federal facilities community right to know act of 1999

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation--
the Federal Facilities Community Right-To-Know Act of 1999--which 
provides that the federal government is held to the same reporting 
requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know 
Act (EPCRA) of 1986 as private entities. In 1986, Congress directed the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a national inventory 
to inform the public about chemicals used and released in their 
communities. Since enactment of the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right-To-Know Act, manufactures have been required to keep extensive 
records on how they use and store hazardous chemicals and report 
releases of hundreds of hazardous chemicals annually. EPA compiles the 
reported information into the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
  The Toxic Release Inventory is a publicly available data base 
containing specific chemical release and transfer information from 
manufacturing facilities throughout the United States. The TRI is 
intended to promote planning for chemical emergencies and to provide 
information to the public regarding the presence and release of toxic 
and hazardous chemicals in their communities.
  In August 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, which 
required Federal facilities to begin submitting TRI reports beginning 
in calendar year 1994 activities. I commend President Clinton for 
taking this action. However, this executive order does not have the 
force of law and could be changed by a future Administration. The 
National Governors Association's policy on federal facilities states 
that ``Congress should ensure that federal and state `right to know' 
requirements apply to federal facilities.'' My legislation simply 
amends the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act to cover 
federal facilities. It is important for the Federal government to 
protect the environment and its citizens from hazardous substances. 
People living near federal facilities have the right to know what 
hazardous substances are being released into the environment by these 
facilities so they can better protect themselves and their children 
from these potential threats. It is my strong belief that federal 
facilities should be treated the same as private entities. My 
legislation attempts to move us closer towards that goal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 859. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require a 
refund value for certain beverage containers, to provide resources for 
State pollution prevention and recycling programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


      national beverage container reuse and recycling act of 1999

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Earth Day 
to introduce the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 
1999. I introduce this bill again today because I firmly believe that 
deposit laws are a common sense, proven method to increase recycling, 
save energy, create jobs, and decrease the generation of waste and 
proliferation of landfills. Unfortunately, recycling rates for beverage 
containers have recently dropped, making this legislation even more 
important.
  The experience of ten states, including Vermont, attest to the 
success of a deposit law or bottle bill as it is commonly called. The 
recycling rates in these states for aluminum cans is 80 percent, while 
the overall national average in 1998 was only 55 percent. Cans recycled 
in deposit states accounted for half of all cans recycled in the 
country during this period. Although a national recycling rate of 55 
percent may seem significant, every three seconds, 14,000 aluminum cans 
are discarded as waste.
  Such waste is rapidly overflowing landfills, washing up on our 
beaches, and piling up on our roadways. Our country's solid waste 
problems are very real, and they will continue to haunt us until we 
take action. The throw-away ethic that has emerged in this country is 
not insurmountable, and recycling is part of the solution.
  The concept of a national bottle bill is simple: to provide the 
consumer with an incentive to return the container for reuse of 
recycling. Consumers pay a nominal cost per bottle or can when 
purchasing a beverage and are refunded their money when they bring the 
container back either to a retailer or redemption center. Retailers are 
paid a fee for their participation in the program, and any unclaimed 
deposits are used to finance state environmental programs.
  Under my proposal, a 10-cent deposit on certain beverage containers 
would take effect in states which have beverage container recovery 
rates of less than 70 percent, the minimum recovery rate achieved by 
existing bottle bill states. Labels showing the deposit value would be 
affixed to containers, and retailers would receive a 2-cent fee per 
container for their participation in the program.
  This legislation I introduce today is consistent with our nation's 
solid waste management objectives. A national bottle bill would reduce 
solid waste and litter, save natural resources and energy, and create a 
much needed partnership between consumers, industry, and local 
governments. I urge my colleagues to join these ten states, including 
Vermont, and support a nation-wide bottle deposit law. Because for our 
children, the health of the planet may be our most enduring legacy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. 
        Levin):
  S. 860. A bill to require country of origin labeling of perishable 
agricultural commodities imported into the United States and to 
establish penalties for violations of the labeling requirements; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                 imported produce labeling act of 1999

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would require country of origin labeling of perishable agricultural 
commodities imported into the United States. I offer the ``Imported 
Produce Labeling Act'' to ensure that Americans know the origin of 
every orange, banana, tomato, cucumber, and green pepper on display in 
the grocery store.
  For two decades, Floridians shopping at their local grocery stores 
have been able to make educated choices about the food products they 
purchase for their families. In 1979, in my first year as Governor, I 
proudly signed legislation to make country of origin labels commonplace 
in produce sections all over Florida. This labeling requirement has 
proven to be neither complicated nor burdensome for Florida's farmers 
or retailers.
  Country of origin labeling is not new to the American marketplace. 
For decades, ``Made In'' labels have been as visible as price tags on 
clothes, toys, television sets, watches, and many other products. It 
makes little sense that such labels are nowhere to be found in the 
produce section of grocery stores in the vast majority of states.
  The current lack of identifying information on produce means that 
Americans who wish to heed government health warnings about foreign 
products or who have justifiable concerns about

[[Page 7263]]

other nations' labor, environmental, and agricultural standards are 
powerless to choose other perishables. In fact, according to nationwide 
surveys, between 74 and 83 percent of consumers favor mandatory country 
of origin labeling for fresh produce.
  This is a low-cost, common sense method of informing consumers, as 
retailers will simply be asked to provide this information by means of 
a label, stamp, or placard. Implementation of this practice in Florida 
resulted in an estimated cost of only $10 monthly per grocery store, a 
remarkably small price to pay to provide American consumers with the 
information they need to make informed produce purchases.
  In addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that 
twenty-six of our key trading partners require country of origin 
labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables. By adopting this amendment, 
our law will become more consistent with the laws of our global trading 
partners.
  Consumers have the right to know basic information about the fruits 
and vegetables that they bring home to their families. Congress can 
take a major step toward achieving this simple goal by passing the 
``Imported Produce Labeling Act,'' thereby restoring American shoppers' 
ability to make an informed decision.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reed, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 861. A bill to designate certain Federal land in the State of Utah 
as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                   AMERICA'S RED ROCK WILDERNESS ACT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing America's Red Rock 
Wilderness Act to protect an important part of our nation's natural 
heritage. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act designates 9.1 million 
acres of public land in Utah as wilderness.
  Passage of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is essential to protect 
a national treasure for future generations of Americans. It provides 
wilderness protection for magnificent canyons, red rock cliffs and rock 
formations unlike any on earth. The lands included in this legislation 
contain steep slick rock canyons, high cliffs offering spectacular 
vistas of rare rock formations, desert lands, important archeological 
sites, and habitat for rare plant and animal species.
  The areas designated for wilderness protection in America's Red Rock 
Wilderness Act are based on a detailed inventory of lands managed by 
the Bureau of Land Management conducted by volunteers from the Utah 
Wilderness Coalition. Between 1996 and 1998, UWC volunteers and staff 
surveyed thousands of square miles of BLM land, taking over 50,000 
photos and compiling documentation to ensure that these areas meet 
federal wilderness criteria.
  As a result of this inventory, an additional 3.4 million acres not 
included in earlier Utah wilderness bills have been added to the 
wilderness designations in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. Most of 
the areas added to the bill are in the remote Great Basin deserts in 
the western portion of the state and the red rock canyons in Southern 
Utah, which had not been included in earlier inventories.
  Recently, BLM completed a re-inventory of approximately 6 million 
acres of federal land which had been proposed for wilderness 
designation in previous wilderness bills. The results provide a 
convincing confirmation of the inventory conducted by UWC volunteers. 
Of the 6 million acres it re-inventoried, BLM found that 5.8 million 
acres qualified for wilderness consideration. Almost all of these lands 
are included in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
  Theodore Roosevelt once stated, ``The Nation behaves well if it 
treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the 
next generation increased and not impaired in value.'' Unfortunately, 
these fragile, scenic lands in Utah are threatened by oil, gas and 
mining interests, destructive use by off-road vehicles, increased 
commercial development, and proposals to construct roads, communication 
towers, transmission lines, and dams. We must act now to protect these 
lands for future generations.
  America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is supported by a broad coalition 
of over 150 environmental, conservation, and recreational organizations 
and citizen groups. In independent television and newspaper surveys and 
public hearings on this issue, the citizens of Utah also have expressed 
overwhelming support for a strong wilderness bill.
  Yesterday was John Muir's birthday. He observed that ``Thousands of 
tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out 
that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a 
necessity; that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as 
fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.'' 
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act honors his vision.
  The preservation of our nation's vital natural resources will be one 
of our most important legacies. I urge my colleagues to join me as a 
cosponsor of this important bill to protect the America's Red Rock 
Wilderness area in Utah for future generations.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) as an original co-sponsor of legislation to 
designate 9.1 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in 
Utah as wilderness.
  Though this is the second time this particular measure has been 
introduced in this body, this year's legislation has been substantially 
revised. As the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) has already 
described, these revisions have been made on the basis of a citizen-led 
re-inventory of the wilderness quality lands that remain on BLM lands 
in Utah.
  During the April recess I had an opportunity to travel to Utah. I 
viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for 
wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the 
proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my 
understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the 
Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal, and inside 
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek 
Falls.
  I support this legislation, for a few reasons, Mr. President, but 
most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know 
the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the 
BLM lands of Southern Utah.
  Second, Mr. President, I support this legislation because I believe 
it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be 
protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers 
wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full 
measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. 
This bill encompases all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. 
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senate has not, as we do today, 
always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all 
of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I 
joined with the former Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley) in 
opposing that Congress' Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained 
provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state 
of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of 
the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such 
protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded 
designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
  The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of 
Wisconsin. In writing to me last Congress, my constituents described 
these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and 
incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, 
a paper in Madison, WI, wrote:

       Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first 
     daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all 
     Americans.
       The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau 
     and windswept crag lines

[[Page 7264]]

     of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's 
     wilderness which is not fully protected.
       We must ask our elected officials to redress this 
     circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect 
     those national lands within the boundaries of Utah.
       This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a 
     legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

  Some may say, Mr. President, that this legislation is unnecessary and 
Utah already has the ``monument'' that Wallace Stegner wrote about, 
designated by President Clinton on September 18, 1997. However, it is 
important to note, the land of the Grand Staircase Escalante National 
Monument comprises only about one tenth of the lands that will be 
granted wilderness protection under this bill.
  I supported the President's actions to designate the Grand Staircase 
Escalante National Monument. On September 17, 1997, amid reports of the 
pending designation, I wrote a letter to President Clinton to support 
that action which was co-signed by six other members of the Senate. 
That letter concluded with the following statement ``We remain 
interested in working with the Administration on appropriate 
legislation to evaluate and protect the full extent of public lands in 
Utah that meet the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness Act.''
  I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish 
that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in 
the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the 
culmination of more than 15 years and four Congresses of effort in the 
other body beginning with the legislative work of the former 
Congressman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
  The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by 
any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct 
terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, 
canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado 
Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands 
also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the 
new National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American 
outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.
  Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I 
am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin 
would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on 
September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could 
see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He 
continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to 
act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight 
over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti-
environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove 
restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid 
areas.''
  Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe, Mr. 
President, that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save 
Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to 
its stewardship of natural resources. For example, some in my home 
state believe that among federal lands that comprise the Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National 
Forests there are lands that are deserving of wilderness protection. 
These federal properties are incredibly important, and they mean a 
great deal to the people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that, 
should additional lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness 
designation, the type of protection they expect from federal law is 
still available to be extended because it had been properly extended to 
other places of national significance.
  What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some 
in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, 
wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. 
Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future 
generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which 
is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by 
extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly 
codify that expectation and promise.
  Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the 
support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be 
protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the 
federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while 
they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to 
the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans.
  Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely 
be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to 
protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be 
involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best 
stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has 
completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the 
last Congress by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and adjacent 
areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more 
than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness 
protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a 
formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it 
suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate 
over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward.
  I am also watching closely the on-going dialogue between Governor 
Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt regarding possible wilderness protection 
for some of the West Desert lands that are contained in this 
legislation, and the formal Section 202 process in which the BLM will 
be engaged in Utah. I hope that the leaders of those efforts will look 
to this legislation as a guide in identifying the areas that need to be 
protected as wilderness.
  I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) to 
protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 862. A bill to protect Social Security surpluses and reserve a 
portion of non-Social Security surpluses to strengthen and protect 
Medicare; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Government Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee 
have thirty days to report or be discharged.


               social security and medicare lock box act

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Conrad, I am 
introducing legislation, the Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act, 
to reserve budget surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. President, this bill is an alternative to the Abraham-Domenici-
Ashcroft lock box legislation now before the Senate. There are several 
differences between the two versions. But I want to highlight this, 
most importantly: the Republican proposal claims to protect Social 
Security, but it doesn't even pretend to protect Medicare. This bill 
would reserve surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare. And the 
main question for the Senate is whether we care enough about Medicare 
to provide it with a real lock box.
  Mr. President, as I explained earlier, the Republican lock box has 
three major flaws.
  First, it fails to protect Social Security, and actually threatens 
benefits.
  Second, it reserves nothing for Medicare.
  And, third, it could result in a government default, which could 
trigger a world-wide economic catastrophe.
  Our plan corrects each of these problems in a responsible way that 
will work. It provides an ironclad guarantee that 100 percent of the 
Social Security surplus will be saved for Social Security. It reserves 
40 percent of the non-Social Security, on-budget surplus for Medicare. 
And, the lock box is enforced not by a risky new limit on public debt, 
but though the same budget procedures that produced the first budget 
surplus in 30 years.
  With respect to Social Security, Mr. President, our lock box would 
create a new point of order against a budget resolution that spends the 
Social Security surplus. This provision is also in

[[Page 7265]]

the Republican amendment. But our point of order requires a 
supermajority to waive while theirs can be waived by a simple majority 
vote.
  The Republican amendment also contains a trap door that would allow 
Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than 
Social Security benefits, such as risky new privatization schemes. Our 
proposal includes no such trap door. To the contrary, its enforcement 
procedures would remain in effect until legislation is enacted 
certifying that Social Security's life has been extended for the long-
term.
  In addition to protecting Social Security, Mr. President, our lock 
box extends similar protections to the Medicare program. The proposal 
creates supermajority points of order against a budget resolution or 
any subsequent legislation that fails to reserve roughly 40 percent of 
the on-budget surplus for Medicare over the next 15 years.
  Mr. President, the Medicare Trust Fund is now expected to be bankrupt 
by 2015. We should move quickly to reform and modernize the program. 
But it's also clear that we'll need additional resources when the baby 
boom generation starts to retire. Even with reforms that substantially 
reduce costs, the revenues coming to the Medicare Trust Fund will not 
support this larger number of beneficiaries. Nor will they provide the 
resources needed to modernize the program or provide a prescription 
drug benefit.
  In case anyone has any doubt about that, consider the so-called 
Breaux-Thomas plan that was considered by the bipartisan Medicare 
Commission.
  By their own calculation, that plan would save $100 billion over ten 
years and extends the Trust Fund for only 3 additional years. In the 
scheme of things, that's not very long. But even this meager extension 
of the Trust Fund relies on several controversial proposals, including 
raising the age of eligibility for Medicare, establishing unlimited 
home health copayments, and completely eliminating the Direct Medicare 
Education program from Medicare.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that we need more resources for 
Medicare. And our amendment would give us an opportunity to provide 
them.
  Under our proposal, in the short term, the Medicare reserve would be 
used to reduce the debt. Over the next ten years, our proposal would 
reduce debt held by the public by $30 billion more than the Republican 
plan. By reducing debt held by the public, our lockbox would 
dramatically reduce the government's interest costs. And that would 
free up resources to allow the government to meet its existing 
commitments to Medicare. By contrast, under the Republican plan, every 
penny of the non-Social Security surplus is consumed. That would 
increase interest costs and almost guarantee further cuts in benefits 
in the future.
  Mr. President, not only does our lockbox do more to protect Medicare 
and reduce debt, it also has a stronger lock and more responsible 
enforcement procedure for both Social Security and Medicare.
  As I've explained, Mr. President, the Republican amendment includes a 
reckless new scheme that relies on the threat of a default to enforce 
its provisions. That not only could permanently damage our credit 
standing, it could force the government to stop issuing Social Security 
checks.
  We have a better idea, Mr. President. As I said earlier, we have a 
60-vote point of order against including Social Security in the budget 
totals, as well as a 60-vote point of order against using any of the 
Medicare reserve. Then, even if Congress tries to spend that money, our 
lockbox blocks it through automatic across-the-board cuts, rather than 
creating a crisis.
  Mr. President, this is the best way to ensure fiscal restraint. Not 
by causing a crisis after money has already been committed. But by 
using the tools of the budget process to block those commitments in the 
first place. That's why our legislation would enforce the lock box 
through the tried and true mechanisms of the pay-go rules and across-
the-board cuts.
  If Congress attempts to spend part of the Social Security surplus or 
Medicare reserve, the sequester rules of the Balanced Budget Act would 
make automatic spending cuts in order to keep the reserve intact. This 
is far better than triggering a debt crisis, and threatening a 
government default, as the Republican amendment proposes.
  To sum up, Mr. President, the Republican amendment claims to protect 
Social Security, but it really threatens Social Security benefits. Ours 
is a real lockbox that protects both Social Security and Medicare. It's 
a more responsible alternative that avoids the risk of default. And it 
would reduce debt by more than the underlying amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will support it and I ask unanimous consent that 
a copy of the bill, along with certain related materials, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 862

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security and Medicare 
     Lock Box Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) The term `Medicare surplus reserve' means the 
     surplus amounts reserved to strengthen and preserve the 
     Medicare program as calculated in accordance with section 
     316.''.

     SEC. 3. PROTECTION BY CONGRESS

       Congress reaffirms its support for the provisions of 
     section 13301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1990 that provides that the receipts and disbursements of the 
     Social Security trust funds shall not be counted for the 
     purposes of the budget submitted by the President, the 
     congressional budget, or the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 4. SOCIAL SECURITY OFF-BUDGET POINT OF ORDER.

       Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Social Security Off-Budget Point of Order.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House or the Senate to consider any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on the resolution) that violates section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.''.

     SEC. 5. MEDICARE SURPLUS RESERVE POINT OF ORDER.

       Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Medicare Surplus Reserve Point of Order.--It shall 
     not be in order in the Senate to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference 
     report on the resolution) that would decrease the surplus in 
     any of the fiscal years covered by the concurrent resolution 
     below the levels of the Medicare surplus reserve for those 
     fiscal years calculated in accordance with section 316.''.

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT OF MEDICARE SURPLUS RESERVE.

       Section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Enforcement of the medicare surplus reserve.--After a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed to, it 
     shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report that would cause a decrease in 
     the Medicare surplus reserve in any of the fiscal years 
     covered by the concurrent resolution. This paragraph shall 
     not apply to a provision that appropriates new subsidies from 
     the general fund to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund.''.

     SEC. 7. SUPERMAJORITY.

       Subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are amended by inserting 
     after ``301(i),'' the following: ``301(j), 301(k), 
     311(a)(4),''.

     SEC. 8. MEDICARE SURPLUS RESERVE.

       Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:


                       ``medicare surplus reserve

       ``Sec. 316. (a) In General.--Subject to adjustment pursuant 
     to subsection (b), the amounts reserved for the Medicare 
     surplus reserve in each year are--
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2000, $0;
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2001, $3,000,000,000;
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2002, $26,000,000,000;
       ``(4) for fiscal year 2003, $15,000,000,000;
       ``(5) for fiscal year 2004, $21,000,000,000;
       ``(6) for fiscal year 2005, $35,000,000,000;
       ``(7) for fiscal year 2006, $63,000,000,000;
       ``(8) for fiscal year 2007, $68,000,000,000;
       ``(9) for fiscal year 2008, $72,000,000,000;
       ``(10) for fiscal year 2009, $73,000,000,000;
       ``(11) for fiscal year 2010, $70,000,000,000;

[[Page 7266]]

       ``(12) for fiscal year 2011, $73,000,000,000;
       ``(13) for fiscal year 2012, $70,000,000,000;
       ``(14) for fiscal year 2013, $66,000,000,000; and
       ``(15) for fiscal year 2014, $52,000,000,000.
       ``(b) Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amounts in subsection (a) for each 
     fiscal year shall be adjusted in the budget resolution each 
     fiscal year through 2014 by a fixed percentage equal to the 
     adjustment required to those amounts sufficient to extend the 
     solvency of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund through 
     fiscal year 2027.
       ``(2) Limit based on total surplus.--The Medicare surplus 
     reserve, as adjusted by paragraph (1), shall not exceed the 
     total baseline surplus in any fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 9. PAY-AS-YOU-GO AND DISCRETIONARY CAP EXTENSION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, sections 251 and 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and section 202 of H. 
     Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) shall be enforced until 
     Congress enacts legislation that--
       (1) ensures the long-term fiscal solvency of the Social 
     Security trust funds and extends the solvency of the Medicare 
     trust fund through fiscal year 2027; and
       (2) includes a certification in that legislation that the 
     legislation complies with paragraph (1).
       (b) Discretionary Cap Extension.--Section 251(c) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 
     amended by adding after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) for each fiscal year after 2002, the current services 
     baseline based on the discretionary spending limit for fiscal 
     year 2002;''.

     SEC. 10. ADJUSTMENT OF BUDGET LEVELS AND REPEAL.

       (a) Adjustments.--Upon the enactment of this Act, the 
     Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget shall file with 
     their Houses appropriately revised budget aggregates, 
     allocations, and levels (including reconciliation levels) 
     under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 
     Act.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68 (106th 
     Congress) is repealed.

                         Two Lock Box Proposals


                          republican lock box

       The Republican lock box purports to protect Social Security 
     surpluses by establishing new limits on debt held by the 
     public. The proposal creates a new super majority point of 
     order against legislation that would increase the limits on 
     public debt. The limits are set at levels that would allow 
     all non-Social Security surpluses to be used for tax cuts or 
     spending.
       The GOP lock box has three major problems:
       (1) It does nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows 
     Congress to use funds needed for Medicare to provide tax 
     cuts.
       (2) It threatens Social Security. If the economy slows, the 
     government could be unable to issue Social Security or other 
     benefit checks. Also, the GOP amendment includes a provision 
     that would allow Social Security surpluses to be used for 
     purposes other than Social Security benefits, if labeled as 
     ``Social Security reform.''
       (3) It threatens default. Secretary Rubin is concerned that 
     the proposal could permanently damage our credit standing. 
     The risk of default would increase interest costs for 
     American taxpayers.
       In November 1995, a debt crisis was precipitated when 
     Government borrowing reached the debt limit and in January 
     Moody's credit rating service placed Treasury securities on 
     review for possible downgrade.
       The proposal could trigger an actual default based on 
     factors beyond Congress's control. Although the GOP proposal 
     adjusts the debt ceiling for discrepancies between the actual 
     and projected Social Security surpluses, it does not make 
     similar corrections for unanticipated developments on the 
     non-Social Security side of the budget. This means that an 
     economic slowdown, a reduction in anticipated revenues, or an 
     unexpected increase in mandatory spending could cause 
     publicly held debt to exceed the new limits and create a debt 
     crisis.


                          democratic lock box

       The Democratic Lock Box creates a supermajority point of 
     order against a budget resolution or any legislation that 
     does not save at least 40 percent of the on-budget surplus 
     for Medicare over the next 15 years and adds a new 
     supermajority point of order against a budget resolution that 
     violates the off-budget treatment of Social Security. (The 
     budget act already contains supermajority points of order 
     against a budget resolution or any legislation that reduces 
     the Social Security surplus.)
       The Democratic Lock Box has several advantages over the 
     Republican approach.
       (1) It protects Social Security. The language reserves all 
     Social Security surpluses for Social Security, and does not 
     allow these surpluses to be used for anything that does not 
     increase the Solvency of the Social Security program.
       (2) It protects Medicare. The Democratic bill reserves 40 
     percent of the on-budget surplus for Medicare; allows 
     sufficient funding to extend the life of the Medicare HI 
     Trust Fund through at least 2027.
       (3) It relies on responsible enforcement mechanisms. The 
     Democratic approach does not establish binding limits on 
     publicly held debt and does not create a risk of default. 
     Enforcement is through current budget procedures and across-
     the-board cuts. The Lock Box also restores the current pay-
     as-you-go point of order, which makes certain that no on-
     budget surplus can be used. Without a change in law, the 
     Republican tax cuts will result in a pay-as-you-go sequester, 
     which will come largely from Medicare.
       (4) It reduces more debt. The Democratic Lock Box reduces 
     more debt than the Republican proposal, which will lower 
     future interest costs and free up government resources to 
     meet its existing Social Security and Medicare obligations.
                                  ____


       COMPARISON OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LOCK BOX PROPOSALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Democratic                           Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserves 77 percent of unified surplus for  Claims to reserve 62 percent
 Social Security and Medicare.               of unified surplus for
                                             Social Security but
                                             includes ``trap door''
                                             loophole.
Prevents Social Security surplus from       Allows Social Security
 being used for other purposes.              surplus to be used for
                                             anything labeled ``Social
                                             Security reform'' including
                                             tax cuts.
Reserves 40 percent of on-budget surplus    Reserves nothing for
 for Medicare; allows solvency through       Medicare.
 2027.
Enforcement through existing budget rules   Enforcement through debt
 and across-the-board cuts; procedures       crisis; putting United
 that created the first budget surplus       States credit worthiness at
 since 1969.                                 risk and jeopardizing
                                             Social Security benefits.
Requires 60 votes to violate off-budget     Requires 60 votes to violate
 treatment of Social Security or for using   off-budget treatment of
 Medicare reserve.                           Social Security; reserves
                                             nothing for Medicare.
Reduces debt held by the public to $1.6     Reduces debt held by the
 trillion in 2009, $300 billion below the    public to $1.9 trillion in
 Republicans.                                2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             
                                  ____
               Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act

       The ``Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act'' creates 
     new budget points of order and budget enforcement mechanisms 
     that would preclude any portion of the Social Security 
     surplus or any portion of the surplus reserved for Medicare 
     from being used for new spending or tax cuts. Over the next 
     15 years, the lockbox would save 77 percent  of the total 
     unified surplus. The Medicare reserve would save 15 percent 
     of the unified surplus and 40 percent of the on-budget 
     surplus over the next 15 years.


                         Section 1: Short Title

       Titles the bill the ``Social Security and Medicare Lock Box 
     Act.''


                         Section 2. Definitions

       Amends section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by 
     adding a definition of the term ``Medicare surplus reserve.'' 
     The Medicare surplus reserve refers to surplus amounts 
     reserved to strengthen and extend the Medicare program.


          Section 3: Protection of Social Security Trust Funds

       Section 3 reaffirms Congress's support for the off-budget 
     treatment of Social Security (section 13301 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990).


          Section 4: Social security Off-Budget Point of Order

       Section 4 creates a supermajority point of order in the 
     House and Senate against a budget resolution that violates 
     the off-budget treatment of Social Security (section 13301 of 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990).


           Section 5: Medicare Surplus Reserve Point of Order

       Section 5 creates a supermajority point of order in the 
     House and Senate against a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report on the 
     resolution) that would decrease the surplus in any of the 
     fiscal years covered by the budget resolution below the level 
     of the Medicare surplus reserve.


           Section 6: Enforcement of Medicare Surplus Reserve

       Section 6 creates a supermajority point of order in the 
     House and Senate against any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would decrease 
     the Medicare surplus reserve in any of the years covered by 
     the budget resolution.


                Section 7: Supermajority points of order

       Section 7 makes all new points of order created in this 
     amendment waivable only by a three-fifths supermajority vote.


                  Section 8: Medicare Surplus Reserve

       Section 8 lists the amounts reserved for Medicare in each 
     year from 2000-2014. These amounts total $65 billion over 
     2000-2004; $376 billion over the period 2000-2009, and $707 
     billion for the period 2000-2014. This section also creates a 
     procedure that requires these amounts to be adjusted annually 
     in the budget resolution to make certain that they are 
     sufficient to extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund through 2027. The Medicare surplus reserve, 
     however, cannot exceed the total on-budget surplus in any 
     year so as not to deplete the Social Security surplus.


        Section 9: Pay-As-You-Go and Discretionary Cap Extension

       Section 9 extends current budgetary discipline embodied in 
     the discretionary spending caps, the paygo rule in the 
     Senate, and the paygo sequestration provisions of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act until Congress enacts legislation certifying 
     that it has ensured the long-term fiscal solvency of Social

[[Page 7267]]

     Security and extend the solvency of Medicare through fiscal 
     year 2027.


           Section 10: Adjustment of Budget Levels and Repeal

       Section 10 directs the Chairmen of the Budget Committees to 
     revise the budget resolution to make it consistent with this 
     Act and repeals the provision of the budget resolution that 
     weakened the paygo rule in the Senate by allowing the on-
     budget surplus to be used for tax cuts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 863. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for Medicaid coverage of all certified nurse practitioners and 
clinical nurse specialists; to the Committee on Finance.


                     medicaid nursing incentive act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicaid 
Nursing Incentive Act, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement 
for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists.
  This legislation eliminates a counterproductive Medicaid payment 
policy. Under current law, State Medicaid programs may exclude 
certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists from 
Medicaid reimbursement, even though these practitioners are fully 
trained to provide many of the same services as those provided by 
primary care physicians. This policy is both discriminatory and 
shortsighted; it severs a critical access link for Medicaid 
beneficiaries.
  The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of 
cost-effective primary care to our nation's most vulnerable citizens.
  Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year 
go without the health care services they need, because physicians 
simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural 
and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south 
central Los Angeles and Lemmon, South Dakota.
  Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent 
years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to 
care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner-city and 
rural communities where many beneficiaries live. Fortunately, there is 
an exception to the trend: nurse practitioners and clinical nurse 
specialists frequently accept patients whom others will not treat and 
serve in areas where others refuse to work.
  Studies have shown that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse 
specialists provide quality, cost-effective care. Their advanced 
clinical training enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80 
percent of the primary care services usually performed by physicians, 
often at a lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction.
  Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse 
practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. For more than a decade, 
CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practitioners. In 1990, 
Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under 
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. The Medicare program, which 
already covered nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialist 
services in rural areas, was modified under the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 to provide coverage for these services in all geographic areas. 
The bill I am introducing today establishes the same payment policy 
under Medicaid.
  Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the 
Medicaid program and its beneficiaries. There is a broader lesson here 
that applies to our effort to make cost-effective, high-quality health 
care services available and accessible to all Americans.
  One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of 
primary and preventive care, delivered to individuals in convenient, 
familiar places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2 
million of our nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites--
in home health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and 
schools. In places like South Dakota, nurses are often the only health 
care professionals available in the small towns and rural counties 
across the state.
  These nurses and other nonphysician health professionals play an 
important role in the delivery of care. And this role will only 
increase as we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment 
of illness to one that emphasizes primary preventive care and health 
promotion.
  But, first, we must reevaluate outdated attitudes and break down 
barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their 
training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health 
Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being 
fully utilized to deliver primary care services. The commission 
recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying nurse 
practitioners directly for the services they provide. This step will 
help nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists expand access 
to the primary care that so many communities currently lack.
  As I have worked on access and reimbursement issues related to nurse 
practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, I have encountered two 
related issues I would also like to highlight.
  Later this month, I plan to introduce legislation to increase the 
reimbursement rate for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse 
specialists who practice in rural and underserved areas. Currently, 
physicians who serve in a health professional shortage area receive a 
10 percent boost in their Medicare payment as an incentive to provide 
services in the regions that need them the most. As we know, nurses are 
already providing critical primary and preventive care in these areas 
and deserve the bonus payments that physicians are already receiving.
  I would also encourage my colleagues to closely monitor the impact of 
Medicaid managed care on access to care provided by nurse practitioners 
and clinical nurse specialists. In some areas of the country, 
implementation of managed care has prevented patients from continuing 
to receive health care services from nurse practitioners and clinical 
nurse specialists because they are not listed as primary care providers 
or preferred providers. Advanced practice nurses provide cost-
effective, local, quality care, and I am concerned about early reports 
that access to these professionals is being limited by new health 
delivery arrangements. We should certainly keep an eye on this issue as 
Medicaid managed care systems develop.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will carefully consider the 
issues I have raised and support the measure I am introducing today, 
recognizing the critical role nurse practitioners and other 
nonphysician health professionals play in our health care delivery 
system, as well as the increasingly significant contribution they can 
make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 863

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicaid Nursing Incentive 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF ALL CERTIFIED NURSE PRACTITIONER 
                   AND CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(21) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(21) services furnished by a certified nurse practitioner 
     (as defined by the Secretary) or clinical nurse specialist 
     (as defined in subsection (v)) which the certified nurse 
     practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is legally 
     authorized to perform under State law (or the State 
     regulatory mechanism provided by State law), whether or not 
     the certified nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist 
     is under the supervision of, or associated with, a physician 
     or other health care provider;''.
       (b) Clinical Nurse Specialist Defined.--Section 1905 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(v) The term `clinical nurse specialist' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(1) is a registered nurse and is licensed to practice 
     nursing in the State in which the clinical nurse specialist 
     services are performed; and
       ``(2) holds a master's degree in a defined area of clinical 
     nursing from an accredited educational institution.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective

[[Page 7268]]

     with respect to payments for calendar quarters beginning on 
     or after January 1, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 864. A bill to designate April 22 as Earth Day; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                             EARTH DAY ACT

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have sent to the desk 
is being introduced on behalf of myself and Senator Chafee. It is 
entitled ``The Earth Day Act.'' Its purpose is to designate April 22 as 
Earth Day.
  Today, of course, is April 22. Let me provide a little history for my 
colleagues or anyone listening.
  The first Earth Day was 29 years ago, in 1970, and I think we are all 
aware that Earth Day was first conceived by our former colleague, 
Senator Gaylord Nelson, who is universally considered the founder of 
Earth Day.
  He has written a short summary of what brought Earth Day about, how 
it came about. In it he points out that in a speech that he gave in 
Seattle in September of 1969, he announced that there would be a 
national environmental teach-in in the spring of 1970. And the wire 
services picked up that story. And the next thing he knew, there was a 
movement afoot to actually have that happen.
  That first Earth Day involved some 20 million Americans. Since then, 
the concept and the idea of Earth Day has focused the attention of the 
country, focused the attention of the world, in fact, on the importance 
of our environment and the importance of preserving and maintaining our 
environment. We have a great debt of gratitude we owe to former Senator 
Nelson for his leadership on this.
  We also owe a great debt of gratitude to the person that did the nuts 
and bolts work of organizing that first Earth Day, and that, of course 
is Denis Hayes. He is now president of the Seattle-based Bullitt 
Foundation, but he has been recognized recently by Time magazine as one 
of their heroes of the planet. I think his instrumental role, his 
essential role in bringing about that first Earth Day, making such a 
success of it, has been recognized by all.
  He is now, of course, trying to get in place the organization to make 
Earth Day 2000, which will occur exactly a year from today, an even 
greater celebration than we have known before.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe that it is appropriate that we 
officially designate April 22 as Earth Day and that we permanently 
designate it as Earth Day. It has come to be known as Earth Day--April 
22--for all of us. There are celebrations and teach-ins, and 
recognitions going on throughout our country today. As we hear the news 
about Kosovo, which is bad, and the news about Littleton, Colorado, and 
the terrible tragedy there, which is bad, and many of the other news 
stories that bombard us, it is good to know that there is one news 
story that we can all celebrate and rally around, and that is that 
today, again, we will be able to celebrate Earth Day.
  Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that Senator Chafee and I can 
work in the next year to gain additional cosponsors and to obtain 
enactment of this, so that by the time Earth Day 2000 arrives, we will 
be able to have this in law, have it signed by the President. I am sure 
it will be supported by all of our colleagues. I think we all recognize 
the importance of this to many of the people we represent. I hope very 
much that the bill can be enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 865. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
the same tax treatment for danger pay allowance as for combat pay; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                         DIPLOMATIC DANGER PAY

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I want to right a wrong--a small 
wrong, but a wrong nevertheless. It affects a handful of our diplomats 
who serve in the world's most dangerous places: Beirut, Bosnia, Kosovo, 
the unsettled nations of Africa and the former Soviet Union and 
elsewhere. And unfortunately, as the events of recent weeks prove, the 
need for Americans--soldiers and diplomats alike--to go in harm's way, 
is unlikely to abate.
  Our diplomats, colleagues of those killed last summer in the tragic 
embassy bombings in Africa, receive an allowance for their service in 
the most frightening places in the world--a danger allowance.
  This allowance is not unlike that paid to our military when they are 
in combat. In fact, in some places, such as Bosnia, where our military 
and diplomatic personnel serve side by side, both receive a special 
allowance for their sacrifices.
  The military justifiably receives this benefit tax-free. But our 
diplomatic personnel do not. Through an oversight in the Internal 
Revenue Code, diplomats are taxed on their danger pay, even though they 
often face similar hardships and dangers. I think that's wrong.
  I have a bill which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to right 
this wrong. It affects just a handful of people. But to them it will 
serve as recognition of the sacrifice they make when they represent the 
American people in dangerous settings overseas. I urge its quick 
passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 865

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF DANGER PAY ALLOWANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter C of chapter 80 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to provisions affecting more 
     than one subtitle) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 7874. TREATMENT OF DANGER PAY ALLOWANCE.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of the following 
     provisions, a danger pay allowance area shall be treated in 
     the same manner as if it were a combat zone (as determined 
     under section 112):
       ``(1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule where 
     deceased spouse was in missing status).
       ``(2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of certain 
     combat pay of members of the Armed Forces).
       ``(3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of members of 
     Armed Forces on death).
       ``(4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the Armed Forces 
     dying in combat zone or by reason of combat-zone-incurred 
     wounds, etc.).
       ``(5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating to combat 
     pay for members of the Armed Forces).
       ``(6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of phone 
     service originating from a combat zone from members of the 
     Armed Forces).
       ``(7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return where 
     individual is in missing status).
       ``(8) Section 7508 (relating to time for performing certain 
     acts postponed by reason of service in combat zone).
       ``(b) Danger Pay Allowance Area.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `danger pay allowance area' means any area 
     in which an individual receives a danger pay allowance under 
     section 5928 of title 5, United States Code, for services 
     performed in such area.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter C of chapter 80 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7874. Treatment of danger pay allowance.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to remuneration paid in taxable years ending 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, among the worst situations facing 
spouses, children, and families of members of the United States Armed 
Forces, is to be greeted by an official party, wearing their dress blue 
uniforms, announcing the grim news that their loved one has been killed 
or declared missing.
  On Sunday, September 14, 1997 nine families endured such an 
experience as the United States Air Force declared one of its C-141 
Starlifter cargo planes, en route from Namibia to Ascension Island, was 
overdue and presumed to have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean. At the 
same time, a German military plane was also declared missing in the 
same area, amid indications that the two planes had collided and 
crashed into the Atlantic.
  An extensive search was begun, during which only a few airplane 
seats, a few papers, some debris from the U.S. cargo plane, remnants of 
the German

[[Page 7269]]

aircraft, and the body of one victim were recovered. No other remains 
were recovered, and no survivors were located. On Saturday, September 
27, 1997 the search for the crewmen of the Air Force jet ended and all 
were declared dead.
  Mr. President, an investigation confirmed everyone's worst fears. In 
fact, on that fateful day--September 13, 1997--a German Luftwaffe 
Tupelov TU-154M collided with a U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter off the 
coast of Namibia, Africa. As a result of that mid-air collision nine 
United States Air Force Service members were killed. These are the 
rank, name, age, assignment, and hometowns of those killed: Staff 
Sergeant Stacy D. Bryant, 32, loadmaster, Providence, Rhode Island; 
Staff Sergeant Gary A. Bucknam, 25, flight engineer, Oakland, Maine; 
Captain Gregory M. Cindrich, 28, pilot, Byrans Road, Maryland; Airman 
1st Class Justin R. Drager, 19, loadmaster, Colorado Springs, Colorado; 
Staff Sergeant Robert K. Evans, 31, flight engineer, Garrison, 
Kentucky; Captain Jason S. Ramsey, 27, pilot, South Boston, Virginia; 
Staff Sergeant Scott N. Roberts, 27, flight engineer, Library, 
Pennsylvania; Captain Peter C. Vallejo, 34, aircraft commander, 
Crestwood, New York; and Senior Airman Frankie L. Walker, 23, crew 
chief, Windber, Pennsylvania;
  At McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, families and members of the 
crewmen's squadron from the 305th Operation Group were trying to make 
sense of what happened. Monica Cindrich, wife of the pilot, had to 
explain to her 3 year-old son why his father would not be returning. On 
the day following the crash, Sharla Bucknam went alone to her son 
Andrew's third birthday party. Any Smart held out hope that her fiance, 
Captain Ramsey, would return for their wedding, planned for the 
following May. And Justin Drager's father, Larry, a retired Air Force 
Master Sergeant prayed for a miracle. It was his son's very first 
mission since the Air Force certified him as a loadmaster on the giant 
cargo plane that would take the 19-year-old from Colorado Springs to 
the faraway places he joined the military to see.
  At a memorial service at McGuire Air Force Base, the nine crew 
members were honored as heroes who gave their lives for a humanitarian 
mission. The plane was returning home to McGuire after delivering 
troops and 32,000 pounds of mine-clearing equipment to Namibia. As the 
chaplain called the names of each crew member in a final roll call, a 
squadron member answered ``Absent, sir.'' The crowd of more than 3,000 
stood solemnly as a lone bugler played taps and three C-141s flew over 
in formation.
  Formal investigations by both the government of Germany and the 
United States Air Force found that the German military plane was flying 
at the wrong altitude. The two planes, occupying the same air space, at 
the same altitude, closed on each other at a combined speed of over 
1,000 miles per hour. The two planes hit almost nose to nose.
  The German crew saw the U.S. plane about a second before impact and 
struggled for two-and-a-half minutes to regain control of the TU-154 as 
it crashed into the Atlantic.
  The German military transport was carrying 12 German marines, two of 
their spouses and 10 crew members. Unfortunately, there were no 
survivors. The German Air Force plane was en route from Germany to Cape 
Town, South Africa, where the marines were to have participated in a 
boat race marking the 75th anniversary of the South African Navy.
  The details concerning the crash are unsettling and I doubt anyone 
would want to die in the manner that the crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201'' 
did. While the German crew had about a one-and-one-half second warning 
that they were going to collide with another aircraft, the crew aboard 
the C-141 literally did not know what hit them.
  The cockpit voice recorder aboard the American aircraft chillingly 
captures the conversations of the ``MISSION REACH 4201'' crew as fate 
cruelly steers the two military transports toward a deadly collision. 
Reviewing the transcript shows that Captains Greg Cindrich and Peter 
Vallejo--the two pilots of the Starlifter--had no inclination that a 
collision was imminent until it was too late. The two officers were 
discussing topics such as Social Security and the exploration of Mars.
  The tape indicates that the crew survived for at least 13 seconds 
following the impact with the German transport. In those 13 seconds, 
the C-141 and crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201'' began hurtling toward the 
Atlantic Ocean. They spent the last 13 seconds of the flight, of their 
lives, strapping on oxygen masks and looking for flashlights to cope 
with a failed electrical system. Aviation experts have determined that 
it is possible that the nine doomed men may have actually survived for 
as long as 30-seconds before the C-141 exploded. For thirteen to 30 
seconds, these men fought to survive, fought to right their plane, 
fought for their very lives. If thirteen to 30 seconds sounds like a 
short amount of time, I challenge anyone to try holding their hand over 
a burning match for that amount of time, let alone spend that amount of 
time aboard a multi-ton aircraft as it plummets toward the ocean. These 
men were able to contemplate for thirteen to 30 seconds that their 
aircraft was damaged and diving toward the ocean from an altitude of 
35,000 feet. That was thirteen to 30 seconds that these men could have 
been thinking that no C-141 had successfully survived a crash landing 
in water. It was thirteen to 30 seconds for these men to realize that 
they were about to die.
  Somewhere between thirteen and thirty seconds after the collision, 
the C-141 of ``Mission Reach 4201'' exploded and what did not vaporize 
became debris that was spread on the surface of the ocean, or sunk to 
its cold and murky depths. Needless to say, rescuers and salvage 
operators never recovered much of the American aircraft or crew. The 
Air Force ultimately found a few parts of the airplanes and 15 pounds 
of human remains of such minute quantities that DNA testing had to be 
conducted to determine who was who. As a point of comparison, a bag of 
cement is approximately 20 pounds. You could have put the entire 
remains of nine adult men in a bag that is used to hold cement and have 
room left over. There were not enough remains left of any one of the 
crew members to afford their families the comfort of laying their sons, 
fathers, brothers, and husbands to rest. Instead, only mementos were 
placed in caskets and buried.
  Accident investigations conducted by the United States Air Force and 
the German Ministry of Defense both concluded that fault for the 
collision and deaths lay with the German crew, who not only filed an 
inaccurate flight plan, but were flying at the wrong altitude. The crew 
of the C-141 were operating appropriately, and were exactly where they 
were supposed to be when they met their untimely deaths. These nine men 
died through no fault or negligence of their own, the United States Air 
Force, or the government of the United States.
  The families of each of the nine victims have endured not only 
tremendous mental anguish and suffering, but significant financial 
losses, and understandably, they are seeking compensation from the 
German government. Sadly, despite the fact that this crash took place 
almost two-years-ago, the German government has still to make the first 
pfenning of compensation to any of the victims' families.
  I rise today to offer a Sense of the Senate resolution that calls 
upon the German government to make quick and generous compensation to 
these families. Just as this Body agreed by unanimous consent on March 
23, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make humanitarian relief 
payments of up to $2 million to each of the families killed in 
Cavalese, Italy when a Marine Corps jet struck a ski gondola, we should 
go on the record as expecting equitably fair and expeditious relief for 
the families of our servicemen killed through the negligence of the 
German government.
  It gives me no pleasure to offer this resolution. The German 
government and people are unquestionably among the closest of allies 
and the best of

[[Page 7270]]

friends. We stood side-by-side during the Cold War, facing down the 
Eastern threat; we are working side-by-side in the Balkans now; our 
economies are linked; and we value the strong relationship between our 
two nations. Nevertheless, the Federal Republic of Germany has an 
undeniable responsibility to make quick and generous compensation to 
the nine families who lost loved ones aboard ``MISSION REACH 4201'' and 
I have pledged to Monica Cindrich, the widow of Captain Gregory 
Cindrich and the mother of their four-year-old son, that I will do all 
within my power to bring not only compensation to her, but closure to 
this tragedy. Passing this sense of the Senate resolution will help do 
just that.
  Each of us gets into public service because we desire to help people, 
to do what is right, and to fight for fairness. This Sense of the 
Senate resolution allows us to achieve each of those goals. By securing 
compensation for the deaths of the nine men killed, we will 
unquestionably be helping their families; we will be making a stand for 
what is right by making a stand for our military families; and finally, 
we will be fighting for fairness. Just as our government has recognized 
our responsibility in the case of the Italian ski gondola incident, it 
is only fair that the German government recognize their responsibility 
and obligation in this matter.
  It is my hope that this resolution will pass with the support of an 
overwhelming majority of Senators. By voting for this provision, each 
of you will not only be sending an unmistakable message to the German 
government, but perhaps even more importantly, you will be signaling to 
our men and women in uniform that their elected officials will always 
stand by them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 866. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to revise existing regulations concerning the conditions of 
participation for hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers under the 
Medicare program relating to certified registered nurse anesthetists' 
services to make the regulations consistent with State supervision 
requirements; to the Committee on Finance.


                  Anesthesia Service Preservation Act

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which would help clarify an issue that relates to Medicare coverage for 
anesthesia services and its impact on rural health care.
  As a senator representing a predominantly rural state, I know only 
too well the difficulties facing rural health care needs. Access to 
care in rural areas is slowly worsening as more and more rural 
hospitals close their doors in the face of overwhelming cost pressures. 
Clearly, one aspect of access to care is access to surgical procedures. 
And without anesthesia services, general surgery becomes impossible.
  Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) tend to be the 
predominant anesthesia provider in rural and undeserved urban areas. In 
fact, CRNAs are the sole anesthesia provider in 65% of rural hospitals 
and in addition, provide at least 65% of the nation's anesthesia needs. 
The simple fact is that anesthesiologists have not been moving into 
rural areas in any significant numbers, and are not expected to do so 
in the foreseeable future. Given this trend, if rural hospitals are 
going to stay open, they desperately need CRNAs for their anesthesia 
and ultimately their surgical needs. That means we have to maintain a 
healthy supply of CRNAs to maintain access to care for rural Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  Unfortunately, current Medicare rules with respect to supervision 
provide a disincentive for hospitals to use nurse anesthetists. 
Medicare's regulations require physician supervision of CRNAs as a 
condition for hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers to receive 
Medicare reimbursement, despite many state laws that allow nurse 
anesthetists to practice without such supervision. Although HCFA has 
issued a proposed rule that would drop this requirement and defer to 
states on the issue of supervision, this rule has never been finalized.
  The federal supervision requirement creates several problems for 
CRNAs. First, some surgeons and hospitals have been dissuaded from 
working with CRNAs, in the face of arguments that the physicians may be 
subjecting themselves to liability for engaging in supervision. But the 
truth is, the attending physician--or the hospital--is no more legally 
liable for the CRNAs actions than he or she is for the acts of an 
anesthesiologist. Second, the federal restriction is anti-competitive, 
acting as a disincentive for CRNAs to be used. Finally, the restriction 
creates an inaccurate perception among some surgeons that they have an 
obligation to direct or control the substantive course of the 
anesthetic process, even though there is no such obligation.
  The legislation I am introducing today would eliminate the Federal 
supervision requirement and instead direct Medicare to defer to state 
law requirements on supervision. By eliminating this prescriptive 
federal regulation, we can better maximize the use of nurse 
anesthetists and eliminate the confusion surrounding CRNA supervision. 
At a time when the Congress is seeking ways to reduce costs for the 
Medicare program without sacrificing quality or access to care, 
increasing the use of nurse anesthetists seems particularly 
appropriate.
  In terms of quality of care, there are no significant differences 
between anesthesia provided by CRNAs or that provided by 
anesthesiologists. Notwithstanding the claims of anesthesiologists, it 
is clear from a careful reading of the studies that there are no 
quantifiable differences in outcomes when CRNAs work with 
anesthesiologists, or when anesthesiologists provide anesthesia alone. 
CRNAs have been providing anesthesia services for more than a century. 
They have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas in 
every war the United States has been engaged in since World War I. 
CRNAs have received medals and accolades for their dedication, 
commitment and competence. And CRNAs perform the same anesthesia 
delivery function as anesthesiologists and work in every setting in 
which anesthesia is delivered: traditional hospital suites, obstetrical 
delivery rooms, dentist's offices, HMO's ambulatory surgical centers, 
Veterans Administration facilities and others.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government is deferring to state judgment 
on a whole host of issues, so it seems completely consistent to let 
states decide how best to use nurse anesthetists, particularly in light 
of CRNA's long track record of success. States, which have the primary 
responsibility for regulating nurse practice, have generally not seen 
any need for a physician supervision requirement in non-Medicare 
settings. Twenty-nine states do not require supervision of CRNAs in 
nurse practice acts or board of nursing rules. This clearly indicates 
that many states, as a matter of public policy, do not believe it is 
necessary to require physician supervision of CRNAs. It is easy to 
understand why. Anesthesia is provided only when necessary to permit 
some medical procedure or intervention. Thus, as a practical matter 
even when supervision is not required as a matter of law, a surgeon, 
podiatrist, or dentist will be in the room when anesthesia is provided, 
and would be capable of handling any emergency that might arise.
  Finally, I would note that when CRNAs were given direct Medicare 
reimbursement in 1986, there was no statutory requirement that CRNAs be 
supervised by physicians in order to receive reimbursement. This was 
not a requirement imposed by Congress then, nor has there been one 
since. Had Congress believed that such a requirement was appropriate, 
it would have been imposed as a condition of reimbursement at that 
time. Moreover, HCFA routinely defers to the states on scope of 
practice issues as its relates to other health care professionals.
  This proposed change is supported by the American Hospital 
Association and the National Rural Health Association. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation and let the states make

[[Page 7271]]

their own decisions about how to regulate a health care professional's 
scope of practice. Rural and undeserved urban areas need CRNAs and it's 
time the federal government removed impediments in regulations so that 
consumers' access to anesthesia care, particularly in rural areas, will 
not be jeopardized.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
        Kohl, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 867. A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge as wilderness; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


             arctic national refuge wilderness act of 1999

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower had the 
wisdom to set aside a portion of America's Arctic for the benefit and 
enjoyment of future generations. His Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
protected the highest peaks and glaciers of the Brooks Range, North 
America's two largest and most northerly alpine lakes, and nearly 200 
different wildlife species, including polar bears, grizzlies, wolves, 
caribou, and millions of migratory birds.
  Eisenhower's Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton called the new Arctic 
Range, ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in 
North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere.
  With this in mind, I reintroduce legislation today, Earth Day 1999, 
that designates the coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the 
moment this area is a national wildlife refuge--one of our most 
beautiful and last frontiers. This legislation, the Arctic National 
Refuge Wilderness Act of 1999, would forever safeguard this great 
national treasure from oil exploration and development.
  And I can't stress how important this is.
  The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our 
Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete 
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a 
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish 
and visit for our soul's good.
  The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness 
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and 
glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich 
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, 
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, 
black brant, and more. Birds from the Arctic Refuge fly to or through 
every state in the continental U.S. In all, Mr. President, about 165 
species use the coastal plain.
  It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse 
and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up 
for winters of unspeakable severity.
  The fact is Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is 
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands 
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the 
lands that belong to our future.
  Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came 
across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner. 
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation, 
he wrote that it is `the most splendid part of the American habitat; it 
is also the most fragile.' And we cannot enter `it carrying habits that 
[are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.'
  What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic 
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our 
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and 
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its 
long-term needs.
  Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable 
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better 
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy, 
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an 
environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have 
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 867

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE 
                   REFUGE AS WILDERNESS.

       Section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
     Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Designation of Certain Land as Wilderness.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a portion of 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska comprising 
     approximately 1,559,538 acres, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled `Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--1002 Area. 
     Alternative E--Wilderness Designation, October 28, 1991' and 
     available for inspection in the offices of the Secretary of 
     the Interior, is designated as a component of the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System under the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to again join with Senator 
Roth in the very important bipartisan effort to designate the coastal 
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--forever.
  Today is Earth Day 1999. The introduction of the Arctic Wilderness 
Act is particularly appropriate on Earth Day because it will provide 
permanent protection for the unique and irreplaceable natural resources 
of an area that is the ``biological heart'' of the North Slope of 
Alaska. The coastal plain is a vital part of the tundra ecosystem that 
some have referred to as ``America's Serengetti.''
  On Earth Day, we should take extra measure of special, rare, and 
threatened places. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain is 
one of these places. It is one natural treasure that we must protect as 
wilderness for current and future generations.
  The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife refuge represents 
the wildest and most pristine arctic coastal ecosystem in the United 
States. The coastal plain is where the calves of the awe-inspiring 
Porcupine caribou herd are born every year. It is also where snow geese 
feed in the fall and many female polar bears choose to den.
  During the summer, migratory birds such as the red-throated loon, 
American golden-plover, and semipalmated sandpiper and others flock to 
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in great 
numbers. In the fall, they return southward to and through the state of 
Connecticut among other places. By dedicating the coastal plain of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, we can help ensure that 
this ancient natural rite continues into the 21st Century.
  For more than a decade, Congress has repeatedly debated the 
advisability of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal 
plain to oil and gas exploration and development. Time and again, 
Congress and the American people have rejected the notion that we 
should sacrifice our last vestige of arctic coastal plain to petroleum 
development. The decision to prohibit coastal plain petroleum 
development reflects the tremendous value Americans place in the 
preservation of our great wilderness areas.
  The degradation caused by developing oil and gas in places worthy of 
wilderness designation is irreversible. Once developed, the wilderness 
value of a place is lost.
  The Alaska Wilderness Act designates the coastal plain of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness--an area to remain wild and 
undeveloped in perpetuity--and thereby preserves one of the last great 
natural

[[Page 7272]]

treasures on the North American continent for generations to come.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Earth Day is a celebration of the value 
and importance of our natural environment and a reminder of our duty to 
protect, rather than carelessly exploit and deplete, our natural 
heritage. Our commitment to future generations is something we in 
Minnesota take very seriously. It is a commitment to ensure that the 
environmental legacy we pass on to our children and grandchildren is 
not marred by failures such as the poisoning of our oceans, rivers, 
lakes and streams, the destruction of the natural habitat, and the 
irreversible extinction of species.
  Environmental concerns have always been very important to me and to 
Minnesotans, and I am proud of the progress that we are making in 
protecting the environment. However, while recognizing the progress we 
have made, we Minnesotans also realize how much more needs to be done.
  That is why I feel it is very appropriate that Senator Roth, myself, 
and several of our colleagues, are introducing legislation on this day 
to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska 
as wilderness. My good friend Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota, 
along with over 150 of his colleagues, have introduced similar 
legislation in the House, called the Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act. 
This legislation is a tremendous step forward, crucial to preserving 
the biodiversity of one of our nation's last remaining frontiers.
  This bill will designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as 
wilderness, protecting 1.5 million acres of some of the most unspoiled 
wilderness remaining in the United States. The Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is a one-of-a-kind national treasure, home to many unique 
species of plant and animal life, several of which are considered 
endangered or threatened. This magnificent wilderness contains a 
complete spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems, which can be 
found nowhere else on the continent.
  Moreover, the fragile balance of life in this wilderness is critical 
to the survival of the native Gwich'in Athabascan Indians of northeast 
Alaska, who depend on the land to maintain their centuries-old nomadic 
way of life. The Gwich'in rely on the 150,000-strong Porcupine River 
caribou herd, whose calving grounds are on the coastal plain.
  Unfortunately, a few multinational oil companies have set their 
sights on this crown jewel of America's wilderness to extract their 
short-term profits. Oil drilling on the coastal plain would mean 
despoliation of this pristine land with hundreds of oil rigs, 
pipelines, air strips, and other industrial facilities. It would 
destroy one of the most magnificent wilderness areas in North America.
  And it would do so much harm for so little gain. Allowing these 
multinationals to boost their profits by drilling oil would do nothing 
to solve our energy problems. The amount of oil that could potentially 
be recovered from the Refuge is relatively small, and most of it would 
likely be exported to Asia.
  Instead of promoting oil drilling that destroys our natural 
environment, we should be promoting renewable sources of energy. In so 
doing, we could save more energy than would ever be extracted from the 
coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.
  Polls show that Americans strongly support protection of the Arctic 
Refuge. Yet the oil lobby in Washington has never suffered from a lack 
of representation. The oil multinationals pressure Congress every year 
to open up this coastal plain to drilling. It's time Congress stood up 
for the public interest, rather than the economic interests of the 
largest oil companies.
  We have a responsibility to protect the environment for future 
generations. We must voice our protest and prevent those reckless 
policies which ignore the real costs of exhausting our natural 
resources and permanently distort our ecosystem's fragile balance.
  We must continue to be a world leader in deterring the destruction of 
our natural heritage. We must continue to facilitate and promote 
successful programs that help us conserve and use our lands and 
resources wisely.
  As we celebrate the last official Earth Day of the twentieth century, 
we must ensure that we will have cause to celebrate Earth Day in the 
twenty-first century. This legislation represents a significant step in 
the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to join us in 
cosponsoring this legislation on this very special day.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 868. A bill to make forestry insurance plans available to owners 
and operators of private forest land, to encourage the use of 
prescribed burning and fuel treatment methods on private forest land, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


       FORESTRY INITIATIVE TO RESTORE THE ENVIRONMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have asked recognition this afternoon to 
commend the firefighters providing relief to the State of Florida and 
its citizens, which is once again besieged by fire due to excessive 
drought conditions. This, unfortunately, is not the first occasion on 
which I have risen to speak about forest fires in Florida.
  The natural conditions in the State have been altered to the point 
where fires, normally a natural and essential part of the pine forests 
of this region, have burned uncontrollably, causing damage to local 
communities, private homes, and to the Florida forestry industry.
  Last year, Florida sustained almost $300 million in private fire-
related damage, and State and local governments spent over $100 million 
in responding to wild fires. Approximately 500,000 acres of forest were 
completely destroyed in 1998. And in 1999, fires in Florida have again 
commenced a process with severe consequences. As of today, 2,542 fires 
have burned more than 58,000 acres; 18 divisional forestry firefighters 
have been injured; 59 structures have been destroyed, and another 81 
were damaged by fire.
  Florida is not alone. Similar fires are occurring in Georgia, North 
Carolina, Arizona and New Mexico. My heart goes out to the unfortunate 
victims of these fires, as well as to the firefighters and volunteers 
who are working bravely to save families, homes and communities. As we 
speak, Americans from Alabama, Delaware, and Georgia, are fighting side 
by side with Floridians to prevent these fires in my State from 
endangering more lives, homes, and property. National Guardsmen, 
meteorologists, insurance specialist, and volunteers have converged in 
Florida to assist in response and recovery. These individuals' bravery 
and willingness to support people who they never met reaffirms our 
belief in the selflessness and vitality of the human spirit.
  Mr. President, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. I 
would like to draw your attention to the front page of the St. 
Petersburg Times of Tuesday, April 20, which has this dramatic picture 
of the Everglades afire. The Everglades, home to many endangered 
species, and the water source for millions of Floridians, has for the 
last several days been besieged by fire.
  Now, fire is a natural phenomenon in the Everglades. It serves an 
important part in maintaining the ecosystem. However, human 
manipulation of this system has decreased water levels, making the 
Everglades more susceptible to fire and more ravaging consequences of 
that fire. This condition mirrors circumstances throughout Florida and 
many other States where efforts to prevent fires have allowed a large 
quantity of undergrowth to accumulate in our forestry lands.
  As many of you know, the long-leaf pine ecosystem, which is prevalent 
in Florida and other southeastern States, depends heavily on the role 
of natural fire to rejuvenate the ecosystem. Prescribed burning mimics 
naturally occurring lightening fires, clears excess underbrush, which 
can rob lower plants of sunlight. This frequent, low-intensity fire 
retains the rich flora of the healthy long-leaf pine ecosystem. Without 
these frequent fires, underbrush robs lower plants, which in drought 
condition creates a ready fuel

[[Page 7273]]

source for a fire. It is this situation that has led to severe 
wildfires in Florida.
  Mr. President, today, I will be introducing legislation that is aimed 
at the prevention of the recurrence in the future and to assure that 
this tragedy does not bring a second tragedy--a permanent loss of our 
forest lands in Florida and in the southeast. I am introducing the 
Forestry Initiative to Restore the Environment Act of 1999 to mitigate 
the damages and prevent fire disasters in the future.
  What exactly does mitigation of losses mean for us today? Let me 
focus on my State of Florida. There are currently 16 million acres of 
forested lands, making up 47 percent of the State's total land area. 
The majority of this land--over 7 million acres--is owned by private 
farmers and individual corporate landowners. The State of Florida is 
continuing to grow at an explosive pace. It already has over 15 million 
people, and in 25 years it is projected to have over 20 million people. 
This rapid growth is creating pressure on land values throughout 
Florida and creating a circumstance in which there could be a massive 
conversion of this 7 million acres of privately owned timberland for 
development purposes.
  These 7 million acres not only provide a substantial amount of forest 
products for the Nation but also provide critical habitats for a unique 
group of plants and animals.
  These 7 million acres help to contain a human population explosion 
that would create additional demands on the already scarce water supply 
in Florida and lead to degradation of water quality.
  It is therefore in our Nation's interest to maintain Florida's 
existing timber lands for community use.
  This legislation provides a long-term plan to restore and protect 
private forestry lands damaged by wildfires and other natural 
disasters. It directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to act on its 
existing authority to develop a crop insurance program for small 
forestry landowners.
  This type of program--which allows producers to invest in their own 
future to protect themselves from natural disasters such as fires, 
hurricanes, or tornadoes--will provide the same protection for forestry 
producers as is provided through USDA insurance plans for crops such as 
wheat or corn.
  The availability of this support in times of disaster will provide 
incentives for private landowners to retain lands in forestry after 
disasters such as the current wildfires that we are experiencing in 
1999.
  The second part of our legislation will help to reduce the severity 
of future fire disasters by increasing the incentives for prescribed 
burning.
  The State of Florida has an active prescribed burning program and 
burns an average of two million acres per year, including forestry, 
grasslands, and agricultural lands.
  However, as evidenced by this week's events, existing levels of 
prescribed burning are not enough.
  Large quantities of brush fuel accompanied by drought have created 
dangerous wildfire conditions.
  One solution is to increase the frequency of prescribed burning to 
reduce fuel levels and the severity of fires when they occur.
  In a study conducted by the Florida Division of Forestry, Orlando 
District, for the period 1981 to 1990, it was shown that an increase in 
prescribed burning leads to a decrease in the frequency of wildfires.
  The study compared two counties--Osceola County and Brevard County 
which differ in the amount of prescribed burning they conduct.
  Approximately five-hundred thousand acres are burned in Osceola 
County every 2 or 4 years. This compares with just over two-hundred and 
fifty thousand acres of lands in Brevard County on which prescribed 
burning is conducted.
  The study found that the number of wildfires, the acres burned, and 
the average wildfires per acre were lower in Osceola County than 
Brevard County.
  Our legislation attempts to encourage the use of prescribed burning 
as a forest management tool on private lands.
  First, it authorizes the U.S. Forest Service to provide both 
technical and financial assistance for prescribed burning to states.
  Grants to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of carrying out prescribed 
burns would be made to private landowners.
  Second, our legislation seeks to enhance public support for the use 
of prescribed fire by addressing one of the most challenging issues--
the misunderstanding of urban and suburban residents of the purpose of 
prescribed burning.
  In the urban interface zone where much of Florida's forested lands 
are located, the opposition of local residents to smoke plumes can stop 
any efforts to conduct prescribed burning.
  Our bill requires that the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental 
Protection Agency develop education and outreach programs on this topic 
and make them available to state environmental and forest management 
agencies.
  With these actions, this legislation will create a system to mitigate 
damages from wildfires. It will help to reduce the severity of future 
fires by removing obstacles for private landowners to conduct 
prescribed burns.
  I hope you will join me in our long-term efforts to create a system 
for mitigating damages from natural disasters and reducing the severity 
of future wildfires by encouraging prescribed burning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two items be printed in 
the Record.
  The first is an April 18 article from the Miami Herald describing 
some of the wildfire damage which occurred in that city last week.
  The second is an Associated Press story summarizing remarks made by 
the Secretary of the Interior supporting the use of prescribed burning 
at a wildlife conference in Gainesville, Florida this week.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Miami Herald, Apr. 18, 1999]

               ``Huge Wave'' of Fire Stuns Port St. Lucie

                           (By Curtis Morgan)

       Port St. Lucie.--When Don Tagner pulled into his driveway 
     at 4 p.m., the faint smoke curling in the pine scrub looked 
     as harmless as late morning fog.
       The fire seemed at a safe distance, a dozen blocks away. 
     But as a precaution he sent his daughters off with a 
     neighbor. Then he called around to cancel that evening's 
     soccer practice.
       When a neighbor pounded on his door 30 minutes later, 
     Tagner opened it to a world he described as ``hell on a 
     rampage.''
       Black smoke blotted out the sun. He ran to his backyard 
     just in time to recoil from a towering wall of fire rolling 
     in like ``a huge wave. It sounded like a subway coming 
     through. Whoosh.''
       Like that, it engulfed Frank Schultz's home next door. 
     Tagner rushed back in his home, grabbed his car keys and as 
     he turned up a street toward safety, houses two blocks up San 
     Sebastian Avenue turned into roaring red balls.
       For the hundreds who fled it and the hundreds who fought 
     it, Thursday's blaze truly was hellish, the wickedest, most 
     destructive one-day wildfire in Florida in almost 15 years.
       In a bit more than four hours, it raced three miles north-
     northeast from its starting point in southernmost Port St. 
     Lucie--destroying 43 homes, damaging 33 others and scorching 
     545 acres in the heavily wooded neighborhoods east of 
     Interstate 95.
       ``I've seen them travel fast before but I've never seen 
     anything of this magnitude in the 16 years I've been fighting 
     fires,'' said a weary, soot-stained Lt. Mike Gablemann of the 
     St. Lucie County Fire District, who led a crew dousing 
     hundreds of hot spots Friday--including a smoldering file 
     cabinet in the Schultz home.


                          drought index peaked

       An unlucky combination of factors turned the small brush 
     fire into a full-blown inferno.
       Like most of Florida, a record drought has left much of 
     rural St. Lucie County bone-dry and crisp as kindling.
       ``Just look at the grass,'' said Gene Madden, safety 
     director for the state Division of Forestry. ``It's not 
     green, it's brown. It crunches when you walk on it.''
       At 1 p.m. Thursday, forecasters warned Treasure Coast 
     counties that conditions for wildfires would peak that 
     afternoon.
       When the blaze flared up, so did the winds. It was like 
     blowing on a hot coal.


                              a fire storm

       Fire crews rushing to contain the blaze battled to keep up, 
     but couldn't, Gabelmann

[[Page 7274]]

     said. They were outmanned and outmaneuvered by the relentless 
     winds. As quickly as trucks pulled up to one house, flames 
     would appear in treetops a quarter of a mile away.
       ``No fire department, no fire personnel are going to get 
     out in front of it and stop a fire like this,'' Madden said.
       Fires leapt from point to point and house to house in a 
     path a mile wide, with destruction as unpredictable as wind 
     currents.
       ``What we saw was the definition of a fire storm,'' said 
     Lt. Ron Parish of the St. Lucie County Fire District.
       Firefighters were frustrated by their inability to do what 
     they normally do: Put out fires. This was more like triage. 
     Sometimes, they had to drive past one burning house to get to 
     another where they believed people were trapped.
       ``Having to leave a house unprotected . . . gives you a 
     sick feeling,'' Parrish said.


                         unpredictable pattern

       The random patterns of damage showed just how difficult it 
     was to predict where the fires would turn next.
       On one block, two homes back-to-back burned but a wooden 
     swing set between them wasn't even singed. Hundreds of brush-
     choked undeveloped lots and wood-framed homes provided 
     plentiful fuel--enough for the fire to jump the 100-foot-wide 
     C-24 Canal.
       Franklin Navas, a former firefighter from Costa Rica and 
     now an equipment manager, credited the survival of his home 
     to clearing brush a few feet behind his property line. Flames 
     left the vinyl siding on one side of his home drooping like 
     limp spaghetti--but the home stood.
       Ironically, a large group of Port St. Lucie residents had 
     opposed bringing city water to their neighborhoods--and even 
     sued the town to block the process. Hydrants had been 
     scheduled for the area within two years.


                         no time to get dressed

       Navas and his wife, Mayra, and two sisters visiting from 
     New Jersey left at 4 p.m. as police began rolling through the 
     neighborhood ordering evacuations by loud-speakers.
       ``Just in time,'' he said. As they pulled away, the flames 
     had hit the lot next door.
       For many, there was little time to pack family papers or 
     heirlooms or even to get dressed.
       Mike Azbell said his wife, Shelby, pulled children Marissa, 
     4, and Tyler, 2, into the car in a panic once she got word. 
     ``Tyler was running around the house naked and he left 
     naked.''
       At 5 p.m., Florida Power & Light shut off power to about 
     5,000 customers--a move to protect firefighters from live, 
     fallen wires. it also left remaining homeowners defenseless. 
     Without power, their pumps couldn't pull water from their 
     wells for the garden hoses that some tried to use in mostly 
     fruitless efforts to halt flames.
       Outside the roadblocks, homeowners worried about what they 
     would find when they returned or pitched in to help others 
     protect their homes.
       About 50 evacuees gathered at Mike Schachter's house a 
     block outside the cordoned-off area. Some helped hose down 
     his house, while Schachter's mother, Barbara, fed others and 
     baby-sat panicky children--including Mike's son, who 
     celebrated his first birthday that night.
       ``Everyone just tried to help everyone else,'' Mike 
     Schachter said.


                          surveying the damage

       By 7:30 that night, man and nature combined to tame the 
     wildfire.
       `'Mother Nature started it and Mother Nature pinched it 
     off,'' Madden said.
       Local firefighters managed with the help of crews that came 
     from as far south as Hollywood and vital reinforcements from 
     water-bearing helicopters and a tanker plane.
       Several hundred residents spent the night in a Red Cross 
     shelter at the Port St. Lucie Community Center. At daylight 
     on Friday residents returned to neighborhoods that, while 
     devastated in spots, could have been hit much worse. No one 
     was killed or hurt and the number of homes that escaped 
     damage far outnumbered those lost.
       Martha Brann began crying when she thought about all she 
     lost: photos of her children, her mother's gold wedding band 
     and the diamond ring from her former husband--mementos 
     representing the special people in her life.
       ``I couldn't get nothing,'' said Brann, 59.
       But Tagner found all: His wood-framed home remained almost 
     as he had left it. Grass had burned to within a foot of his 
     patio and he lost two plastic garbage cans and a recycling 
     bin, which, as it burned, slightly charred a small section of 
     his garage.
       ``Everybody keeps asking me what my secret was,'' he said. 
     ``It was just luck.''
                                  ____


                  Babbitt Advocates Prescribed Burning

       Gainesville, Fla. (AP)--State and local governments need to 
     get more aggressive in preventing wildfires by using 
     prescribed burns, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said 
     Tuesday.
       ``By taking fire off the land, we've actually increased the 
     fire hazard,'' Babbitt said. ``We must abandon a warfare 
     suppression model and find a thoughtful, scientific, 
     cooperative way to acknowledge this force of nature and 
     harness it to provide a better balance on the landscape.''
       In addition to the controlled burns, which are 
     intentionally set fires ignited to reduce fuel for wildfires, 
     Babbitt also advocated requiring stringent building 
     requirements that help fireproof communities.
       Babbitt, whose office oversees national parkland, spoke to 
     about 300 foresters at the University of Florida's John Gray 
     Distinguished Lecture Series.
       Babbitt said most legislators haven't done enough to plan 
     for prescribed burns and push private property owners to act.
       ``In Oakland, Calif., after the fire in the early '90s 
     which just about wiped out the city, Alameda County actually 
     passed an ordinance requiring brush control,'' Babbitt said.
       ``For landowners who didn't do it, the county would do it 
     and add the costs to their property taxes. I don't know if 
     that's the right answer, but it's a way to do it,'' he said.
       In Florida, the state's Division of Forestry said it has 
     authorized prescribed burns for 700,000 acres of land this 
     year.
       There is no statewide plan for specific prescribed burns, 
     though private and public landowners have their own plans. A 
     state forestry official said landowners are encouraged to 
     perform prescribed burns, but they can't be forced.
       ``We can designate areas as high fire hazards and by 
     designating that we can burn it for them, but we can't tell 
     them that they're going to burn one-third of their acreage,'' 
     said Jim Brenner, fire management administrator for the 
     forestry division.
       As for fireproofing communities, Babbitt said local 
     governments need to ensure that homes get built with fire 
     resistant roofing. He also said the homes should be far 
     enough away from thick woods and hanging trees, such as 
     pines, to prevent damage from an approaching fire.
       Babbitt also said if Florida's fires tap the state's 
     firefighting resources, federal authorities will help provide 
     the needed manpower and equipment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 870. A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
App.) to increase the efficiency and accountability of Offices of the 
Inspector General within Federal departments, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                         INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Inspector 
General Act Amendments of 1999. I am very pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senators Roth, Grassley, and Bond, who have demonstrated 
unparalleled leadership on IG issues in the Senate. Indeed, Senator 
Roth is one of the architects of the inspector general law, having 
advocated its creation in 1978 and, in 1982, having introduced 
legislation that created IGs in the Departments of Defense, Justice, 
and the Treasury. In such distinguished company, I am confident that my 
legislation hits the mark of improving an already invaluable program.
  As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, one of 
my top priorities since coming to the Senate has been the seemingly 
never-ending fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. We have all heard 
the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads built to nowhere. The 
waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of 
taxpayers, but also places severe financial pressures on already 
overburdened programs, in some cases forcing cutbacks in the delivery 
of vital Government services.
  Over the past 2 years in my capacity as the subcommittee's chairman, 
I have seen disturbing fraud and waste firsthand in a wide variety of 
programs. Last year, for example, the subcommittee held several 
hearings to shine a spotlight on the massive fraud in the Medicare 
Program. To cite just one example of the subcommittee's findings, our 
investigation revealed that the Federal Government had been sending 
Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies. These companies 
provided absolutely no services to our senior citizens at all. Indeed, 
the address listed by one such company did not even exist, and if it 
had existed, it would have been located in the middle of the runway of 
the Miami International Airport.
  The fraud we uncovered was stunning. It costs taxpayers millions of 
dollars each year, diverting scarce resources from the elderly and 
legitimate health care providers in a program already under enormous 
financial strain.
  The Medicare fraud investigation and others like it were undertaken 
by my

[[Page 7275]]

subcommittee working hand in hand with the inspectors general for a 
variety of Federal agencies. The inspectors general are charged with 
identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs 
administered by the agencies they monitor.
  Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the IG Act, the law that 
Congress passed to create these guardians of the public purse. As we 
recognize this important milestone, it is important for Congress to 
take a close look at the IG system. We must build on its strengths and 
remedy its weaknesses.
  Over the past 21 years, the inspector general community has grown 
from 12 in 1978 to 58 inspectors general today. Offices of Inspectors 
General receive more than a billion dollars in annual funding and 
employ over 12,000 auditors, criminal investigators, and support 
personnel. Each Office of Inspector General shoulders tremendous 
responsibilities and is given considerable power to uncover waste, 
fraud, and abuse within Federal programs.
  By and large, the IG community has performed in an outstanding 
manner. IGs have made thousands of recommendations to Congress, 
ultimately saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Inspectors general 
have conducted investigations that have resulted in the recovery of 
hundreds of millions of dollars from companies and individuals who have 
defrauded the Federal Government.
  The inspectors general have a demonstrated record of success over the 
past 20 years. But as with all Government entities, we must ensure that 
the IG community is as well-managed, accountable, and effective as 
possible. IGs are public watchdogs, but they, too, must be watched. 
With these principles in mind and drawing on my extensive work with the 
inspectors general over the past 2 years, I am today introducing 
legislation to improve the accountability, independence, and efficiency 
of the inspectors general program.
  The legislation I am introducing is designed to increase the 
accountability of inspectors general while retaining and, in some 
aspects, strengthening the provisions in law that guarantee their 
independence from the agencies they oversee.
  My bill establishes a renewable 9-year term of office for each of the 
inspectors general who are appointed by the President and confirmed by 
the Senate. Currently, Presidential IGs serve for an indeterminate 
term.
  The IG community has testified that having a fixed term of office 
would provide them with the assurances they need to be able to perform 
their vital but, in some cases, unpopular oversight responsibilities in 
a more independent environment.
  The 9-year term also would enhance IG autonomy because it would 
extend beyond two Presidential administrations.
  There has been considerable turnover in some of the IG positions, and 
the establishment of a fixed term would also encourage inspectors 
general to serve for longer periods of time, thus, adding experience to 
the IG community. Finally, by providing a defined term of service, an 
appropriate framework is provided for the evaluation of the performance 
of each IG to determine if re-appointment is warranted. Thus, Mr. 
President, the 9-year term I am proposing would both enhance the 
independence of the IGs while improving their accountability.
  My legislation also takes steps to streamline the IG offices 
themselves, making them more efficient and flexible, by consolidating 
existing offices and by reducing the frequency with which IGs must 
prepare and file resource-intensive reports.
  Some of the IGs' offices that exist today are very small, with just a 
handful of employees. They could be made more efficient and effective 
by transferring their functions to larger IG offices that oversee 
similar programs.
  For example, my legislation consolidates the current stand-alone 
office of the Federal Labor Relations Authority IG, which has just one 
employee, into the Office of Personnel Management, thus eliminating 
unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy but continuing the vital audit and 
oversight capacity of both agencies. In total, three existing small 
IGs' offices would be consolidated into the IG offices of major 
departments and two smaller IG offices would be consolidated into one 
office.
  Currently, Mr. President, the Offices of Inspectors General are 
required by law to provide semiannual reports to Congress. To increase 
the value of these reports, I am reducing this requirement to a single 
annual report and streamlining the information presented. In this way, 
Congress can focus on high-risk areas before they get worse and before 
the problems become more difficult to solve.
  Mr. President, the inspectors general have made very valuable 
contributions to the efficient operation of the Federal Government. 
Their record, however, is not without blemish. For example, the 
community's record was tarnished by the activities of the inspector 
general at the Department of Treasury. After an extensive 
investigation, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found this 
particular IG violated Federal contract laws in her award of two 
noncompetitive, sole source contracts.
  These actions not only wasted thousands of dollars but also shook the 
confidence of Congress, the agency, and the public in the IG's ability 
to operate with the highest degree of integrity. It was extremely 
disturbing to find that this inspector general was herself guilty of 
wasting resources and abusing the public trust. At the conclusion of 
our investigation, one could not help but wonder, who is watching the 
watchdogs?
  Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that in my view, problems like the 
ones we uncovered in the Treasury Department are very unusual. They are 
not characteristic of the IG community. They are not widespread. 
However, because the inspectors general are the very officials in the 
Government responsible for combating waste, fraud, and abuse, they 
should be held to the very highest ethical standards. Even one example 
of impropriety is cause for concern.
  To increase accountability, my legislation requires independent 
external reviews of each IG office every 3 years. It gives each office 
the flexibility to choose the most efficient method of review, but it 
does require that the watchdogs themselves submit to oversight by a 
qualified third party. This provision is intended to help ensure public 
confidence in the management and the efficiency of the IG offices and 
will provide valuable guidance to Congress in fulfilling our oversight 
responsibilities.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the National Commission 
on the Separation of Powers has endorsed my recommendation that such an 
independent, external review be conducted of each IG office. The 
Commission is a bipartisan committee sponsored by the Miller Center for 
Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and includes among its 
members former Senator Howard Baker, former White House Counsel Lloyd 
Cutler, former U.S. Attorney William Barr, former Secretary of State 
Lawrence Eagleburger, and former Director of Central Intelligence 
William Webster. I am very proud that my proposal has been endorsed by 
such an esteemed organization.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents a major 
step toward improving the effectiveness, the independence, and the 
accountability of the inspectors general program. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in this effort to strengthen and improve the inspectors 
general program as we approach the next century.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 871. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure 
that veterans of the United States Armed Forces are eligible for 
discretionary relief from detention, deportation, exclusion, and 
removal, and for other reasons; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               fairness to immigrant veterans act of 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would ensure that veterans of the

[[Page 7276]]

United States Armed Forces are not summarily deported from this 
country. This bill would correct a grave injustice wrought by the 
recent changes in immigration policy, which has resulted in decorated 
war veterans being deported without any administrative or judicial 
consideration of the equities.
  Under the immigration ``reform'' legislation enacted in 1996, 
Congress passed and the President endorsed a broad expansion of the 
definition of what makes a legal resident deportable. In the rush to be 
the toughest on illegal immigration, the bill also vastly limited 
relief from deportation and imposed mandatory detention for thousands 
of permanent residents in deportation proceedings.
  The zealousness of Congress and the White House to be tough on aliens 
has successfully snared permanent residents who have spilled their 
blood for our country. As the INS prepares to deport these American 
veterans, we have not even been kind enough to thank them for their 
service with a hearing to listen to their story and consider whether, 
just possibly, their military service or other life circumstances 
outweighs the government's interest in deporting them.
  Here is the cold and ugly side of our ``tough'' immigration policies. 
Here are the human consequences of legislating by 30-second political 
ad. Unfortunately the checks and balances of our government have failed 
these veterans because Congress and this Administration are determined 
not to be outdone by each other. ``Tough'' in this case means blinding 
ourselves to the personal consequences of these people. It means 
substituting discretion with a cold rubber stamp that can only say 
``no.''
  Our national policy on deportation of veterans is particularly 
outrageous at a time when we are sending tens of thousands of U.S. 
servicemen and women, including untold numbers of permanent residents, 
into harms way. Why has Congress asked the INS to devote its limited 
resources to hunting down non-citizens who previously answered this 
country's call to duty, some of whom were permanently disabled in the 
course of their service?
  Interestingly, it appears that even the INS agrees that military 
service or other life circumstances may, on occasion, outweigh the 
government's interest in deportation. In one recent case, which I 
brought to the attention of INS Commissioner Meissner, the INS 
eventually reached this conclusion. I am honored if my intervention 
played a part in obtaining some semblance of justice for Sergeant 
Rafael Ramirez and his family. However, Sergeant Ramirez's example 
confirms the need to ensure that every veteran's case is carefully 
reviewed by an immigration judge empowered to do justice.
  The legislation that I introduce today restores for veterans the 
opportunity to go before an immigration judge to present the equities 
of their case and to have a Federal court review any deportation 
decision. It also provides veterans with an opportunity to be released 
from detention while their case is under consideration.
  The injustice addressed by this bill is just one egregious example of 
how recent immigration ``reform'' has resulted in the break-up of 
American families and the deportation of people who have contributed to 
our country. This Congress needs to address the broader injustices that 
our prior one-upmanship caused. In the meantime, this bill is an 
important step in the right direction.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Abraham, 
        Mr. Levin, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 872. A bill to impose certain limits on the receipt of out-of-
State municipal solid waste, to authorize State and local controls over 
the flow of municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


municipal solid waste interstate transportation and local authority act 
                                of 1999

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
along with my colleague, Senator Bayh, that will allow states to 
finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste 
that is flowing into states like Ohio and Indiana and many others.
  Our bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and 
Local Authority Act,'' gives state and local governments the tools they 
need to limit garbage imports from other states and manage their own 
waste within their own states.
  Ohio receives about 1.4 million tons of municipal solid waste 
annually from other states. While I am pleased that these shipments 
have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I 
believe it is still entirely too high.
  Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, other states have 
simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to 
states like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is 
wrong and it has to stop.
  Many state and local governments have worked hard to develop 
strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As 
Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-
state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill 
operators and agreements with other states. We saw limited relief. But 
honestly Mr. President, Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state 
waste numbers won't rise significantly with the upcoming closure of the 
Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001.
  However, the federal courts have prevented states from enacting laws 
to protect our natural resources. What has emerged is an unnatural 
pattern where Ohio and other states--both importing and exporting--have 
tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local 
disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at 
every turn.
  Quite frankly, state and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a 
specific delegation of authority from Congress, states that have acted 
responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and 
recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state 
waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because 
Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill 
space when it is being used for other states' trash. Our citizens 
already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- 
state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and 
litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses.
  Ohio and many other states have taken comprehensive steps to protect 
our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, 
excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal in other states has limited the 
ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I 
do not believe the commerce clause requires us to service other states 
at the expense of our own citizens' efforts.
  A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio 
in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor 
Bayh (now Senator Bayh), Governor Engler and Governor Casey, and later 
Governors Ridge and O'Bannon--to try to pass effective interstate waste 
and flow control legislation.
  In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked to reach an agreement with 
Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our states 
quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey--the second largest 
exporting state--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions 
with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of 
their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill.
  The bill that Senator Bayh and I are introducing today reflects the 
agreement that our two states, along with Michigan and Pennsylvania, 
reached with Governor Whitman.
  For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for 
states to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the 
option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a state to impose a 
percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new 
facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. 
Or, a state could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny 
a permit

[[Page 7277]]

for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-
state regional need for that facility.
  These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other states that new 
facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving 
out-of-state waste. For instance, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a 
landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--
approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would 
have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully 
this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste 
company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is 
not enough need for the facility in the state and they need to ensure a 
steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible.
  With the announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill, it is even 
more critical to Ohio that states should receive the authority to place 
limits on new facilities and expansions of existing facilities. The 
Congressional Research Service estimates that when Fresh Kills closes, 
there will be an additional 13,200 tons of garbage each day diverted to 
other facilities. However, CRS also points out that there is only about 
1,200 tons per day of capacity available in the entire state of New 
York. Even if New York handles some of that 13,200 tons a day in-state, 
it is estimated that about 4 million tons per year will still need to 
be managed outside the state from that landfill alone.
  In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators 
could not receive trash from other states until local governments 
approve its receipt. States also could freeze their out-of-state waste 
at 1993 levels, while some states would be able to reduce these levels 
to 65 percent by the year 2006. This bill also allows states to reduce 
the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 
percent in 2007 at the earliest.
  States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge 
on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide states with the 
funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs.
  And finally, the bill grants limited flow control authority in order 
for municipalities to pay off existing bonds and guarantee a dedicated 
waste stream for landfills or incinerators.
  Flow control is important to states like New Jersey, which has taken 
aggressive steps to try to manage all of its trash within its borders 
by the year 2000. New Jersey communities have acted responsibly to 
build disposal facilities to help meet that goal. However, if Congress 
fails to protect existing flow control authorities, repayment of the 
outstanding $1.9 billion investment in New Jersey alone will be 
jeopardized.
  I am deeply concerned that responsible decisions made by Ohio, New 
Jersey and other states have been undermined and have put potentially 
large financial burdens on communities and have encouraged exporting 
states to pass their trash problems onto the backs of others.
  Twenty-four Governors, including Governor Whitman, and the Western 
Governors' Association have sent letters to Congress strongly 
supporting the provisions that are in our bill.
  Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of-
state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban 
all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, Senator Bayh and I are not 
asking for outright authority for states to prohibit all out-of-state 
waste, nor are we seeking to prohibit waste from any one state.
  We are asking for reasonable tools that will enable state and local 
governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit 
unreasonable waste imports from other states. Such measures would give 
substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around our 
own states' needs.
  I believe the time is right to move an effective interstate waste 
bill. The bill we are introducing today is a consensus of importing and 
exporting states--states that have willingly come forward to offer a 
reasonable solution.
  Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other 
affected states the relief they need from the truckloads of waste 
passing through their communities. We have waited too long for a 
solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading 
further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East 
better manage the trash they generate.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a letter 
from Governors O'Bannon, Taft, Engler and Whitman and one from Governor 
Ridge be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 872

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Municipal Solid Waste 
     Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT RECEIPT OF OUT-OF-
                   STATE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT EXISTING 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 4011. AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT RECEIPT OF OUT-
                   OF-STATE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT EXISTING 
                   FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Affected local government.--The term `affected local 
     government', with respect to a facility, means--
       ``(A) the public body authorized by State law to plan for 
     the management of municipal solid waste for the area in which 
     the facility is located or proposed to be located, a majority 
     of the members of which public body are elected officials;
       ``(B) in a case in which there is no public body described 
     in subparagraph (A), the elected officials of the city, town, 
     township, borough, county, or parish selected by the Governor 
     and exercising primary responsibility over municipal solid 
     waste management or the use of land in the jurisdiction in 
     which the facility is located or proposed to be located; or
       ``(C) in a case in which there is in effect an agreement or 
     compact under section 105(b), contiguous units of local 
     government located in each of 2 or more adjoining States that 
     are parties to the agreement, for purposes of providing 
     authorization under subsection (b), (c), or (d) for municipal 
     solid waste generated in the jurisdiction of 1 of those units 
     of local government and received in the jurisdiction of 
     another of those units of local government.
       ``(2) Authorization to receive out-of-state municipal solid 
     waste.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `authorization to receive out-
     of-State municipal solid waste' means a provision contained 
     in a host community agreement or permit that specifically 
     authorizes a facility to receive out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste.
       ``(B) Specific authorization.--
       ``(i) Sufficient formulations.--For the purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), only the following, shall be considered to 
     specifically authorize a facility to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste:

       ``(I) an authorization to receive municipal solid waste 
     from any place within a fixed radius surrounding the facility 
     that includes an area outside the State;
       ``(II) an authorization to receive municipal solid waste 
     from any place of origin in the absence of any provision 
     limiting those places of origin to places inside the State;
       ``(III) an authorization to receive municipal solid waste 
     from a specifically identified place or places outside the 
     State; or

       ``(IV) a provision that uses such a phrase as `regardless 
     of origin' or `outside the State' in reference to municipal 
     solid waste.

       ``(ii) Insufficient formulations.--For the purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), either of the following, by itself, shall 
     not be considered to specifically authorize a facility to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste:

       ``(I) A general reference to the receipt of municipal solid 
     waste from outside the jurisdiction of the affected local 
     government.
       ``(II) An agreement to pay a fee for the receipt of out-of-
     State? municipal solid waste.

       ``(C) Form of authorization.--To qualify as an 
     authorization to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste, 
     a provision need not be in any particular form; a provision 
     shall so qualify so long as the provision clearly and 
     affirmatively states the approval or consent of the affected 
     local government or State for receipt of municipal solid 
     waste from places of origin outside the State.
       ``(3) Disposal.--The term `disposal' includes incineration.
       ``(4) Existing host community agreement.--The term 
     `existing host community agreement' means a host community 
     agreement entered into before January 1, 1999.
       ``(5) Facility.--The term `facility' means a landfill, 
     incinerator, or other enterprise that received municipal 
     solid waste before the date of enactment of this section.

[[Page 7278]]

       ``(6) Governor.--The term `Governor', with respect to a 
     facility, means the chief executive officer of the State in 
     which a facility is located or proposed to be located or any 
     other officer authorized under State law to exercise 
     authority under this section.
       ``(7) Host community agreement.--The term `host community 
     agreement' means a written, legally binding agreement, 
     lawfully entered into between an owner or operator of a 
     facility and an affected local government that contains an 
     authorization to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       ``(8) Municipal solid waste.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `municipal solid waste' means--
       ``(i) material discarded for disposal by--

       ``(I) households (including single and multifamily 
     residences); and
       ``(II) public lodgings such as hotels and motels; and

       ``(ii) material discarded for disposal that was generated 
     by commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, to the 
     extent that the material--

       ``(I) is essentially the same as material described in 
     clause (i); or
       ``(II) is collected and disposed of with material described 
     in clause (i) as part of a normal municipal solid waste 
     collection service.

       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' 
     includes--
       ``(i) appliances;
       ``(ii) clothing;
       ``(iii) consumer product packaging;
       ``(iv) cosmetics;
       ``(v) disposable diapers;
       ``(vi) food containers made of glass or metal;
       ``(vii) food waste;
       ``(viii) household hazardous waste;
       ``(ix) office supplies;
       ``(x) paper; and
       ``(xi) yard waste.
       ``(C) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste 
     under section 3001, except for household hazardous waste;
       ``(ii) solid waste resulting from--

       ``(I) a response action taken under section 104 or 106 of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606);
       ``(II) a response action taken under a State law with 
     authorities comparable to the authorities contained in either 
     of those sections; or
       ``(III) a corrective action taken under this Act;

       ``(iii) recyclable material--

       ``(I) that has been separated, at the source of the 
     material, from waste destined for disposal; or
       ``(II) that has been managed separately from waste destined 
     for disposal, including scrap rubber to be used as a fuel 
     source;

       ``(iv) a material or product returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer or an agent of the 
     manufacturer for credit, evaluation, and possible potential 
     reuse;
       ``(v) solid waste that is--

       ``(I) generated by an industrial facility; and
       ``(II) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, 
     or disposal to a facility (which facility is in compliance 
     with applicable State and local land use and zoning laws and 
     regulations) or facility unit--

       ``(aa) that is owned or operated by the generator of the 
     waste;
       ``(bb) that is located on property owned by the generator 
     of the waste or a company with which the generator is 
     affiliated; or
       ``(cc) the capacity of which is contractually dedicated 
     exclusively to a specific generator;
       ``(vi) medical waste that is segregated from or not mixed 
     with solid waste;
       ``(vii) sewage sludge or residuals from a sewage treatment 
     plant; or
       ``(viii) combustion ash generated by a resource recovery 
     facility or municipal incinerator.
       ``(9) New host community agreement.--The term `new host 
     community agreement' means a host community agreement entered 
     into on or after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(10) Out-of-state municipal solid waste.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste', with respect to a State, means municipal solid waste 
     generated outside the State.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste' includes municipal solid waste generated outside the 
     United States.
       ``(11) Receive.--The term `receive' means receive for 
     disposal.
       ``(12) Recyclable material.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `recyclable material' means a 
     material that may feasibly be used as a raw material or 
     feedstock in place of or in addition to, virgin material in 
     the manufacture of a usable material or product.
       ``(B) Virgin material.--In subparagraph (A), the term 
     `virgin material' includes petroleum.
       ``(b) Prohibition of Receipt for Disposal of Out-of-State 
     Waste.--No facility may receive for disposal out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste except as provided in subsections (c), 
     (d), and (e).
       ``(c) Existing Host Community Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility 
     operating under an existing host community agreement may 
     receive for disposal out-of-State municipal solid waste if--
       ``(A) the owner or operator of the facility has complied 
     with paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) the owner or operator of the facility is in 
     compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the host 
     community agreement.
       ``(2) Public inspection of agreement.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this section, the owner 
     or operator of a facility described in paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) provide a copy of the existing host community 
     agreement to the State and affected local government; and
       ``(B) make a copy of the existing host community agreement 
     available for inspection by the public in the local 
     community.
       ``(d) New Host Community Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility 
     operating under a new host community agreement may receive 
     for disposal out-of-State municipal solid waste if--
       ``(A) the agreement meets the requirements of paragraphs 
     (2) through(5); and
       ``(B) the owner or operator of the facility is in 
     compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the host 
     community agreement.
       ``(2) Requirements for authorization.--
       ``(A) In general.--Authorization to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste under a new host community agreement 
     shall--
       ``(i) be granted by formal action at a meeting;
       ``(ii) be recorded in writing in the official record of the 
     meeting; and
       ``(iii) remain in effect according to the terms of the new 
     host community agreement.
       ``(B) Specifications.--An authorization to receive out-of-
     State municipal solid waste shall specify terms and 
     conditions, including--
       ``(i) the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     that the facility may receive; and
       ``(ii) the duration of the authorization.
       ``(3) Information.--Before seeking an authorization to 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste under a new host 
     community agreement, the owner or operator of the facility 
     seeking the authorization shall provide (and make readily 
     available to the State, each contiguous local government and 
     Indian tribe, and any other interested person for inspection 
     and copying) the following:
       ``(A) A brief description of the facility, including, with 
     respect to the facility and any planned expansion of the 
     facility, a description of--
       ``(i) the size of the facility;
       ``(ii) the ultimate municipal solid waste capacity of the 
     facility; and
       ``(iii) the anticipated monthly and yearly volume of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste to be received at the 
     facility.
       ``(B) A map of the facility site that indicates--
       ``(i) the location of the facility in relation to the local 
     road system; and
       ``(ii) topographical and general hydrogeological features;
       ``(iii) any buffer zones to be acquired by the owner or 
     operator; and
       ``(iv) all facility units.
       ``(C) A description of--
       ``(i) the environmental characteristics of the site, as of 
     the date of application for authorization;
       ``(ii) ground water use in the area, including 
     identification of private wells and public drinking water 
     sources; and
       ``(iii) alterations that may be necessitated by, or occur 
     as a result of, operation of the facility.
       ``(D) A description of--
       ``(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--

[[Page 7279]]

       ``(i) any violation of environmental law (including 
     regulations) by the owner or operator or any subsidiary of 
     the owner or operator;
       ``(ii) the disposition of any enforcement proceeding taken 
     with respect to the violation; and
       ``(iii) any corrective action and rehabilitation measures 
     taken as a result of the proceeding.
       ``(I) Any information that is required by Federal or State 
     law to be provided with respect to compliance by the owner or 
     operator with the State solid waste management plan.
       ``(J) Any information that is required by Federal or State 
     law to be provided with respect to gifts and contributions 
     made by the owner or operator.
       ``(4) Advance notification.--Before taking formal action to 
     grant or deny authorization to receive out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste under a new host community agreement, an affected 
     local government shall--
       ``(A) notify the State, contiguous local governments, and 
     any contiguous Indian tribes;
       ``(B) publish notice of the proposed action in a newspaper 
     of general circulation at least 15 days before holding a 
     hearing under subparagraph (C), except where State law 
     provides for an alternate form of public notification; and
       ``(C) provide an opportunity for public comment in 
     accordance with State law, including at least 1 public 
     hearing.
       ``(5) Subsequent notification.--Not later than 90 days 
     after an authorization to receive out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste is granted under a new host community agreement, 
     the affected local government shall give notice of the 
     authorization to--
       ``(A) the Governor;
       ``(B) contiguous local governments; and
       ``(C) any contiguous Indian tribes.
       ``(e) Receipt for Disposal of Out-of-State Municipal Solid 
     Waste by Facilities Not Subject to Host Community 
     Agreements.--
       ``(1) Permit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility 
     for which, before the date of enactment of this section, the 
     State issued a permit containing an authorization may receive 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste if--
       ``(i) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this section, the owner or operator of the facility notifies 
     the affected local government of the existence of the permit; 
     and
       ``(ii) the owner or operator of the facility complies with 
     all of the terms and conditions of the permit after the date 
     of enactment of this section.
       ``(B) Denied or revoked permits.--A facility may not 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste under subparagraph 
     (A) if the operating permit for the facility (or any renewal 
     of the operating permit) was denied or revoked by the 
     appropriate State agency before the date of enactment of this 
     section unless the permit or renewal was granted, renewed, or 
     reinstated before that date.
       ``(2) Documented receipt during 1993.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (f), a facility 
     that, during 1993, received out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste may receive out-of-State municipal solid waste if the 
     owner or operator of the facility submits to the State and to 
     the affected local government documentation of the receipt of 
     out-of-State municipal solid waste during 1993, including 
     information about--
       ``(i) the date of receipt of the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste;
       ``(ii) the volume of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received in 1993;
       ``(iii) the place of origin of the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received; and
       ``(iv) the type of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received.
       ``(B) False or misleading information.--Documentation 
     submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be made under penalty 
     of perjury under State law for the submission of false or 
     misleading information.
       ``(C) Availability of documentation.--The owner or operator 
     of a facility that receives out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste under subparagraph (A)--

       ``(I) shall make available for inspection by the public in 
     the local community a copy of the documentation submitted 
     under subparagraph (A); but
       ``(II) may omit any proprietary information contained in 
     the documentation.

       ``(3) Bi-state metropolitan statistical areas.--
       ``(A) In general.--A facility in a State may receive out-
     of-State municipal solid waste if the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste is generated in, and the facility is located in, 
     the same bi-State level A metropolitan statistical area (as 
     defined and listed by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget as of the date of enactment of this 
     section) that contains 2 contiguous major cities, each of 
     which is in a different State.
       ``(B) Governor agreement.--A facility described in 
     subparagraph (A) may receive out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste only if the Governor of each State in the bi-State 
     metropolitan statistical area agrees that the facility may 
     receive out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       ``(f) Required Compliance.--A facility may not receive out-
     of-State municipal solid waste under subsection (c), (d), or 
     (e) at any time at which the State has determined that--
       ``(1) the facility is not in compliance with applicable 
     Federal and State laws (including regulations) relating to--
       ``(A) facility design and operation; and
       ``(B)(i) in the case of a landfill--
       ``(I) facility location standards;
       ``(II) leachate collection standards;
       ``(III) ground water monitoring standards; and
       ``(IV) standards for financial assurance and for closure, 
     postclosure, and corrective action; and
       ``(ii) in the case of an incinerator, the applicable 
     requirements of section 129 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7429); and
       ``(2) the noncompliance constitutes a threat to human 
     health or the environment.
       ``(g) Authority To Limit Receipt of Out-of-State Municipal 
     Solid Waste.--
       ``(1) Limits on quantity of waste received.--
       ``(A) Limit for all facilities in the state.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State may limit the quantity of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste received annually at each 
     facility in the State to the quantity described in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(ii) No conflict.--

       ``(I) In general.--A limit under clause (i) shall not 
     conflict with--

       ``(aa) an authorization to receive out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste contained in a permit; or
       ``(bb) a host community agreement entered into between the 
     owner or operator of a facility and the affected local 
     government.

       ``(II) Conflict.--A limit shall be treated as conflicting 
     with a permit or host community agreement if the permit or 
     host community agreement establishes a higher limit, or if 
     the permit or host community agreement does not establish a 
     limit, on the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     that may be received annually at the facility.

       ``(B) Limit for particular facilities.--
       ``(i) In general.--An affected local government that has 
     not executed a host community agreement with a particular 
     facility may limit the quantity of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received annually at the facility to the quantity 
     specified in paragraph (2).
       ``(ii) No conflict.--A limit under clause (i) shall not 
     conflict with an authorization to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste contained in a permit.
       ``(C) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this subsection 
     supersedes any State law relating to contracts.
       ``(2) Limit on quantity.--
       ``(A) In general.--For any facility that commenced 
     receiving documented out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     before the date of enactment of this section, the quantity 
     referred to in paragraph (1) for any year shall be equal to 
     the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste received 
     at the facility during calendar year 1993.
       ``(B) Documentation.--
       ``(i) Contents.--Documentation submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall include information about--

       ``(I) the date of receipt of the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste;
       ``(II) the volume of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received in 1993;
       ``(III) the place of origin of the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received; and
       ``(IV) the type of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received.

       ``(ii) False or misleading information.--Documentation 
     submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be made under penalty 
     of perjury under State law for the submission of false or 
     misleading information.
       ``(3) No discrimination.--In establishing a limit under 
     this subsection, a State shall act in a manner that does not 
     discriminate against any shipment of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste on the basis of State of origin.
       ``(h) Authority To Limit Receipt of Out-of-State Municipal 
     Solid Waste to Declining Percentages of Quantities Received 
     During 1993.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State in which facilities received 
     more than 650,000 tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     in calendar year 1993 may establish a limit on the quantity 
     of out-of-State municipal solid waste that may be received at 
     all facilities in the State described in subsection (e)(2) in 
     the following quantities:
       ``(A) In calendar year 2000, 95 percent of the quantity 
     received in calendar year 1993.
       ``(B) In each of calendar years 2001 through 2006, 95 
     percent of the quantity received in the previous year.
       ``(C) In each calendar year after calendar year 2006, 65 
     percent of the quantity received in calendar year 1993.
       ``(2) Uniform applicability.--A limit under paragraph (1) 
     shall apply uniformly--
       ``(A) to the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     that may be received at all facilities in the State that 
     received out-of-State municipal solid waste in calendar year 
     1993; and
       ``(B) for each facility described in clause (i), to the 
     quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste that may be 
     received from each State that generated out-of-State 
     municipal

[[Page 7280]]

     solid waste received at the facility in calendar year 1993.
       ``(3) Notice.--Not later than 90 days before establishing a 
     limit under paragraph (1), a State shall provide notice of 
     the proposed limit to each State from which municipal solid 
     waste was received in calendar year 1993.
       ``(4) Alternative authorities.--If a State exercises 
     authority under this subsection, the State may not thereafter 
     exercise authority under subsection (g).
       ``(i)  Cost Recovery Surcharge.--
       ``(1)  Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Cost.--The term `cost' means a cost incurred by the 
     State for the implementation of State laws governing the 
     processing, combustion, or disposal of municipal solid waste, 
     limited to--
       ``(i) the issuance of new permits and renewal of or 
     modification of permits;
       ``(ii) inspection and compliance monitoring;
       ``(iii) enforcement; and
       ``(iv) costs associated with technical assistance, data 
     management, and collection of fees.
       ``(B) Processing.--The term `processing' means any activity 
     to reduce the volume of municipal solid waste or alter the 
     chemical, biological or physical state of municipal solid 
     waste, through processes such as thermal treatment, bailing, 
     composting, crushing, shredding, separation, or compaction.
       ``(2) Authority.--A State may authorize, impose, and 
     collect a cost recovery charge on the processing or disposal 
     of out-of-State municipal solid waste in the State in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(3)  Amount of surcharge.--The amount of a cost recovery 
     surcharge--
       ``(A) may be no greater than the amount necessary to 
     recover those costs determined in conformance with paragraph 
     (5); and
       ``(B) in no event may exceed $3.00 per ton of waste.
       ``(4)  Use of surcharge collected.--All cost recovery 
     surcharges collected by a State under this subsection shall 
     be used to fund solid waste management programs, administered 
     by the State or a political subdivision of the State, that 
     incur costs for which the surcharge is collected.
       ``(5)  Conditions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a 
     State may impose and collect a cost recovery surcharge on the 
     processing or disposal within the State of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste if--
       ``(i) the State demonstrates a cost to the State arising 
     from the processing or disposal within the State of a volume 
     of municipal solid waste from a source outside the State;
       ``(ii) the surcharge is based on those costs to the State 
     demonstrated under subparagraph (A) that, if not paid for 
     through the surcharge, would otherwise have to be paid or 
     subsidized by the State; and
       ``(iii) the surcharge is compensatory and is not 
     discriminatory.
       ``(B) Prohibition of surcharge.--In no event shall a cost 
     recovery surcharge be imposed by a State to the extent that--
       ``(i) the cost for which recovery is sought is otherwise 
     paid, recovered, or offset by any other fee or tax paid to 
     the State or a political subdivision of the State; or
       ``(ii) to the extent that the amount of the surcharge is 
     offset by voluntary payments to a State or a political 
     subdivision of the State, in connection with the generation, 
     transportation, treatment, processing, or disposal of solid 
     waste.
       ``(C) Subsidy; non-discrimination.--The grant of a subsidy 
     by a State with respect to entities disposing of waste 
     generated within the State does not constitute discrimination 
     for purposes of subparagraph (A).
       ``(j) Implementation and Enforcement.--A State may adopt 
     such laws (including regulations), not inconsistent with this 
     section, as are appropriate to implement and enforce this 
     section, including provisions for penalties.
       ``(k) Annual State Report.--
       ``(1) Facilities.--On February 1, 2000, and on February 1 
     of each subsequent year, the owner or operator of each 
     facility that receives out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     shall submit to the State information specifying--
       ``(A) the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received during the preceding calendar year; and
       ``(B) the State of origin of the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received during the preceding calendar year.
       ``(2) Transfer stations.--
       ``(A) Definition of receive for transfer.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `receive for transfer' means receive for 
     temporary storage pending transfer to another State or 
     facility.
       ``(B) Report.--On February 1, 2000, and on February 1 of 
     each subsequent year, the owner or operator of each transfer 
     station that receives for transfer out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste shall submit to the State a report describing--
       ``(A) the quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received for transfer during the preceding calendar year;
       ``(B) each State of origin of the out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received for transfer during the preceding 
     calendar year; and
       ``(C) each State of destination of the out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste transferred from the transfer station 
     during the preceding calendar year.
       ``(3) No preclusion of state requirements.--The 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) do not preclude any 
     State requirement for more frequent reporting.
       ``(4) False or misleading information.--Documentation 
     submitted under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be made under 
     penalty of perjury under State law for the submission of 
     false or misleading information.
       ``(5) Report.--On March 1, 2000, and on March 1 of each 
     year thereafter, each State to which information is submitted 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall publish and make available 
     to the public a report containing information on the quantity 
     of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal 
     and received for transfer in the State during the preceding 
     calendar year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by 
     adding after the item relating to section 4010 the following:

``Sec. 4011. Authority to prohibit or limit receipt of out-of-State 
              municipal solid waste at existing facilities.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO DENY PERMITS FOR OR IMPOSE PERCENTAGE 
                   LIMITS ON RECEIPT OF OUT-OF-STATE MUNICIPAL 
                   SOLID WASTE AT NEW FACILITIES.

       (a) Amendment.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) (as amended by section 2(a)), is 
     amended by adding after section 4011 the following:

     ``SEC. 4012. AUTHORITY TO DENY PERMITS FOR OR IMPOSE 
                   PERCENTAGE LIMITS ON RECEIPT OF OUT-OF-STATE 
                   MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT NEW FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Terms defined in section 4011.--The terms 
     `authorization to receive out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste', `disposal', `existing host community agreement', 
     `host community agreement', `municipal solid waste', `out-of-
     State municipal solid waste', and `receive' have the meaning 
     given those terms, respectively, in section 4011.
       ``(2) Other terms.--The term `facility' means a landfill, 
     incinerator, or other enterprise that receives out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste on or after the date of enactment of 
     this section.
       ``(b) Authority to Deny Permits or Impose Percentage 
     Limits.--
       ``(1) Alternative authorities.--In any calendar year, a 
     State may exercise the authority under either paragraph (2) 
     or paragraph (3), but may not exercise the authority under 
     both paragraphs (2) and (3).
       ``(2) Authority to deny permits.--A State may deny a permit 
     for the construction or operation of or a major modification 
     to a facility if--
       ``(A) the State has approved a State or local comprehensive 
     municipal solid waste management plan developed under Federal 
     or State law; and
       ``(B) the denial is based on a determination, under a State 
     law authorizing the denial, that there is not a local or 
     regional need for the facility in the State.
       ``(3) Authority to impose percentage limit.--A State may 
     provide by law that a State permit for the construction, 
     operation, or expansion of a facility shall include the 
     requirement that not more than a specified percentage (which 
     shall be not less than 20 percent) of the total quantity of 
     municipal solid waste received annually at the facility shall 
     be out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       ``(c) New host community agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(3), a 
     facility operating under an existing host community agreement 
     that contains an authorization to receive out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste in a specific quantity annually may 
     receive that quantity.
       ``(2) No effect on state permit denial.--Nothing in 
     paragraph (1) authorizes a facility described in that 
     paragraph to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste if 
     the State has denied a permit to the facility under 
     subsection (b)(2).
       ``(d) Uniform and nondiscriminatory application.--A law 
     under subsection (b) or (c)--
       ``(1) shall be applicable throughout the State;
       ``(2) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any particular facility; and
       ``(3) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any shipment of out-of- 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.''.

[[Page 7281]]



     SEC. 4. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE.

       (a) Amendment.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) (as amended by section 3(a)), is 
     amended by adding after section 4012 the following:

     ``SEC. 4013. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Terms defined in section 4011.--The terms `affected 
     local government', `Governor', and `receive' have the 
     meanings given those terms, respectively, in section 4011.
       ``(2) Other terms.--
       ``(A) Base year quantity.--The term `base year quantity' 
     means--
       ``(i) the annual quantity of out-of-State construction and 
     demolition debris received at a State in calendar year 2000, 
     as determined under subsection (c)(2)(B)(i); or
       ``(ii) in the case of an expedited implementation under 
     subsection (c)(5), the annual quantity of out-of-State 
     construction and demolition debris received in a State in 
     calendar year 1999.
       ``(B) Construction and demolition waste.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `construction and demolition 
     waste' means debris resulting from the construction, 
     renovation, repair, or demolition of or similar work on a 
     structure.
       ``(ii) Exclusions.--The term `construction and demolition 
     waste' does not include debris that--

       ``(I) is commingled with municipal solid waste; or
       ``(II) is contaminated, as determined under subsection (b).

       ``(C) Facility.--The term `facility' means any enterprise 
     that receives construction and demolition waste on or after 
     the date of enactment of this section, including landfills.
       ``(D) Out-of-state construction and demolition waste.--The 
     term `out-of-State construction and demolition waste' means--
       ``(i) with respect to any State, construction and 
     demolition debris generated outside the State; and
       ``(ii) construction and demolition debris generated outside 
     the United States, unless the President determines that 
     treatment of the construction and demolition debris as out-
     of-State construction and demolition waste under this section 
     would be inconsistent with the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement or the Uruguay Round Agreements (as defined in 
     section 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3501)).
       ``(b) Contaminated Construction and Demolition Debris.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of determining whether 
     debris is contaminated, the generator of the debris shall 
     conduct representative sampling and analysis of the debris.
       ``(2) Submission of results.--Unless not required by the 
     affected local government, the results of the sampling and 
     analysis under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the 
     affected local government for recordkeeping purposes only.
       ``(3) Disposal of contaminated debris.--Any debris 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) that is determined to be 
     contaminated shall be disposed of in a landfill that meets 
     the requirements of this Act.
       ``(c) Limit on Construction and Demolition Waste.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may establish a limit on the 
     annual amount of out-of-State construction and demolition 
     waste that may be received at landfills in the State.
       ``(2) Required action by the state.--A State that seeks to 
     limit the receipt of out-of-State construction and demolition 
     waste received under this section shall--
       ``(i) not later than January 1, 2000, establish and 
     implement reporting requirements to determine the quantity of 
     construction and demolition waste that is--

       ``(I) disposed of in the State; and
       ``(II) imported into the State; and

       ``(ii) not later than March 1, 2001--

       ``(I) establish the annual quantity of out-of-State 
     construction and demolition waste received during calendar 
     year 2000; and
       ``(II) report the tonnage received during calendar year 
     2000 to the Governor of each exporting State.

       ``(3) Reporting by facilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each facility that receives out-of-State 
     construction and demolition debris shall report to the State 
     in which the facility is located the quantity and State of 
     origin of out-of-State construction and demolition debris 
     received--
       ``(i) in calendar year 1999, not later than February 1, 
     2000; and
       ``(ii) in each subsequent calendar year, not later than 
     February 1 of the calendar year following that year.
       ``(B) No preclusion of state requirements.--The requirement 
     of subparagraph (A) does not preclude any State requirement 
     for more frequent reporting.
       ``(C) Penalty.--Each submission under this paragraph shall 
     be made under penalty of perjury under State law.
       ``(4) Limit on debris received.--
       ``(A) Ratchet.--A State in which facilities receive out-of-
     State construction and demolition debris may decrease the 
     quantity of construction and demolition debris that may be 
     received at each facility to an annual percentage of the base 
     year quantity specified in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Reduced annual percentages.--A limit on out-of-State 
     construction and demolition debris imposed by a State under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
       ``(i) in calendar year 2001, 95 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ii) in calendar year 2002, 90 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iii) in calendar year 2003, 85 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iv) in calendar year 2004, 80 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(v) in calendar year 2005, 75 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vi) in calendar year 2006, 70 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vii) in calendar year 2007, 65 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(viii) in calendar year 2008, 60 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ix) in calendar year 2009, 55 percent of the base year 
     quantity; and
       ``(x) in calendar year 2010 and in each subsequent year, 50 
     percent of the base year quantity.
       ``(5) Expedited implementation.--
       ``(A) Ratchet.--A State in which facilities receive out-of-
     State construction and demolition debris may decrease the 
     quantity of construction and demolition debris that may be 
     received at each facility to an annual percentage of the base 
     year quantity specified in subparagraph (B) if--
       ``(i) on the date of enactment of this section, the State 
     has determined the quantity of construction and demolition 
     waste received in the State in calendar year 1999; and
       ``(ii) the State complies with paragraphs (2) and (3).
       ``(B) Expedited reduced annual percentages.--An expedited 
     implementation of a limit on the receipt of out-of-State 
     construction and demolition debris imposed by a State under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be equal to--
       ``(i) in calendar year 2000, 95 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ii) in calendar year 2001, 90 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iii) in calendar year 2002, 85 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(iv) in calendar year 2003, 80 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(v) in calendar year 2004, 75 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vi) in calendar year 2005, 70 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(vii) in calendar year 2006, 65 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(viii) in calendar year 2007, 60 percent of the base year 
     quantity;
       ``(ix) in calendar year 2008, 55 percent of the base year 
     quantity; and
       ``(x) in calendar year 2009 and in each subsequent year, 50 
     percent of the base year quantity.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) 
     (as amended by section 3(b)), is amended by adding at the end 
     of the items relating to subtitle D the following:

``Sec. 4013. Construction and demolition debris.''.

     SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL 
                   MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL.

       (a) Amendment of Subtitle D.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) (as amended by section 
     4(a)) is amended by adding after section 4013 the following:

     ``SEC. 4014. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL 
                   GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL 
                   SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.

       ``(a) Flow Control Authority for Facilities Previously 
     Designated.--Any State or political subdivision thereof is 
     authorized to exercise flow control authority to direct the 
     movement of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials 
     voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator thereof to 
     particular waste management facilities, or facilities for 
     recyclable materials, designated as of the suspension date, 
     if each of the following conditions are met:
       ``(1) The waste and recyclable materials are generated 
     within the jurisdictional boundaries of such State or 
     political subdivision, as such jurisdiction was in effect on 
     the suspension date.
       ``(2) Such flow control authority is imposed through the 
     adoption or execution of a law, ordinance, regulation, 
     resolution, or other legally binding provision or official 
     act of the State or political subdivision that--
       ``(A) was in effect on the suspension date;
       ``(B) was in effect prior to the issuance of an injunction 
     or other order by a court based on a ruling that such law, 
     ordinance, regulation, resolution, or other legally binding 
     provision or official act violated the Commerce Clause of the 
     United States Constitution; or
       ``(C) was in effect immediately prior to suspension or 
     partial suspension thereof by legislative or official 
     administrative action of the State or political subdivision 
     expressly because of the existence of an injunction or other 
     court order of the type described in subparagraph (B) issued 
     by a court of competent jurisdiction.
       ``(3) The State or a political subdivision thereof has, for 
     one or more of such designated facilities--

[[Page 7282]]

       ``(A) on or before the suspension date, presented eligible 
     bonds for sale;
       ``(B) on or before the suspension date, issued a written 
     public declaration or regulation stating that bonds would be 
     issued and held hearings regarding such issuance, and 
     subsequently presented eligible bonds for sale within 180 
     days of the declaration or regulation; or
       ``(C) on or before the suspension date, executed a legally 
     binding contract or agreement that--
       ``(i) was in effect as of the suspension date;
       ``(ii) obligates the delivery of a minimum quantity of 
     municipal solid waste or recyclable materials to one or more 
     such designated waste management facilities or facilities for 
     recyclable materials; and
       ``(iii) either--

       ``(I) obligates the State or political subdivision to pay 
     for that minimum quantity of waste or recyclable materials 
     even if the stated minimum quantity of such waste or 
     recyclable materials is not delivered within a required 
     timeframe; or
       ``(II) otherwise imposes liability for damages resulting 
     from such failure.

       ``(b) Waste Stream Subject to Flow Control.--Subsection (a) 
     authorizes only the exercise of flow control authority with 
     respect to the flow to any designated facility of the 
     specific classes or categories of municipal solid waste and 
     voluntarily relinquished recyclable materials to which such 
     flow control authority was applicable on the suspension date 
     and--
       ``(1) in the case of any designated waste management 
     facility or facility for recyclable materials that was in 
     operation as of the suspension date, only if the facility 
     concerned received municipal solid waste or recyclable 
     materials in those classes or categories on or before the 
     suspension date; and
       ``(2) in the case of any designated waste management 
     facility or facility for recyclable materials that was not 
     yet in operation as of the suspension date, only of the 
     classes or categories that were clearly identified by the 
     State or political subdivision as of the suspension date to 
     be flow controlled to such facility.
       ``(c) Duration of Flow Control Authority.--Flow control 
     authority may be exercised pursuant to this section with 
     respect to any facility or facilities only until the later of 
     the following:
       ``(1) The final maturity date of the bond referred to in 
     subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B).
       ``(2) The expiration date of the contract or agreement 
     referred to in subsection (a)(3)(C).
       ``(3) The adjusted expiration date of a bond issued for a 
     qualified environmental retrofit.

     The dates referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be 
     determined based upon the terms and provisions of the bond or 
     contract or agreement. In the case of a contract or agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(3)(C) that has no specified 
     expiration date, for purposes of paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection the expiration date shall be the first date that 
     the State or political subdivision that is a party to the 
     contract or agreement can withdraw from its responsibilities 
     under the contract or agreement without being in default 
     thereunder and without substantial penalty or other 
     substantial legal sanction. The expiration date of a contract 
     or agreement referred to in subsection (a)(3)(C) shall be 
     deemed to occur at the end of the period of an extension 
     exercised during the term of the original contract or 
     agreement, if the duration of that extension was specified by 
     such contract or agreement as in effect on the suspension 
     date.
       ``(d) Indemnification for Certain Transportation.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no State 
     or political subdivision may require any person to transport 
     municipal solid waste or recyclable materials, or to deliver 
     such waste or materials for transportation, to any active 
     portion of a municipal solid waste landfill unit if 
     contamination of such active portion is a basis for listing 
     of the municipal solid waste landfill unit on the National 
     Priorities List established under the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 unless such State or political subdivision or the owner 
     or operator of such landfill unit has indemnified that person 
     against all liability under that Act with respect to such 
     waste or materials.
       ``(e) Ownership of Recyclable Materials.--Nothing in this 
     section shall authorize any State or political subdivision to 
     require any person to sell or transfer any recyclable 
     materials to such State or political subdivision.
       ``(f) Limitation on Revenue.--A State or political 
     subdivision may exercise the flow control authority granted 
     in this section only if the State or political subdivision 
     limits the use of any of the revenues it derives from the 
     exercise of such authority to the payment of one or more of 
     the following:
       ``(1) Principal and interest on any eligible bond.
       ``(2) Principal and interest on a bond issued for a 
     qualified environmental retrofit.
       ``(3) Payments required by the terms of a contract referred 
     to in subsection (a)(3)(C).
       ``(4) Other expenses necessary for the operation and 
     maintenance and closure of designated facilities and other 
     integral facilities identified by the bond necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of such designated facilities.
       ``(5) To the extent not covered by paragraphs (1) through 
     (4), expenses for recycling, composting, and household 
     hazardous waste activities in which the State or political 
     subdivision was engaged before the suspension date. The 
     amount and nature of payments described in this paragraph 
     shall be fully disclosed to the public annually.
       ``(g) Interim Contracts.--A contract of the type referred 
     to in subsection (a)(3)(C) that was entered into during the 
     period--
       ``(1) before November 10, 1995, and after the effective 
     date of any applicable final court order no longer subject to 
     judicial review specifically invalidating the flow control 
     authority of the applicable State or political subdivision; 
     or
       ``(2) after the applicable State or political subdivision 
     refrained pursuant to legislative or official administrative 
     action from enforcing flow control authority expressly 
     because of the existence of a court order of the type 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(B) issued by a court of the 
     same State or the Federal judicial circuit within which such 
     State is located and before the effective date on which it 
     resumes enforcement of flow control authority after enactment 
     of this section,

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

     may exercise flow control authority over municipal solid 
     waste in accordance with the other provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(2) Additional flow control authority.--A State or any 
     political subdivision of a State that meets the requirements 
     of paragraph (1) may exercise flow control authority over all 
     classes and categories of municipal solid waste that were 
     subject to flow control by that State or political 
     subdivision on May 16, 1994, by directing municipal solid 
     waste from any waste management facility that was designated 
     as of May 16, 1994 to any other waste management facility in 
     the State without regard to whether the political subdivision 
     in which the municipal solid waste is generated had 
     designated the particular waste management facility or had 
     issued a bond or entered into a contact referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(3), respectively.
       ``(3) Duration of authority.--The authority to direct 
     municipal solid waste to any facility pursuant to this 
     subsection shall terminate with regard to such facility in 
     accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(i) Effect on Authority of States and Political 
     Subdivisions.--Nothing in this section shall be interpreted--
       ``(1) to authorize a political subdivision to exercise the 
     flow control authority granted by this section in a manner 
     inconsistent with State law;
       ``(2) to permit the exercise of flow control authority over 
     municipal solid waste and recyclable materials to an extent 
     greater than the maximum volume authorized by State permit to 
     be disposed at the waste management facility or processed at 
     the facility for recyclable materials;
       ``(3) to limit the authority of any State or political 
     subdivision to place a condition on a franchise, license, or 
     contract for municipal solid waste or recyclable materials 
     collection, processing, or disposal; or
       ``(4) to impair in any manner the authority of any State or 
     political subdivision to adopt or enforce any law, ordinance, 
     regulation, or other legally binding provision or official 
     act relating to the movement or processing of municipal solid 
     waste or recyclable materials which does not constitute 
     discrimination against or an undue burden upon interstate 
     commerce.
       ``(j) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect with respect to the exercise by any State or 
     political subdivision of flow control authority on or after 
     the date of enactment of this section. Such provisions, other 
     than subsection (d), shall also apply to the exercise by any 
     State or political subdivision of flow control authority 
     before such date of enactment, except that nothing in this 
     section shall affect any final judgment that is no longer 
     subject to judicial review as of the date of enactment of 
     this section insofar as such judgment awarded damages based 
     on a finding that the exercise of flow control authority was 
     unconstitutional.
       ``(k) State Solid Waste District Authority.--In addition to 
     any other flow control authority authorized under this 
     section a solid waste district or a political subdivision of 
     a State may exercise flow control authority for a period of 
     20 years after the enactment of this section, for municipal 
     solid waste and for recyclable materials that is generated 
     within its jurisdiction if--
       ``(1) the solid waste district, or a political subdivision 
     within such district, is required

[[Page 7283]]

     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
       ``(C) the date of a suspension or partial suspension 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(C) with respect to that State 
     or political subdivision.
       ``(10) Waste management facility.--The term `waste 
     management facility' means any facility for separating, 
     storing, transferring, treating, processing, combusting, or 
     disposing of municipal solid waste.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 
     1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) 
     (as amended by section 4(b)), is amended by adding at the end 
     of the items relating to subtitle D the following:

``Sec. 4014. Congressional authorization of State and local government 
              control over movement of municipal solid waste and 
              recyclable materials.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

       No action by a State or affected local government under an 
     amendment made by this Act shall be considered to impose an 
     undue burden on interstate commerce or to otherwise impair, 
     restrain, or discriminate against interstate commerce.
                                  ____

         State of Indiana, State of Ohio, State of Michigan, and 
           State of New Jersey
                                                   April 22, 1999.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich.
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Evan Bayh,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich and Senator Bayh: We are writing to 
     express our strong support for the Municipal Solid Waste 
     Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999, 
     which you plan to introduce this week. This legislation would 
     at long last give state and local governments federal 
     authority to establish reasonable limitations on the flow of 
     interstate waste and protect public investments in waste 
     disposal facilities needed to address in-state disposal 
     needs.
       Both of you know firsthand the problems states face in 
     managing solid waste, as required by federal law. During your 
     terms of office as Governors, you worked to support the 
     passage of effective federal legislation that would vest 
     states with sufficient authority to plan for and control the 
     disposal of municipal solid waste, including noncontaminated 
     construction and demolition debris. The need for such 
     legislation arose from various U.S. Supreme Court rulings 
     applying the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to 
     state laws restricting out-of-state waste and directing the 
     flow of solid waste shipments.
       We are committed to working with all states and building 
     upon the broad state support which exists to pass legislation 
     in the

[[Page 7284]]

     106th Congress that will provide a balanced set of controls 
     for state and local governments to use in limiting out-of-
     state waste shipments and directing intrastate shipments. The 
     need for congressional action on interstate waste/flow 
     control legislation is becoming more urgent. Last year, the 
     Congressional Research Service reported that its most recent 
     data showed interstate waste shipments increasing to a total 
     of over 25 million tons. The closing of the Fresh Kills 
     landfill in New York City is likely to dramatically increase 
     that figure.
       Your bill includes provisions which we believe are 
     important for state and local governments such as the general 
     requirement that local officials formally approve the receipt 
     of out-of-state municipal solid waste prior to disposal in 
     landfills and incinerators. The legislation does include a 
     number of important exemptions for current flows of waste. It 
     also provides authority for states to establish a statewide 
     freeze of waste shipments or, in some cases, implement 
     reductions. In addition, the legislation explicitly 
     authorizes states to implement laws requiring an assessment 
     of regional and local needs before issuing facility permits 
     or establishing statewide out-of-state percentage limitations 
     for new or expanded facilities.
       The legislation would also allow states to impose a $3-per-
     ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste and would 
     provide additional authority for states to reduce the flow of 
     noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. Under a 
     separate set of provisions, states would also be authorized 
     to exercise limited flow control authority necessary to 
     protect public investments.
       We recognize that the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate 
     Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999 would not 
     establish an outright ban on out-of-state waste shipments; 
     instead, it would gives states and localities the tools they 
     need to better manage their in-state waste disposal needs and 
     protect important natural resources. We pledge our support 
     for your efforts to ensure that no state is forced to become 
     a dumping ground for solid waste. We believe your bill will 
     enjoy wide support and look forward to working with you to 
     secure its passage.
           Sincerely,
     Frank O'Bannon,
                                       Governor, State of Indiana.
     John Engler,
                                      Governor, State of Michigan.
     Bob Taft,
                                          Governor, State of Ohio.
     Christine T. Whitman,
     Governor, State of New Jersey.
                                  ____

                                     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Harrisburg, PA, April 22, 1999.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Evan Bayh,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich and Senator Bayh: I am writing to 
     express my strong support for the Municipal Solid Waste 
     Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999, 
     which you plan to introduce this week. This legislation would 
     at long last give state and local governments federal 
     authority to establish reasonable limitations on the flow of 
     interstate waste and protect public investments in waste 
     disposal facilities needed to address in-state disposal 
     needs.
       Both of you know firsthand the problems states face in 
     managing solid waste, as required by federal law. During your 
     terms of office as Governors, you worked to support the 
     passage of effective federal legislation that would vest 
     states with sufficient authority to plan for and control the 
     disposal of municipal solid waste, including noncontaminated 
     construction and demolition debris. The need for such 
     legislation arose from various U.S. Supreme Court rulings 
     applying the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to 
     state laws restricting out-of-state waste and directing the 
     flow of solid waste shipments.
       I am committed to working with all states and building upon 
     the broad state support which exists to pass legislation in 
     the 106th Congress that will provide a balanced set of 
     controls for state and local governments to use in limiting 
     out-of-state waste shipments and directing intrastate 
     shipments. The need for congressional action on interstate 
     waste/flow control legislation is becoming more urgent. Last 
     year, the Congressional Research Service reported that its 
     most recent data showed interstate waste shipments increasing 
     to a total of over 25 million tons. The closing of the Fresh 
     Kills landfill in New York City is likely to dramatically 
     increase that figure.
       Your bill includes provisions which I believe are important 
     for state and local governments such as the general 
     requirement that local officials formally approve the receipt 
     of out-of-state municipal solid waste prior to disposal in 
     landfills and incinerators. The legislation does include a 
     number of important exemptions for current flows of waste. It 
     also provides authority for states to establish a statewide 
     freeze of waste shipments or, in some cases, implement 
     reductions. In addition, the legislation explicitly 
     authorizes states to implement laws requiring an assessment 
     of regional and local needs before issuing facility permits 
     or establishing statewide out-of-state percentage limitations 
     for new or expanded facilities.
       The legislation would also allow states to impose a $3-per-
     ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste and would 
     provide additional authority for states to reduce the flow of 
     noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. Under a 
     separate set of provisions, states would also be authorized 
     to exercise limited flow control authority necessary to 
     protect public investments.
       I recognize that the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate 
     Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999 would not 
     establish an outright ban on out-of-state waste shipments; 
     instead, it would give states and localities the tools they 
     need to better manage their in-state waste disposal needs and 
     protect important natural resources. I pledge our support for 
     your efforts to ensure that no state is forced to become a 
     dumping ground for solid waste. I believe your bill will 
     enjoy wide support and look forward to working with you to 
     secure its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Ridge,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, states have been struggling for years to 
ensure safe, responsible management of out-of-state municipal solid 
waste. As Governor of Indiana, I tried to ensure that Indiana's 
disposal capacity would meet Indiana's municipal solid waste needs. 
Efforts to institute effective waste management policies were--and 
continue to be--thwarted by two obstacles. The first is the massive and 
unpredictable amounts of out-of-state waste flowing into state disposal 
facilities. States' attempts to address that problem run into the 
second obstacle. The Supreme Court has established, in a series of 
opinions, that Congress must first provide the states the authority to 
regulate interstate waste.
  I rise with my colleague today to introduce legislation to do just 
that.
  Senator Voinovich and I, as Governors, participated in a cooperative 
effort to develop a set of principles for federal action on interstate 
waste. The Voinovich/Bayh interstate waste control bill is based on 
those principles. Mr. President, the need for controls in interstate 
waste is even more acute today than when I was a Governor. Current 
governors supporting our bill know this better than anyone.
  In Indiana, waste imports are again on the rise. After decreasing 
from 1992 to 1994, waste imports increased significantly in 1995 and 
doubled in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, out-of state waste received by 
Indiana facilities increased by 32 percent to their highest level in 
the last seven years. In fact, in 1998, 2.8 million tons of out-of-
state waste were disposed of in Indiana--that's 19 percent of all the 
waste disposed of in Indiana's landfills. Our Department of 
Environmental Management has predicted that the state will run out of 
landfill space in 2011--or earlier, so the time for action is now.
  Senator Voinovich and I believe we have crafted a comprehensive, 
equitable approach to interstate waste management. Our bill will give 
states the power to ensure manageable and predictable waste flows by 
freezing waste imports at 1993 levels. States bearing the greatest 
burden of interstate waste--those that disposed of more than 650,000 
tons in 1993--could reduce imported waste to 65 percent of the 1993 
level by 2006. Our bill will give states the power to set a percentage 
limitation on the amount of out-of-state waste that new or expanding 
facilities could receive and give states the option to deny a permit to 
a new or expanding facility if there is no regional or in-state need 
for the facility. Local governments would have more power to determine 
whether they want to accept out-of-state waste. They would be able to 
prohibit local disposal facilities that didn't receive out-of-state 
waste in 1993 from starting to take it until the local government 
approved. This presumptive ban on interstate waste would not interfere 
with facilities operating under existing host community agreements or 
permits.
  This bill is the culmination of the work we did as Governors and the 
coalition we are building as Senators. It attempts to forge a new and 
workable compromise between the needs and rights of importing and 
exporting states and gives the people who must live with waste planning 
decisions the power to make them. I look forward to

[[Page 7285]]

working with my colleagues to move this important legislation forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 873. A bill to close the United States Army School of the 
Americas; to the Committee on Armed Services.

                          ____________________