[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E291]]

NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS FLOW CONTROL

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, February 8, 1995
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, the National
Governors' Association passed an important resolution in support of
congressional restoration of flow control authority to State and local
governments.
When the Supreme Court rejected such authority in its May 1994
decision in Carbone versus Clarkstown, New York, it struck a
devastating blow to the financial stability of thousands of communities
nationwide. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reminded Congress of its part
in developing these circumstances. You see, although Congress had
implied that States and localities had the authority to use flow
control; Congress had never granted the authority explicitly. We now
have not only the opportunity, but the responsibility to finish what we
started.
It is imperative that we do so with all due speed because communities
nationwide have amassed an outstanding debt of more than $10 billion
purely by meeting its traditional responsibilities of picking up the
trash.
Congress held hearings and markups and debates on this issue
throughout 1994. The divergent interests of local governments, the
private sector waste companies, and Wall Street came together through
months of intense negotiations. The product of these efforts was a
compromise proposal which passed the House by unanimous consent on
October 7, and nearly passed through the Senate before it adjourned the
next day.
On January 4, I reintroduced this exact text as the Community
Solvency Act (H.R. 24) with a bipartisan group of cosponsors. I
encourage my colleagues to read the persuasive and well-reasoned
arguments of the Governors' resolution and to join them in their fight
to meet the public health and safety needs of our constituents in a
cost-effective and environmentally sound way. In short, I encourage my
colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 24.
National Governors Association Resolution

3.4.1 Each State, Alone or in Cooperation with Other
States, Should Manage the Waste Produced Within Its Borders
in an Environmentally Sound Manner. This goal requires states
to take responsibility for the treatment and disposal of
solid waste created within their borders to eventually
eliminate the transportation of unwanted waste sent over
state lines for treatment or disposal.
It should be the national policy for each state to promote
self-sufficiency in the management of solid waste. States
should be allowed to use reasonable methods to achieve their
goal of self-sufficiency, including the use of waste flow
control. Self-sufficiency is a reliable, cost-effective,
long-term path and generally reflects the principle that the
citizens ultimately are responsible for the wastes they
create.
As states phase in programs to ensure self-sufficiency,
Congress should require the federal government to pursue
aggressively packaging and product composition initiatives
and to identify and foster creation of markets for recyclable
or recycled goods. Federal assistance in these waste
reduction endeavors is critical to developing national waste
reduction and recycling programs to achieve self-sufficiency.
Similarly, the federal government must mandate national
minimum performance standards for municipal solid waste
disposal facilities. Otherwise, some states may resolve
capacity crises brought about by export limitations by
keeping open landfills that otherwise should be closed. Also,
the lack of minimum standards may encourage exports, because
it might be cheaper, even taking into consideration
transportation costs, for a community in a state with
stringent regulations to ship to nearby states that do not
have the same requirements.
The development of solid waste management plans should be
the primary responsibility of the states and local
governments, and the Governors urge EPA to assist states in
the development of comprehensive and integrated planning and
regulatory programs through financial and technical
assistance. Such plans should include a ten-year planning
horizon and should be updated at least every five years.
These plans should include a description of the following:
The waste management hierarchy that maximizes cost-
effective source reduction, reuse, and recycling of
materials;
The planning period;
The waste inventory;
The relationship between state and local governments;
Municipal solid waste reduction and recycling programs;
A waste capacity analysis for municipal solid waste (which
in no way should resemble a capacity assurance requirement
similar to Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA);
The state's regulatory program;
The process for citizen participation; and
Self-certification that the state has necessary authority
to implement these program elements.
EPA review of plans should be limited to a check for
completeness based on elements specified in this policy and
raised by EPA during the public comment period of the draft
plan. EPA does not have the ability or the resources to take
on the solid waste planning and management responsibilities
that fall under the historical and rightful domain of state
and local governments. Moreover, EPA's intrusion into the
planning process (in a manner similar to Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA) would
frustrate and impede the planning process already underway in
many states.
States should retain authority to implement and enforce
Subtitle D programs upon passage of legislation reauthorizing
RCRA, and new program elements in this legislation should be
automatically delegated to states. Should a state fail to
submit a complete plan, EPA should assume responsibility for
the permitting and enforcement portion of a state solid waste
management program after the state is given the opportunity
to appeal and correct any deficiencies.

____________________