[Pages S2569-S2578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 395. A bill to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to
sell the Alaska Power Marketing Administration, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

alaska power administration sale act

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduced
legislation to sell the Alaska Power Administration's two hydroelectric
projects, as well as a trailing amendment which would lift the Alaska
North Slope crude oil export ban.
Mr. President, title 1 of this legislation will authorize the sale of
the Alaska Power Administration. The Alaska Power Administration is
really different from the other Federal power marketing agencies of the
Department of Energy. It has only two hydroelectric projects, Eklutna,
near Anchorage, and Snettisham, near Juneau. These were never intended
by Congress to remain indefinitely under Federal control.
The Eklutna Project Act, for example, states that:

Upon completion of amortization of the capital investment
allocated to power, the Secretary is authorized and directed
to report to the Congress upon the feasibility and
desirability of transferring the Eklutna project to public
ownership and control in Alaska.

Moreover, these two projects were created specifically to promote
economic and industrial development in Alaska, and they are not the
product of a water resource management plan.
I have been a strong advocate of ensuring that Alaskans control their
own destiny, which is really what this bill is about. It will put the
management of these two hydroelectric projects into the hands of those
who best know Alaska. One project would be sold to the State of Alaska
and the other will be sold to a group of three Alaskan public electric
utilities.
Equally as important, this legislation will relieve the Federal
Government of the expenses of operating and maintaining these two
projects. It also provides for the termination of the Alaska Power
Administration once the sale is complete, further saving money for
taxpayers.
[[Page S2570]] It is important to note that this legislation provides
necessary safeguards for the environment. It requires the State of
Alaska and the Eklutna purchasers to abide by the memorandum of
agreement they entered into regarding the protection and enhancement of
fish and wildlife. This legislation makes this legally enforceable.
Last year, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported
Senate bill 2383, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Authorization
Act. The administration testified in strong support of this
legislation. Unfortunately, the committee acted too late in the year to
allow for Senate action. With early introduction in this Congress, I am
hopeful we will see this legislation enacted into law soon.
There is one provision which needs to be included in the
Alaska Power Administration legislation before it is sent to the
President for signature. But I have not included it because it
addresses the Internal Revenue Code. In order to indicate my strong
desire that such a provision be included in the final bill, I have
introduced it as a printed amendment.

Title 2 of this bill will lift the Alaska North Slope crude oil
export ban. Alaska is the only State that is subject to such an onerous
plan. The 1.6 million barrels of oil transported through the
TransAlaska pipeline is not forced into the lower 48 crude markets,
creating artificially low crude oil prices on the west coast. The
majority of this oil is tankered along our coast to Washington and
California.
Some of the oil is even shipped all the way down to Panama, pumped
through the TransPanamanian pipeline, which is owned in large part by
the Panamanian Government. The oil is then put back on smaller U.S.-
flagged tankers that transport it into the gulf States at exorbitant
prices. This process is no longer economic with the decline in the
price of oil.
Now what we have seen is we have seen an increase in the supply of
oil on the west coast. It has depressed the cost of crude oil in
California by as much as $3 a barrel, and that has discouraged the
exploration of development of oilfields in California and Alaska.
The Department of Energy completed a study of the Alaskan North Slope
crude oil ban in June 1994 and the Department of Energy concluded that
the lifting of this ban would add as much as $180 billion in tax
revenue to the U.S. Treasury, create some 25,000 jobs by the year 2000,
preserve some 3,300 maritime jobs, inasmuch as some of the oil will
probably be moving to the Far East in U.S.-flagged vessels that are
crewed by U.S. sailors, and would require additional ships because,
obviously, the transit is longer than moving that oil down to the west
coast. It would also increase American oil production by as much as
110,000 barrels a day, according to a DOE estimate. This study also
found it would not significantly impact gas prices to consumers in
California.
Mr. President, this ban no longer makes any sense. Rather than
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, it has decreased our domestic
production, and made us more reliant on imported oil. Oil, like any
other commodity, should find its own level and its own market. The
exception of this has been the prohibition on allowing the export of
Alaskan oil.
Mr. President, all this legislation would so is to allow the market
to determine the price and buyer of the crude oil. The TransAlaska
pipeline would still supply the west coast with crude oil because it is
simply the closest market for the oil. The excess crude that creates a
glut in California and the oil that is forced through the
TransPanamanian pipeline would probably be sold overseas and find a
market there. But the market would primarily determine where it is
sold.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and the
associated amendment be printed in the Congressional Record and that my
statement and the accompanying bill be addressed for referral as it
appropriate.
Mr. President, I neglected to announce that the senior Senator from
Alaska [Mr. Stevens] joins me as a cosponsor on the bill.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 395

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

TITLE I

SECITON 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Alaska Power
Administration Sale Act''.

SEC. 102. SALE OF SNETTISHAM AND EKLUTNA HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECTS.

(a) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to
sell the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project (referred to in
this Act as ``Snettisham'') to the State of Alaska in
accordance with the terms of this Act and the February 10,
1989, Snettisham Purchase Agreement, as amended, between the
Alaska Power Administration of the Department of Energy and
the Alaska Power Authority.
(b) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to
sell the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project (referred to in this
Act as ``Eklutna'') to the Municipality of Anchorage doing
business as Municipal Light and Power, the Chugach Electric
Association, Inc., and the Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc., (referred to in this Act as ``Eklutna Purchasers'') in
accordance with the terms of this Act and the August 2, 1989,
Eklutna Purchase Agreement, as amended, between the
Department of Energy and the Eklutna Purchasers.
(c) The heads of other Federal departments and agencies,
including the Secretary of the Interior, shall assist the
Secretary of Energy in implementing the sales authorized and
directed by this Act.
(d) The Secretary of Energy shall deposit sale proceeds in
the Treasury of the United States to the credit of
miscellaneous receipts.
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to prepare or acquire Eklutna and Snettisham
assets for sale and conveyance. Such preparations and
acquisitions shall provide sufficient title to ensure the
beneficial use, enjoyment, and occupancy to the purchasers of
the asset to be sold.

SEC. 103 EXEMPTION.

(a)(1) After the sales authorized by this Act occur,
Eklutna and Snettisham, including future modifications, shall
continue to be exempt from the requirements of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et. seq.).
(2) The exemption provided by paragraph (1) does not affect
the Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the State of
Alaska, the Eklutna Purchases, the Alaska Energy Authority,
and Federal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the
protection, mitigation of, damages to, and enhancement of
fish and wildlife, dated August 7, 1991, which remains in
full force and effect.
(3) Nothing in this Act or the Federal Power Act preempts
the State of Alaska from carrying out the responsibilities
and authorities of the Memorandum of Agreement.
(b)(1) The United States District Court for the District of
Alaska has jurisdiction to review decisions made under the
Memorandum of Agreement and to enforce the provisions of the
Memorandum of Agreement, including the remedy of specific
performance.
(2) An action seeking review of a Fish and Wildlife Program
(``Program'') of the Governor of Alaska under the Memorandum
of agreement or challenging actions of any of the parties to
the Memorandum of agreement prior to the adoption of the
Program shall be brought not later than 90 days after the
date of which the Program is adapted by the Governor of
Alaska, or be barred.
(3) An action seeking review of implementation of the
Program shall be brought not later than 90 days after the
challenged act implementing the program, or be barred.
(c) With respect to Eklutna lands described in Exhibit A of
the Eklutna Purchase Agreement:
(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall issue rights-of-way
to the Alaska Power Administration for subsequent
reassignment to the Eklutna Purchasers--
(A) at no cost to the Eklutna Purchasers;
(B) to remain effective for a period equal to the life of
Eklutna as extended by improvements, repairs, renewals, or
replacements; and
(C) sufficient for the operation, maintenance, repair, and
replacement of, and access to, Eklutna facilities located on
military lands and lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, including land selected by the State of Alaska.
(2) If the Eklutna Purchasers subsequently sell or transfer
Eklutna to private ownership, the Bureau of Land Management
may assess reasonable and customary fees for continued uses
of the rights-of-way on land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management and military lands in accordance with current law.
(3) Fee title to lands at Anchorage Substation shall be
transferred to Eklutna Purchasers at no additional cost if
the Secretary of the Interior determines that pending claims
to, and selection of, those lands are invalid or
relinquished.
(4) With respect only to approximately 853 acres of Eklutna
lands identified in paragraphs 1.a., b., and c. of Exhibit A
of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement, the State of Alaska may
select, and the secretary of the Interior shall convey, to
the state, improved lands under the selection entitlements in
section 6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958 (Public Law 85-508)
and the North Anchorage Land Agreement of January 31, 1983.
The conveyance is subject to the rights-of-way provided
[[Page S2571]] to the Eklutna Purchasers under paragraph (1).
(d) With respect to the approximately 2,671 acres of
Snettisham lands identified in paragraphs 1.a and b. of
Exhibit
A of the Snettisham Purchase Agreement, the State of Alaska
may select, and the Secretary of the Interior shall convey
to the State, improved lands under the selection
entitlement in section 6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958
(Public Law 85-508).
(e) Not later than 1 year after both of the sales
authorized in section 2 have occurred, as measured by the
Transaction Dates stipulated in the Purchase Agreements, the
Secretary of Energy shall--
(1) complete the business of, and close out, the Alaska
Power Administration;
(2) prepare and submit to Congress a report documenting the
sales; and
(3) return unused balances of funds appropriated for the
Alaska Power Administration to the Treasury of the United
States.
(f) The Act of July 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 382) is repealed
effective on the date, as determined by the Secretary of
Energy, when all Eklutna assets have been conveyed to the
Eklutna Purchasers.
(g) Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public
Law 87-874; 76 Stat. 1193) is repealed effective on the date,
as determined by the Secretary of Energy, when all Snettisham
assets have been conveyed to the State of Alaska.
(h) As of the later of the two dates determined in
subsection (f) and (g), section 302(a) of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking our subparagraph (C); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) respectively;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``the Bonneville
Power Administration, and the Alaska Power Administration''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``and the Bonneville Power
Administration''.
(i) The Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 618), concerning
water resources investigation in Alaska, is repealed.
(j) The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham under this Act are
not considered a disposal of Federal surplus property under
the following provisions of section 203 of the Federal
Property and Administration Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
484) and section 13 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50
U.S.C. app. 1622).

TITLE II

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This Title may be cited as ``Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Amendment Act of 1995''.

SEC. 202. TAPS ACT AMENDMENTS.

Section 203 of the Act entitled the ``Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act,'' as amended (43 U.S.C. 1652), is
amended--
(a) by inserting the following new subsection (f): ``(f)
Exports of Alaskan North Slope oil.
``(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding
any other provision of law (including any regulation), any
oil transported by pipeline over a right-of-way granted
pursuant to this section may be exported.
``(2) Except in the case of oil exported to a country
pursuant to a bilateral international oil supply agreement
entered into by the United States with the country before
June 25, 1979, or to a country pursuant to the
International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of the
International Energy Agency, the oil shall be transported
by a vessel documented under the laws of the United States
and owned by a citizen of the United States (as determined
in accordance with section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916,
(46 U.S.C. App. 802)).
``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the
authority of the President under the Constitution, the
International Emergency Economic Powers act (50 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.), or the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.) to prohibit exportation of the oil.''.

SEC. 203. SECURITY OF SUPPLY.

Section 410 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act
(87 Stat. 594) is amended to read as follows:
``The Congress reaffirms that the crude oil on the North
Slope of Alaska is an important part of the Nation's oil
resources, and that the benefits of such crude oil should be
equitably shared, directly or indirectly, by all regions of
the country. The President shall use any authority he may
have to ensure an equitable allocation of available North
Slope and other crude oil resources and petroleum products
among all regions and all of the several States.''.

SEC. 204. ANNUAL REPORT.

Section 103(f) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6212(f)) is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:
``In the first quarter report for each new calendar year,
the President shall indicate whether independent refiners in
Petroleum Administration District 5 have been unable to
secure adequate supplies of crude oil as a result of exports
of Alaskan North Slope crude oil in the prior calendar year
and shall make such recommendations to the Congress as may be
appropriate.''.

SEC. 205. GAO REPORT.

The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct
a review of energy production in California and Alaska and
the effects of Alaskan North Slope crude oil exports, if any,
on consumers, independent refiners, and shipbuilding and ship
repair yards on the West Coast. The Comptroller General shall
commence this review four years after the date of enactment
of this Act and, within one year after commencing the review,
shall provide a report to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources in the Senate and the Committee on Resources in the
House of Representatives. The report shall contain a
statement of the principal findings of the review and such
recommendations for consideration by the Congress as may be
appropriate.

SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by it shall take effect on
the date of enactment.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 397. A bill to benefit crime victims by improving enforcement of
sentences imposing fines and special assessments, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

privatization of defaulted debt collection

<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to improve collection of the staggering amount of delinquent debt that
convicted criminals owe to crime victims and the Federal Government.
The bill calls on the Department of Justice to contract with private
firms to collect criminal fines and special assessments from offenders
who are in default. These criminal fines and assessments are used to
finance various programs to assist crime victims. The Department of
Justice is responsible for making criminal debt collections, but DOJ is
not getting the job done. Privatizing the effort will enable us to tap
into the source of billions of dollars that otherwise might go
uncollected.
The Justice Department and the U.S. General Accounting Office
reported an inventory of more than 110,000 overdue criminal debts
valued at more than $2.3 billion at the end of fiscal year 1992. This
money, if collected, would be deposited into the Crime Victims Fund--
for the counseling of victims of violent crime, for domestic abuse
shelters, for many programs nationwide that help victims and their
families cope with the devastation caused by these criminals.
But the money cannot go into the Crime Victims Fund unless it is
collected. And right now, many defaulted fines and special assessments
go uncollected because there is such a tremendous backlog of cases.
When convicts escape from jail, they are hunted down and forced to do
their time. So it seems ridiculous that criminal debtors who escape
payment are not hunted down with the same determination and forced to
make good on their debts to their victims and the Federal Government.
Currently, the Department of Justice is responsible for collecting
past due debts, both criminal and civil. Within the Department of
Justice, the Associate Deputy Attorney General plans and supervises the
collections, while the U.S. attorneys in 94 judicial districts are
charged with actually collecting the past due debts.
The U.S. attorney offices are not always able to handle the huge
volume of debt collection cases, however, because of a backlog of older
cases, inadequate resources, and other priorities. In fact, from 1985
to 1992, the number of criminal debts tripled while the time spent on
collections declined. What effect can these fines possibly have, what
good can they do for victims, if they are not strictly enforced?
At a time when fiscal restraint is a top priority, it is absurd that
we are not vigorously pursuing this multibillions-dollar source of
funds and that we are letting convicted criminals compound their crimes
by defying court orders to pay fines for these misdeeds.
Mr. President, privatizing debt collection has proven to be
effective. Public Law 99-578 authorized a pilot program that allowed
the Attorney General to contract with 18 private law firms in 7 Federal
judicial districts to collect past due civil debts, such as student
loans as federally guaranteed mortgages. The General Accounting Office
completed an evaluation of the pilot program in September 1994, and in
its report to Congress, the GAO recommended expanding the pilot program
because it was so successful.
The GAO report concluded that the private law firms were cost
effective, collecting $9.2 million in defaulted civil debts at a cost
of $2.4 million. Further, the private firms closed more cases at a low
unit cost than the collectors in
[[Page S2572]] the U.S. attorney offices. The U.S. attorney collectors
spend $422 to close each case compared to $243 for the private firms.
Most important of all, the GAO study noted that the private firms
worked cases and collected debts that the U.S. attorney collectors had
given up on or may never have dealt with because of their ever-
increasing workloads.
This pilot program is successful dealing with civil debt collection.
We should apply this same approach to capturing the $2.3 billion in
uncollected criminal debt.
The legislation I am introducing today would require the Director of
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to contract with private
sector firms to collect defaulted criminal debts. The private firms
would be paid on a contingent fee basis, which means that these firms
would receive a set percentage of any amount that they collected. This
approach would ensure that the Government will not pay for work unless
it is completed and it would ensure that the private firms will be
motivated to do the work.
All of the defaulted criminal debt that would be collected, less the
contingency fee, would be deposited directly into the Crime Victims
Fund, in accordance with Federal law. I want to stress that this is
money that would not otherwise be collected if it were not for
privatized collection. Every dollar collected will provide additional
resources to render desperately needed victim assistance.
The Crime Victims Fund finances many vital programs across this
Nation. In my home State of Arizona, the Brewster Center in Tucson
annually depends on money from the Crime Victims Fund to provide
shelter and counseling for more than 1,000 women and children living
through the horror of domestic violence.
In Phoenix, AZ, the Crisis Nursery is a lifeline for the youngest and
most helpless victims of crime--children. Last year, money from the
Crime Victims Fund sheltered and counseled 806 children at the Crisis
Nursery--helping them endure the tragedy of physical and sexual abuse,
the loss of a murdered parent, and neglect or abandonment. Victims
assistance programs in Arizona received slightly more than $1 million
from the Crime Victims Fund last year, but that amount is down for the
third year in a row.
Every dollar of defaulted criminal debt that is collected as a result
of this legislation means continued funding for places like Brewster
Center and the Crisis Nursery. And, remember, this is money that is
coming directly from court fines on the convicted criminals who
committed the crimes.
Mr. President, I am amenable to discussion on the mandatory nature of
this legislation. There may be some merit to considering an optional
approach to contracting with private firms or, perhaps, a pilot program
similar to the successful one that Congress created for privatizing
civil debt collection.
It is imperative, however, that we act swiftly because there is a 5-
year statute of limitations on collection of the criminal special
assessments. Every day that we spend debating this issue is one less
day spent tracking down and collecting from these deadbeat criminals;
and when the statute of limitations passes, that money is gone forever.
Mr. President, this legislation clearly empowers the Department of
Justice to obtain much-needed help on an overwhelming task--collecting
more than $2 billion in defaulted criminal debts, and I urge quick
consideration and passage of this measure.
I ask unanimous consult that several letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Organization for

Victim Assistance,

Washington, DC, February 10, 1995.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I write to express the enthusiastic
support of the National Organization for Victim Assistance
for your proposed legislation to privatize the collection of
backlogged, uncollected penalty assessments and criminal
fines owed to the federal courts--and to the Crime Victims
Fund.
As you know, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, as amended,
created the Crime Victims Fund, into which are placed
virtually all Title 18 federal criminal fines, the ``penalty
assessments'' created by VOCA, and forfeited bail bonds.
These revenues (which run about $150-$200 million a year) are
then expended on two small victim-oriented programs and two
major ones--one supporting the various states' crime victim
compensation programs, and the other thousands of local
programs of personal assistance and advocacy.
Through these two programs, VOCA has become the ``Marshall
Plan of the victims' movement,'' a stimulator of huge growth
in victim compensation and assistance programs. Its
multiplier effects make all of us in the victims' movement
very protective of its funding base, and very supportive of
expanding that base wherever possible.
We therefore applaud your many efforts to increase VOCA's
revenues, from trying to make the Federal Fine Center more
productive in its collection efforts to proposing the
doubling of the penalty assessments. But it is our estimation
that the privatization of delinquent fine collections, which
is your latest proposal, would prove to be by far the most
beneficial to the Fund and to the programs and victims it
supports.
The reason for this is the much-discussed $4 billion
backlog in unpaid fines. We, like you, have heard it said
that much of this is uncollected and uncollectable, involving
everything from many small assessments against deported
aliens to a few fines against bigtime, white-collar offenders
who are now effectively destitute.
To which we say, first, the financial services industry
that does collections for government agencies of every
description indicates that this is a worthwhile venture to
pursue--and second, we have heard of no plausible alternative
to the privatization option--and third, the delinquencies in
question are over $4 billion--and growing. A mere penny on
each of those dollars adds up to very real money in the
economy of VOCA.
To put this concern about federal fines into perspective,
we believe very strongly that victims and their advocates
have no special, legitimate interest in the setting of fine
levels or the ordering of fines except that they meet one
test--that of just and proportionate punishment.
But once that test is met, it is fair, indeed essential,
for victim advocates to demand more effective efforts to
collect the fines that are ordered. In our view, your
privatization proposal offers that needed progress in
improved collections, which makes it superior to every other
alternative brought to our attention.
We therefore thank you for this newest expression of your
support for crime victims and the programs that help them.
Sincerely,
Marlene A. Young, Ph.D., J.D.,
Executive Director.
____

National Victim Center,

Arlington, VA, February 13, 1995.
Hon. John McCain,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the Board of Directors
and Staff of the National Victim Center, we wish to express
our support for your proposed measure to begin the
privatization of the Federal fine collection program which
secures delinquent penalties, fines and assessments destined
for the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund.
The National Victim Center works with more than 8,000
victim and law enforcement organizations nationwide--a
substantial number of which benefit directly or indirectly
from VOCA funding through state administered compensation and
victim assistance programs.
In preparation for last fall's hearing held by the Senate
Committee on Government Affairs, I spoke with dozens of VOCA
Administrators and VOCA sub-grantees in the field. When asked
about the importance of VOCA Funding to their program, the
unanimous response was that this source of financial support
was not only important but indispensable to the survival of
their programs. In fact, most made it clear that given
reductions in contributions from other private and public
sources, programs are being forced to rely more heavily than
ever on VOCA money to keep their doors open.
While the resources available to assist crime victims
continue to shrink in these times of fiscal caution and
restraint, the demand for victim assistance and services
continue to grow. Let me provide some specific examples given
to me directly from State Administrators and victim service
organizations last fall.
Typical is the case of the Jefferson County Domestic
Violence Shelter in Arvada, Colorado. In 1993 alone 524
domestic violence victims were turned away for lack of space,
including 222 children.
Texas was forced to de-fund some of its victim service
programs like the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)
Program that provides child victims of abuse and sexual
assault with a volunteer advocate to protect their rights and
represent their interests before the court--particularly when
the offender is a parent. In many cases, CASA volunteers are
the only persons in the system who are performing such
services. Without them, children will be left to fend for
themselves in a system they cannot comprehend. Surrounded by
adults making demands, they are too frightened or simply
unable to fulfill.
Washington State recently funded a program to provide
assistance to male victims of sexual assault (the most common
target of
[[Page S2573]] pedophiles). The program had resources to
serve about 50 clients. Within three months, it had
applications from more than 500 victims.
Thus, every dollar collected in fines for the VOCA fund
makes a difference in the life of some crime victim. This
fact viewed in the shadow of $4 billion in outstanding fines
makes collection of Federal Fines an important priority of
the victims' movement. It is for this reason that the
movement generally supported the decision to use a portion of
the VOCA fund to aid in the collection. More than $6 million
per year is earmarked off the top of the VOCA Fund for that
specific purpose. A good portion of that money has been
dedicated to the creation of a ``Federal Fine Center'' as an
investment that would assure a far greater return in
increased collections.
Unfortunately, reports raise serious questions concerning
the wisdom of that investment. After years in developing and
millions of dollars spent, crime victims and their advocates
are left with little alternative than to doubt the viability
of the Center and Federal Government's current collection
strategy.
We feel your proposal to privatize a portion of that
collection process is an important first step in the pursuit
of an alternative and more effective collection strategy. The
challenge presented by the collection of fines is not
dramatically different than that faced by hundreds of
thousands of private firms seeking collection of debt. Yet
such private concerns seem to have far greater success in
meeting the challenge of debt collection than their counter-
parts in the Federal Judicial System.
We believe the time has come to look to the private sector
for solutions to our critical fine collection quandary. Given
current circumstances, we feel that crime victims, advocates
and service providers have little to lose and everything to
gain.
Your proposal to allow private firms the opportunity to
collect unpaid fines after 120 days will be a challenging
test of private sector's proficiency. If they succeed in
collecting these relatively ``stale debts'', than expansion
of their role in the collection arena may be desirable.
While the National Victim Center continues to believe there
is a need to overhaul the entire Federal fine collection
process, your proposed measure represent the first serious
step toward that undertaking.
It is for this reason that the Board of Directors and staff
of the National Victim Center strongly urge your colleagues
to co-sponsor and support this measure of crucial importance
to our nation's crime victims.
Thank you for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
David Beatty,
Director of Public Policy.
____

Arizona Department of

Public Safety,

Phoenix, AZ, February 10, 1995.
Senator John McCain,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for providing us the
opportunity to respond to the proposed Privatization of
Defaulted Debt Collection Act.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety administers the
federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) victim assistance grant
which supports private non-profit and governmental agencies
who serve victims of crime. For the past several years, the
level of deposits into the Crime Victims Fund has dropped due
to decreasing collections. This results in a reduction of
victim services during a time when victim services should be
significantly increased. Agencies who provide direct
assistance to victims of sexual assault, child abuse,
domestic violence and other violent crimes are dramatically
impacted.
Therefore, the Arizona Department of Public Safety strongly
supports the proposed legislation which would ultimately
result in more funding for victims of crime.
Sincerely,
Lynn Pirkle,
VOCA Grant Administrator.<bullet>
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Heflin,
Mr. Graham, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 398. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide
congressional authorization for State control over transportation of
municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

Flow Control Act

<bullet> Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the
Flow Control Act. The Flow Control Act will overturn a 1994 Supreme
Court decision and give State and local governments the authority to
control the flow of solid waste under specific circumstances. The
Supreme Court decision, if allowed to stand, could result in chaos in
communities in virtually all of the States where flow control authority
is currently in place and constitutes a critical component of
strategies to manage waste. My legislation provides that State and
local governments, not the Federal Government, will decide whether to
use flow control authority.
The bill I am introducing today contains the provisions of title II
of S. 2345 which were negotiated by a House-Senate conference committee
and passed the House. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Senate floor
because of concerns regarding another issue in the bill on the last day
of the Congress last October. It was endorsed last year by all those
parties faced with the responsibility of disposing of solid waste.
While there are technical problems with the bill, it incorporates the
bulk of the agreement worked out last year. I intend to work with all
of the parties to address these remaining technical issues.
On May 16, 1994, in a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in the
case of Carbone versus Clarkstown that a New York municipality could
not require that garbage generated in the locality be sent to a
designated waste management facility. The Court held that a Clarkstown,
NY, flow control ordinance interfered with interstate commerce and
deprived out-of-State firms access to the local trash market. The
Constitution provides that only the Federal Government may regulate
commerce among the States unless it specifically delegates this
authority to them. The court's ruling held that this power had not been
granted by Congress to the States.
If not reversed, this decision will have a significant effect on the
ability of State and local governments to manage garbage. Historically,
State and local governments have had the responsibility for municipal
solid waste management. This is recognized in the Nation's solid waste
management law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA. In
RCRA, the Congress found that collection and disposal of garbage is
primarily a function for State and local governments. To foster this
function, RCRA requires EPA to provide assistance in the development
and implementation of State solid waste management plans. States are
encouraged to develop statewide solid waste management plans. Before
EPA approves a plan, it must find that the plan identifies the
responsibilities of State, regional, and local governments and has
provided for the establishment of such State regulatory powers as is
necessary to implement the plan. It's clear from RCRA that Congress
intended that State and local governments have the authority necessary
to manage solid waste. My bill authorizes, but doesn't require, State
and local governments to use flow control authority.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 43 States, including
New Jersey, either utilize flow control authority or have authorized
local governments to use flow control for waste management. Flow
control laws have been in place in New Jersey since 1979 and control
all of the nonhazardous solid waste in the State's 567 municipalities
and 21 counties. Flow control has been a significant part of New
Jersey's ability to build an infrastructure to handle the 14 million
tons of solid waste requiring disposal annually. Collectively, this
infrastructure represents a capital investment of over $2 billion. New
Jersey's recycling programs also are dependent on revenues received for
use of New Jersey waste management facilities.
The Supreme Court decision threatens this authority, undercuts the
roles of State and local governments in solid waste management and
negates the planning process contemplated by the Congress in RCRA. It
would impose a radical change in the way solid waste is managed in the
United States.
The Carbone decision could hamper solid waste management efforts in
three ways. First, the decision makes it impossible for cities to
guarantee a steady stream of waste to waste disposal and processing
facilities. Without this guaranteed steady stream of garbage,
communities will be unable to secure financing to build solid waste
management facilities. This threatens New Jersey's program to become
solid waste self-sufficient by the end of the decade. It also threatens
New Jersey's existing program to restrict exports of garbage without
approval by the State.
In addition, localities would lose the revenue generated by garbage
disposal at municipal facilities as garbage flowed to other facilities.
This would
[[Page S2574]] eliminate the source of funding for related
nonprofitable waste management activities such as recycling and
household hazardous waste programs. We need to increase recycling
efforts. But the loss of flow control authority threatens existing
efforts and makes an expansion of recycling programs less likely. Local
governments will be forced to increase taxes to pay for the costs of
these imported solid waste programs.
Finally, existing bonds used to finance waste management facilities
are at risk if localities cannot send an adequate level of garbage to
the facility to generate revenues to pay off the bonds. If localities
cannot send an adequate level of garbage to a facility to generate the
revenue needed to pay off the bonds, they face default and the affected
communities face higher taxes.
The Supreme Court decision already is having an adverse effect on
local governments. Moody's Investors Services, a bond rating service,
is reviewing the bond rating for 100 solid waste facilities dependent
on flow control. Facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin where flow control ordinances are facing court
challenges are at particular risk of having their bonds devalued or
degraded. The bond rating for the Lancaster County Pennsylvania Solid
Waste Management Authority has been lowered and the rating for the
Camden County Pollution Control Authority was placed on a credit watch.
A number of solid waste facilities already have been cancelled or
stalled because Congress has failed to act to authorize flow control.
The flow control provision takes a balanced approach to addressing
the concerns raised by the Supreme Court decision. It is intended to
give State and local governments flow control authority under certain
circumstances while requiring that local communities use a competitive
designation process in making flow control decisions to ensure that
free market competition is a component of flow control efforts. The
provision has four major components.
First, it protects all existing flow control arrangements where flow
control had been used to designate solid waste management facilities
prior to May 15, 1994.
Second, it grants authority to States and local governments to
institute additional flow control authority for: recyclables which have
been voluntarily surrendered to the government, and municipal solid
waste generated from household, commercial, industrial and
institutional sources, as well as incinerator ash and construction and
demolition debris if such waste had been flow controlled under a State
or local law, ordinance, solid waste management plan or legally binding
provision prior to May 15, 1994 or the local government had committed
to the designation of one or more waste management facilities for the
transportation, management or disposal of
waste and had made a designation within 5 years of the enactment of
this section.

Third, it provides that flow control authority can only be used if
the community has a program to remove recyclables from the solid waste
stream in accordance with State law or a local solid waste management
plan. Recyclable materials are materials which have been separated, or
diverted at the point of generation, from municipal solid waste. This
language does not require materials to be separated at the point of
generation because some recycling operations have multiple sorting
arrangements some of which may occur after the point of generation. The
language in this bill ensures that such multiple sorting operations
will be considered recycling.
Fourth, it requires that when a local government decides to implement
flow control authority, it undertake a competitive designation process
which considers the facilities and services which the private sector
can provide. Local governments in states other than New Jersey would
also have to undertake a determination regarding whether they needed
flow control to manage their waste.
This competitive designation process requires the government to
establish specific criteria to be used to select facilities and also
compare alternatives when designating a facility for flow control. The
process also provides for public participation during the selection
process. At the same time, it allows State and local governments to
retain final decision making authority over most waste disposal
decisions. A process is established which allows a Governor to certify
that the State has a competitive process which satisfies this
requirement.
Mr. President, I know some have expressed concern that flow control
legislation will allow local governments to establish uneconomical
monopolies on solid waste management. I believe that market competition
can reduce the costs of solid waste management and, in turn, individual
property taxes. That's why my legislation requires a competitive
designation process. Municipal solid waste is a State and local
government responsibility but doesn't have to be carried out by these
governments. There are numerous examples of successful efforts to
privatize government operations. This bill will bring the pressure of
the free market to bear on solid waste decisions and hopefully lead to
the most efficient operation providing relief to local taxpayers.
I want to make clear what this bill does not do. It does not tell
State and local governments how to manage waste. Decisions on how to
manage garbage and where to cite management facilities are not Federal
responsibilities. These decisions have been and continue to be issues
for local governments to decide, subject to State permits. The
provision does not require State and local governments to use flow
control authority. Again, this decision is left to these governments.
The provision leaves State and local governments with the same
authority they've had other than dealing with flow control to address
solid waste.
Mr. President, many of my colleagues have expressed concern about the
effect that unfunded mandates can have on State and local governments.
I share this concern. But if we fail to act to overturn this Supreme
Court decision, we could significantly increase the costs to local
governments of solid waste management just as if the Congress had
imposed a costly unfunded mandate on these governments. We should be
giving State and local governments wide latitude to address solid waste
management, particularly because the Federal Government does not
provide assistance for State and local solid waste management programs.
The legislation I have developed has been endorsed by a wide range of
organizations including the Conference of Mayors, and National
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Towns and Townships, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, and hundreds
of local communities across the country.
Mr. President, we cannot expect State and local governments to manage
solid waste as contemplated by RCRA if we fail to provide those
governments with the tools to ensure that properly sized facilities to
manage the waste are constructed. My legislation merely overturns the
Supreme Court decision and provides State and local governments with
the tools they need to manage solid waste. It maintains the status quo
and avoids the radical change in solid waste management which would
result from the Supreme Court decision.
The Congress must deal with the ambiguities that flow from the
Supreme Court decision soon. State and local governments need to
discharge their responsibilities for solid waste disposal.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Flow
Control Act of 1995. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill,
an October 7, 1994 letter signed by all parties in support of the bill,
and a number of articles discussing the adverse effect the Supreme
Court decision is having on local communities be included in the
Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 398

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 ``Flow Control Act of 1995''.
[[Page S2575]] SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
CONTROL OVER TRANSPORTATION, MANAGEMENT, AND
DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941
et seq.) is amended by adding after section 4010 the
following new section:

``SEC. 4011. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE CONTROL
OVER TRANSPORTATION, MANAGEMENT, AND DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

``(a) Authority.--
``(1) In general.--Each State and each qualified political
subdivision may, in accordance with this section--
``(A)(i) exercise flow control authority for municipal
solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid waste incineration
unit, construction debris, or demolition debris generated
within the boundaries of the State or qualified political
subdivision if, before May 15, 1994, the State or qualified
political subdivision--
``(I) adopted a law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan, or legally binding provision that contains
flow control authority and, pursuant to such authority,
directs such solid waste, ash, or debris to a proposed or
existing waste management facility designated before May 15,
1994; or
``(II) adopted a law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan, or legally binding provision that identifies
the use of one or more waste management methods that will be
necessary for the transportation, management, or disposal of
municipal solid waste generated within such boundaries, and
committed to the designation of one or more waste management
facilities for such method or methods;
``(ii) after the effective date of this section, in the
case of a State or qualified political subdivision that
adopted such a law, ordinance, regulation, plan, or legally
binding provision that meets the requirements of subclause
(I) or (II) of clause (i), exercise flow control authority
over such solid waste from any existing or future waste
management facility to any other existing or future waste
management facility; and
``(iii) after the effective date of this section, in the
case of a State or qualified political subdivision that
adopted such a law, ordinance, regulation, plan, or legally
binding provision that meets the requirements of subclause
(I) of clause (i), exercise flow control authority over such
solid waste, ash, or debris from any existing waste
management facility to any other existing or proposed waste
management facility, and may do so without regard to
subsection (b)(2); and
``(B) exercise flow control authority for voluntarily
relinquished recyclable materials generated within the
boundaries of the State or qualified political subdivision.
``(2) Reasonable regulation of commerce.--
``(A) A law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management
plan, or legally binding provision of a State or qualified
political subdivision, described in paragraph (1), that
implements or exercises flow control authority in compliance
with this section shall be considered to be a reasonable
regulation of commerce and shall not be considered to be an
undue burden on or otherwise as impairing, restraining, or
discriminating against interstate commerce.
``(B) A contract or franchise agreement entered into by a
State or political subdivision to provide the exclusive or
nonexclusive authority for the collection, transportation, or
disposal of municipal solid waste, and not otherwise
involving the exercise of flow control authority described in
paragraph (1), shall be considered to be a reasonable
regulation of commerce and shall not be considered to be an
undue burden on or otherwise as impairing, restraining, or
discriminating against interstate commerce.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Limitation of authority regarding recyclable
materials.--A State or qualified political subdivision may
exercise the authority described in subsection (a)(1)(B) with
respect to recyclable materials only if--
``(A) the generator or owner of the materials voluntarily
made the materials available to the State or qualified
political subdivision, or the designee of the State or
qualified political subdivision, and relinquished any rights
to, or ownership of, such materials; and
``(B) the State or qualified political subdivision, or the
designee of the State or qualified political subdivision,
assumes such rights to, or ownership of, such materials.
``(2) Limitation of authority regarding solid waste or
recyclable materials.--
``(A) A State or qualified political subdivision may
exercise the authority described in subparagraph (A) or (B)
of subsection (a)(1) only if the State or qualified political
subdivision establishes a program to separate, or divert at
the point of generation, recyclable materials from municipal
solid waste, for purposes of recycling, reclamation, or
reuse, in accordance with any Federal or State law or
municipal solid waste planning requirements in effect.
``(B) A State or qualified political subdivision may
exercise the authority described in clause (i) or (ii) of
subsection (a)(1)(A) only if, after conducting one or more
public hearings, the State or qualified political
subdivision--
``(i) finds, on the basis of the record developed at the
hearing or hearings, that it is necessary to exercise the
authority described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection
(a)(1) to meet the current solid waste management needs (as
of the date of the record) or the anticipated solid waste
management needs of the State or qualified political
subdivision for the management of municipal solid waste or
recyclable materials;
``(ii) finds, on the basis of the record developed at the
hearing or hearings, including an analysis of the ability of
the private sector and public bodies to provide short and
long term integrated solid waste management services with and
without flow control authority, that the exercise of flow
control authority is necessary to provide such services in an
economically efficient and environmentally sound manner; and
``(iii) provides a written explanation of the reasons for
the findings described clauses (i) and (ii), which may
include a finding of a preferred waste management methodology
or methodologies for providing such integrated solid waste
management services.
``(C) With respect to each designated waste management
facility, the authority of subsection (a) shall be effective
until completion of the schedule for payment of the capital
costs of the waste management facility concerned (as in
effect on May 15, 1994), or for the remaining useful life of
the original waste management facility, whichever is longer.
At the end of such period, the authority of subsection (a)
shall be effective for any waste management facility for
which subparagraph (B) and subsection (c) have been complied
with by the State or qualified political subdivision, except
that no facility, and no State or qualified political
subdivision, subject to subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(I) or
subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii) shall be required to comply with
subparagraph (B) for a period of 10 years after the date of
enactment of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of
this paragraph, compliance with subparagraph (B) shall not be
required where--
``(i) a designated waste management facility is required to
retrofit or otherwise make significant modifications to meet
applicable environmental requirements or safety requirements;
``(ii) routine repair or scheduled replacements of existing
equipment or components of a designated waste management
facility is undertaken that does not add to the capacity of
the waste management facility; or
``(iii) a designated waste management facility expands on
land legally or equitably owned, or under option to purchase
or lease, by the owner or operator of such facility and the
applicable permit includes such land.
``(D) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
section, paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) shall not apply to any
State (or any of its political subdivisions) that, on or
before January 1, 1984, enacted regulations pursuant to a
State law that required or directed the transportation,
management, or disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, institutional and industrial sources as defined
by State law to specific waste management facilities and
applied those regulations to every political subdivision in
the State.
``(3) Limitation to applied authorities.--The authority
described in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall apply only to the
specific classes or categories of solid waste to which the
authority described in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(I) was applied
by the State or qualified political subdivision before May
15, 1994, and to the specific classes or categories of solid
waste for which the State or qualified political subdivision
committed to the designation of one or more waste management
facilities as described in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(II).
``(4) Expiration of authority.--The authority granted under
subsection (a)(1)(A)(i)(II) shall expire if a State or
qualified political subdivision has not designated, by law,
ordinance, regulation, solid waste management plan, or other
legally binding provision, one or more proposed or existing
waste management facilities within 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section.
``(5) Limitation on revenue.--A State or qualified
political subdivision may exercise the authority described in
subsection (a) only if the State or qualified political
subdivision limits the use of any of its revenues derived
from the exercise of such authority primarily to solid waste
management services.
``(c) Competitive Designation Process.--
``(1) In general.--A State or qualified political
subdivision may exercise the authority described in
subsection (a) only if the State or qualified political
subdivision develops and implements a competitive designation
process, with respect to each waste management facility or
each facility for recyclable materials. The process shall--
``(A) ensure that the designation process is based on, or
is part of, a municipal solid waste management plan that is
adopted by the State or qualified political subdivision and
that is designed to ensure long-term management capacity for
municipal solid waste or recyclable materials generated
within the boundaries of the State or qualified political
subdivision;
``(B) set forth the goals of the designation process,
including at a minimum--
``(i) capacity assurance;
``(ii) the establishment of provisions to provide that
protection of human health and the environment will be
achieved; and
``(iii) any other goals determined to be relevant by the
State or qualified political subdivision;
``(C) identify and compare reasonable and available
alternatives, options, and costs for designation of the
facilities;
``(D) provide for public participation and comment;
[[Page S2576]] ``(E) ensure that the designation of each
facility is accomplished through an open competitive process
during which the State or qualified political subdivision--
``(i) identifies in writing criteria to be utilized for
selection of the facilities, which shall not discriminate
unfairly against any particular waste management facility or
any method of management, transportation or disposal, and
shall not establish qualifications for selection that can
only be met by public bodies;
``(ii) provides a fair and equal opportunity for interested
public persons and private persons to offer their existing
(as of the date of the process) or proposed facilities for
designation; and
``(iii) evaluates and selects the facilities for
designation based on the merits of the facilities in meeting
the criteria identified; and
``(F) base the designation of each such facility on reasons
that shall be stated in a public record.
``(2) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--A Governor of any State may certify that
the laws and regulations of the State in effect on May 15,
1994, satisfy the requirements for a competitive designation
process under paragraph (1).
``(B) Process.--In making a certification under
subparagraph (A), a Governor shall--
``(i) publish notice of the proposed certification in a
newspaper of general circulation and provide such additional
notice of the proposed certification as may be required by
State law;
``(ii) include in the notice of the proposed certification
or otherwise make readily available a statement of the laws
and regulations subject to the certification and an
explanation of the basis for a conclusion that the laws and
regulations satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1);
``(iii) provide interested persons an opportunity to
comment on the proposed certification, for a period of time
not less than 60 days, after publication of the notice; and
``(iv) publish notice of the final certification, together
with an explanation of the basis for the final certification,
in a newspaper of general circulation and provide such
additional notice of the final certification as may be
required by State law.
``(C) Appeal.--Within 120 days after publication of the
final certification under subparagraph (B), any interested
person may file an appeal of the final certification in the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal
judicial district of the State, for a judicial determination
that the certified laws and regulations do not satisfy the
requirements of paragraph (1) or that the certification
process did not satisfy the procedural requirements of
subparagraph (B). The appeal shall set forth the specific
reasons for the appeal of the final certification.
``(D) Limitation to record.--Any judicial proceeding
brought under subparagraph (C) shall be limited to the
administrative record developed in connection with the
procedures described in subparagraph (B).
``(E) Costs of litigation.--In any judicial proceeding
brought under subparagraph (C), the court shall award costs
of litigation (including reasonable attorney fees) to any
prevailing party whenever the court determines that such
award is appropriate.
``(F) Limitation on review of certifications.--If no appeal
is taken within 120 days after the publication of the final
certification, or if the final certification by the Governor
of any State is upheld by the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals and no party seeks review by the Supreme Court
(within applicable time requirements), the final
certification shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(G) Limitation on review of designations.--Designations
made after the final certification and pursuant to the
certified laws and regulations shall not be subject to
judicial review for failure to satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (1).
``(d) Ownership of Recyclable Materials.--
``(1) Prohibition on required transfers.--Nothing in this
section shall authorize any State or qualified political
subdivision, or any designee of the State or qualified
political subdivision, to require any generator or owner of
recyclable materials to transfer any recyclable materials to
such State or qualified political subdivision unless the
generator or owner of the recyclable materials voluntarily
made the materials available to the State or qualified
political subdivision and relinquished any rights to, or
ownership of, such materials.
``(2) Other transactions.--Nothing in this section shall
prohibit any person from selling, purchasing, accepting,
conveying, or transporting any recyclable materials for
purposes of transformation or remanufacture into usable or
marketable materials, unless a generator or owner voluntarily
made the materials available to the State or qualified
political subdivision and relinquished any rights to, or
ownership of, such materials.
``(e) Retained Authority.--Upon the request of any
generator of municipal solid waste affected by this section,
the State or political subdivision may authorize the
diversion of all or a portion of the solid wastes generated
by the generator making such request to a solid waste
facility, other than the facility or facilities originally
designated by the political subdivision, where the purpose of
such request is to provide a higher level of protection for
human health and the environment and reduce potential future
liability under Federal or State law of such generator for
the management of such wastes. Requests shall include
information on the environmental suitability of the proposed
alternative treatment or disposal facility and method,
compared to that of the designated facility and method. In
making such a determination the State or political
subdivision may consider the ability and willingness of both
the designated and alternative disposal facility or
facilities to indemnify the generator against any cause of
action under State or Federal environmental statutes and
against any cause of action for nuisance, personal injury, or
property loss under any State law.
``(f) Existing Laws and Contracts.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent consistent with subsection
(a), this section shall not supersede, abrogate, or otherwise
modify any of the following:
``(A) Any contract or other agreement (including any
contract containing an obligation to repay the outstanding
indebtedness on any proposed or existing waste management
facility or facility for recyclable materials) entered into
before May 15, 1994, by a State or qualified political
subdivision in which such State or qualified political
subdivision has designated a proposed or existing waste
management facility, or facility for recyclable materials,
for the transportation, management or disposal of municipal
solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid waste incineration
unit, construction debris or demolition debris, or recyclable
materials, pursuant to a law, ordinance, regulation, solid
waste management plan, or legally binding provision adopted
by such State or qualified political subdivision before May
15, 1994, if, in the case of a contract or agreement relating
to recyclable materials, the generator or owner of the
materials, and the State or qualified political subdivision,
have met the appropriate conditions in subsection (b)(1) with
respect to the materials.
``(B) Any other contract or agreement entered into before
May 15, 1994, for the transportation, management or disposal
of municipal solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid waste
incineration unit, or construction debris or demolition
debris.
``(C)(i) Any law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan, or legally binding provision--
``(I) that is adopted before May 15, 1994;
``(II) that pertains to the transportation, management, or
disposal of solid waste generated within the boundaries of a
State or qualified political subdivision; and
``(III) under which a State or qualified political
subdivision, prior to May 15, 1994, directed, limited,
regulated, or prohibited the transportation, management, or
disposal of municipal solid waste, or incinerator ash from, a
solid waste incineration unit, or construction debris or
demolition debris, generated within the boundaries;

if the law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management
plan, or legally binding provision is applied to the
transportation of solid waste described in subclause (III),
to a proposed or existing waste management facility
designated before May 15, 1994, or to the management or
disposal of such solid waste at such a facility, under such
law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management plan, or
legally binding provision.
``(ii) Any law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan, or legally binding provision--
``(I) that is adopted before May 15, 1994; and
``(II) that pertains to the transportation or management of
recyclable materials generated within the boundaries of a
State or qualified political subdivision;

if the law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management
plan, or legally binding provision is applied to the
transportation of recyclable materials that are generated
within the boundaries, and with respect to which the
generator or owner of the materials, and the State or
qualified political subdivision, have met the appropriate
conditions described in subsection (b)(1), to a proposed or
existing facility for recyclable materials designated before
May 15, 1994, or to the management of such materials, under
such law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste management plan,
or legally binding provision.
``(2) Contract information.--A party to a contract or other
agreement that is described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) shall provide a copy of the contract or
agreement to the State or qualified political subdivision on
request. Any proprietary information contained in the
contract or agreement may be omitted in the copy, but the
information that appears in the copy shall include at least
the date that the contract or agreement was signed, the
volume of municipal solid waste or recyclable materials
covered by the contract or agreement with respect to which
the State or qualified political subdivision could otherwise
exercise authority under subsection (a) or paragraph (1)(C),
the source of the waste or materials, the destination of the
waste or materials, the duration of the contract or
agreement, and the parties to the contract or agreement.
``(3) Effect on interstate commerce.--Any contract or
agreement described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph
(1), and any law, ordinance, regulation, solid waste
management plan, or legally binding provision described in
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), shall be considered to be
a reasonable regulation of commerce by a State or qualified
political subdivision, retroactive to
[[Page S2577]] the effective date of the contract or
agreement, or to the date of adoption of any such law,
ordinance, regulation, solid waste management plan, or
legally binding provision, and shall not be considered to be
an undue burden on or otherwise as impairing, restraining, or
discriminating against interstate commerce.
``(4) Limitation.--Any designation by a State or qualified
political subdivision of any waste management facility or
facility for recyclable materials after the date of enactment
of this section shall be made in compliance with subsection
(c). Nothing in this paragraph shall affect any designation
made before the date of enactment of this section, and any
such designation shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements
of subsection (c).
``(g) Savings Clause.--
``(1) Federal or state environmental laws.--Nothing in this
section is intended to supersede, amend, or otherwise modify
Federal or State environmental laws (including regulations)
that apply to the disposal or management of solid waste or
recyclable materials at waste management facilities or
facilities for recyclable materials.
``(2) State law.--Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to authorize a qualified political subdivision to
exercise the authority granted by this section in a manner
inconsistent with State law.
``(h) Prohibition.--No political subdivision may exercise
flow control authority to direct the movement of municipal
solid waste to any waste management facility for which a
Federal permit was denied twice before the enactment of this
section.
``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section only, the
following definitions apply:
``(1) Committed to the designation of one or more waste
management facilities.--The term `committed to the
designation of one or more waste management facilities' means
that a State or qualified political subdivision was legally
bound to designate one or more existing or future waste
management facilities or performed or caused to be performed
one or more of the following actions for the purpose of
designating one or more such facilities:
``(A) Obtained all required permits for the construction of
such waste management facility prior to May 15, 1994.
``(B) Executed contracts for the construction of such waste
management facility prior to May 15, 1994.
``(C) Presented revenue bonds for sale to specifically
provide revenue for the construction of such waste management
facility prior to May 15, 1994.
``(D) Submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency or
agencies, on or before May 15, 1994, administratively
complete permit applications for the construction and
operation of a waste management facility.
``(E) Formed a public authority or a joint agreement among
qualified political subdivisions, pursuant to a law
authorizing such formation for the purposes of designating
facilities.
``(F) Executed a contract or agreement that obligates or
otherwise requires a State or qualified political subdivision
to deliver a minimum quantity of solid waste to a waste
management facility and that obligates or otherwise requires
the State or qualified political subdivision to pay for that
minimum quantity of solid waste even if the stated minimum
quantity of solid waste is not delivered within a required
timeframe, otherwise commonly known as a `put or pay
agreement'.
``(G) Adopted, pursuant to a State statute that
specifically described the method for designating by solid
waste management districts, a resolution of preliminary
designation that specifies criteria and procedures for
soliciting proposals to designate facilities after having
completed a public notice and comment period.
``(H) Adopted, pursuant to a State statute that
specifically described the method for designating by solid
waste management districts, a resolution of intent to
establish designation with a list of facilities for which
designation is intended.
``(2) Designation; designate.--The terms `designate',
`designated', `designation' or `designating' mean a
requirement of a State or qualified political subdivision,
and the act of a State or qualified political subdivision, to
require that all or any portion of the municipal solid waste
that is generated within the boundaries of the State or
qualified political subdivision be delivered to a waste
management facility identified by a State or qualified
political subdivision, and specifically includes put or pay
agreements of the type described in paragraph (1)(F).
``(3) Flow control authority.--The term `flow control
authority' means the authority to control the movement of
solid waste or recyclable materials and direct such waste or
recyclable materials to one or more designated waste
management facilities or facilities for recyclable materials.
``(4) Industrial solid waste.--The term `industrial solid
waste' means solid waste generated by manufacturing or
industrial processes, including waste generated during scrap
processing and scrap recycling, that is not hazardous waste
regulated under subtitle C. `Industrial solid waste' does not
include municipal solid waste specified in paragraph
(5)(A)(iii).
``(5) Municipal solid waste.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the limitations of subsection
(b)(3), the term `municipal solid waste' means--
``(i) any solid waste discarded by a household, including a
single or multifamily residence;
``(ii) any solid waste that is discarded by a commercial,
institutional, or industrial source;
``(iii) residue remaining after recyclable materials have
been separated or diverted from municipal solid waste
described in clause (i) or (ii);
``(iv) any waste material or waste substance removed from a
septic tank, septage pit, or cesspool, other than from
portable toilets; and
``(v) conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste
under section 3001(d), if it is collected, processed or
disposed with other municipal solid waste as part of
municipal solid waste services.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' shall
not include any of the following:
``(i) Hazardous waste required to be managed in accordance
with subtitle C (other than waste described in subparagraph
(A)(v)), solid waste containing a polychlorinated biphenyl
regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2601 et seq.), or medical waste listed in section 11002.
``(ii)(I) A recyclable material.
``(II) A material or a product returned from a dispenser or
distributor to the manufacturer or the agent of the
manufacturer for credit, evaluation, or reuse unless such
material or product is discarded or abandoned for collection,
disposal or combustion.
``(III) A material or product that is an out-of-date or
unmarketable material or product, or is a material or product
that does not conform to specifications, and that is returned
to the manufacturer or the agent of the manufacturer for
credit, evaluation, or reuse unless such material or product
is discarded or abandoned for collection, disposal or
combustion.
``(iii) Any solid waste (including contaminated soil and
debris) resulting from a response action taken under section
104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604 or
9606) or a corrective action taken under this Act.
``(iv)(I) Industrial solid waste.
``(II) Any solid waste that is generated by an industrial
facility and transported for the purpose of containment,
storage, or disposal to a facility that is owned or operated
by the generator of the waste, or a facility that is located
on property owned by the generator.
``(6) Qualified political subdivision.--The term `qualified
political subdivision' means a governmental entity or
political subdivision of a State, as authorized by the State,
to plan for, or determine the methods to be utilized for, the
collection, transportation, disposal or other management of
municipal solid waste generated within the boundaries of the
area served by the governmental entity or political
subdivision.
``(7) Recyclable material.--The term `recyclable material'
means any material (including any metal, glass, plastic,
textile, wood, paper, rubber, or other material) that has
been separated, or diverted at the point of generation, from
solid waste for the purpose of recycling, reclamation, or
reuse.
``(8) Solid waste management plan.--The term `solid waste
management plan' means a plan for the transportation,
treatment, processing, composting, combustion, disposal or
other management of municipal solid waste, adopted by a State
or qualified political subdivision pursuant to and conforming
with State law.
``(9) Waste management facility.--The term `waste
management facility' means any facility or facilities in
which municipal solid waste, incinerator ash from a solid
waste incineration unit, or construction debris or demolition
debris is separated, stored, transferred, treated, processed,
combusted, deposited or disposed.
``(10) Existing waste management facility.--The term
`existing waste management facility' means a facility under
construction or in operation as of May 15, 1994.
``(11) Proposed waste management facility.--The term
`proposed waste management facility' means a facility that
has been specifically identified and designated, but that was
not under construction, as of May 15, 1994.
``(12) Future waste management facility.--The term `future
waste management facility' means any other waste management
facility.''.

SEC. 203. TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.

The table of contents in section 1001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by adding
after the item relating to section 4011 the following new
item:

``Sec. 4011. Congressional authorization of State control over
transportation, management and disposal of municipal
solid waste.''.

____
Support the Flow Control Consensus Bill: Final Passage--Today

October 7, 1994.
Dear Congressperson/Senator: We, the undersigned, have been
negotiating in good faith over the past several days to craft
a waste flow control proposal which is acceptable to
stakeholders on both sides of the issue. The attached
document represents our best efforts at reaching consensus on
this complex and, at times, difficult issue.
Negotiators on both sides have made significant
concessions. Each of us, if true to his/her own self-
interest, would make changes to the attached legislative
draft.
[[Page S2578]] However, we are united in our belief that
Congress must take action to provide a stable municipal solid
waste regulatory environment for communities and businesses
in light of the Carbone Supreme Court decision. If Congress
fails to act in the wake of the Carbone decision, it will
leave many facilities in financial jeopardy.
The attached document addresses the need to protect
existing flow control arrangements and the facilities that
are financially dependent on waste flow control, and allows a
competitive, free-market process to continue. While
imperfect, this proposal meets the immediate needs of public
and private entities, and is far more preferable to the
uncertainty which will result if no bill is passed.
We urge you to support enactment of this compromise in this
session of Congress.
Respectfully submitted,
Browning-Ferris Industries, Public Securities
Association, National Association of Counties, WMX
Technologies, Environmental Transportation Association,
Laidlaw, Inc., Chambers Development Company, Inc.,
Ogden Projects, Inc., National League of Cities, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, Solid Waste Management
Association of North America, Southern Pacific
Transportation Company.<bullet>

<bullet> Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to speak today about flow
control authority--an issue that is vital to the public safety and
fiscal soundness of States and localities. I commend Senator Lautenberg
and the coalition of local government officials, waste management
groups, and public security interests for working to craft this
important legislation.
I feel so strongly about the need for action that I was prepared to
introduce my own legislation this Congress. Frankly, I would have liked
to see more authority given to municipalities. State and local
governments have a vested interest in how solid waste produced within
their borders is transported and disposed. However, I recognize that a
hard-fought consensus has been reached, and I am pleased to be a
cosponsor of this important legislation.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], approximately
35 States were adversely affected by the May 1994 Supreme Court Carbone
decision, which invalidated local flow control authority. It is
important to note that Justice O'Connor, while siding with the
majority, did in fact state that it was within Congress' purview to
authorize local imposition of flow control. It is my feeling that if
Congress does not enact legislation, States will continue to suffer
environmentally and financially.
Flow control is essential to the implementation of Connecticut's
integrated waste management plan. Many localities have made significant
capital investments to move away from outdated landfills to construct
efficient, yet costly, waste disposal centers. Approximately 86 percent
of Connecticut's waste is now disposed of in these state-of-the art
facilities. The State, and ultimately the taxpaying citizens, are
backing $500 million in bonds that were used to finance the
construction of regional waste disposal centers and recycling transfer
stations. Profits from the facilities, used to pay off the bonds, were
to be ensured by flow control authority.
Almost 75 percent of Connecticut municipalities entered into ``put-
or-pay'' contracts, and will be forced to pay penalties for the
shortfall created by trash moving elsewhere. At a time when Congress is
trying to ease the tax burden on working families, it is highly likely
that their taxes could increase, if towns are unable to meet their
garbage quotes. If transporters choose to deliver waste to landfills
out of State, then citizens will in effect pay twice--first, to have
their waste transported away, and again to cover the put-or-pay
requirement. Finally, municipal bond ratings could plummet, increasing
the cost of future local projects.
This legislation strikes an appropriate balance. Only those
communities that have already relied on flow control authority or have
detailed plans to do so, are protected. This legislation is proconsumer
and probusiness because it preserves competition and levels the playing
field. This bill is also proenvironment because it encourages the
further construction of recycling and composting facilities as a
byproduct of a successful revenue bond financing program.
The legislation that we are introducing today is identical to what
passed the House of Representatives last fall. It was most unfortunate
that in the Senate, flow control legislation fell victim to the
stalling tactics employed by some members on the other side of the
aisle on the last day of the session. This compromise legislation died,
despite strong bipartisan support.
Mr. President, I hope that this year we will be successful. It is
clear that this issue is not going away and it is important to the
people on my State and in many others that we deal with this problem. I
urge my fellow Senators to join me in moving forward on this vital
piece of legislation.<bullet>

____________________