[Pages H931-H943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1415
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT OF 1995

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 349) providing for the consideration of S. 534.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 349

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, the
Committee on Commerce shall be discharged from further
consideration of the bill S. 534 and the House shall be
considered to have struck out all after the enacting clause
and inserted in lieu thereof an amendment consisting of the
text contained in section 2 of this resolution, the bill
shall be considered to have passed the House, as amended, and
the House shall be considered to have insisted on the House
amendment and requested a conference with the Senate thereon.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL.

(a) Amendment of Subtitle D.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is amended by adding after section 4010 the
following new section:

``SEC. 4011. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.

``(a) Flow Control Authority for Facilities Designated as
of May 16, 1994.--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 May 16,
1994, 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, determined as of May 16, 1994.
``(2) Such flow control authority is imposed through the
adoption or execution of a law, ordinance, regulation,
resolution, or other legally binding provision or legally
binding official act of the State or political subdivision
that--
``(A) was in effect on May 16, 1994,
``(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 thereof
by legislative or official administrative action of the State
or political subdivision expressly because of the existence
of a court order of the type described in subparagraph (B)
issued by a court of the same State or Federal judicial
circuit.
``(3) The State or a political subdivision thereof has, for
one or more of such designated facilities, in accordance with
paragraph (2), on or before May 16, 1994, either--
``(A) presented eligible bonds for sale, or
``(B) executed a legally binding contract or agreement that
obligates it to deliver a minimum quantity of waste or
recyclable materials to one or more such designated waste
management facilities or facilities for recyclable materials
and that obligates it 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.
``(b) Waste Stream Subject to Flow Control.--The flow
control authority of subsection (a) shall only permit the
exercise of flow control authority to any designated facility
of the specific classes or categories of municipal solid
waste and voluntarily relinquished recyclable materials to
which flow control authority was applicable on May 16, 1994,
or immediately before the effective date of an injunction or
court order referred to in subsection (a)(2)(B) or an action
referred to in subsection (a)(2)(C) and--
``(1) in the case of any designated waste management
facility or facility for recyclable materials that was in
operation as of May 16, 1994, only if the facility concerned
received municipal solid waste or recyclable materials in
those classes or categories within 2 years prior to May 16,
1994, or the effective date of such injunction or other court
order or action,
``(2) in the case of any designated waste management
facility or facility for recyclable materials that was not
yet in operation as of May 16, 1994, only of the classes or
categories that were clearly identified by the State or
political subdivision as of May 16, 1994, to be flow
controlled to such facility, and
``(3) only to the extent of the maximum volume authorized
by State permit to be disposed at the waste management
facility or processed at the facility for recyclable
materials.

If specific classes or categories of municipal solid waste or
recyclable materials were not clearly identified, paragraph
(2) shall apply only to municipal solid waste generated by
households, including single family residences and multi-
family residences of up to 4 units.
``(c) Duration of Flow Control Authority.--Flow control
authority may be exercised pursuant to this section to any
facility or facilities only until the later of the following:
``(1) The expiration date of the bond referred to in
subsection (a)(3)(A).
``(2) The expiration date of the contract or agreement
referred to in subsection (a)(3)(B).
``(3) The adjusted expiration date of a bond issued for a
qualified environmental retrofit.

[[Page H932]]

Such expiration dates shall be determined based upon the
terms and provisions of the bond or contract in effect on May
16, 1994. In the case of a contract described in subsection
(a)(3)(B) that has no specified expiration date, for purposes
of paragraph (2) the expiration date shall be treated as the
first date that the State or political subdivision that is a
party to the contract can withdraw from its responsibilities
under the contract without being in default thereunder and
without substantial penalty or other substantial legal
sanction.
``(d) Mandatory Opt-Out for Generators and Transporters.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no State
or political subdivision may require any generator or
transporter of municipal solid waste or recyclable materials
to transport such waste or materials, or deliver such waste
or materials for transportation, to a facility that is listed
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 facility has
adequately indemnified the generator or transporter against
all liability under that Act with respect to such waste or
materials.
``(e) Effect on Existing Laws.--
``(1) Environmental laws.--Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted or construed to have any effect on any other law
relating to the protection of human health and the
environment, or the management of municipal solid waste or
recyclable materials.
``(2) State law.--Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to authorize a political subdivision to exercise
the flow control authority granted by this section in a
manner inconsistent with State law.
``(3) Ownership of recyclable materials.--Nothing in this
section shall authorize any State or political subdivision to
require any generator or owner of recyclable materials to
transfer any recyclable materials to such State or political
subdivision, nor shall prohibit any persons from selling,
purchasing, accepting, conveying, or transporting any
recyclable materials, unless the generator or owner
voluntarily makes such recyclable materials available to the
State or political subdivision and relinquishes any rights
to, or ownership of, such recyclable materials.
``(f) Facilities Not Qualified for Flow Control.--No flow
control authority may be exercised under the provisions of
this section to direct solid waste or recyclable materials to
any facility pursuant to an ordinance if--
``(1) the ordinance was determined to be unconstitutional
by a State or Federal court in October of 1994;
``(2) the facility is located over a sole source aquifer,
within 5 miles of a public beach, and within 25 miles of a
city with a population of more than 5,000,000; and
``(3) the facility is not fully permitted and operating in
complete official compliance with all Federal, State, and
local environmental regulations.
``(g) Limitation on Revenue.--A State or qualified
political subdivision may exercise the flow control authority
granted in this section only if the State or qualified
political subdivision limits the use of any of the revenues
it derives from the exercise of such authority for 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)(B).
``(4) Other expenses necessary for the operation and
maintenance of designated facilities and other integral
facilities necessary for the operation and maintenance of
such designated facilities that are identified by the same
eligible bond.
``(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 May 16, 1994, and for which
the State or political subdivision, after periodic
evaluation, beginning no later than one year after the
enactment of this section, finds that there is no comparable
qualified private sector service provider available. Such
periodic evaluation shall be based on public notice and open
competition. The amount and nature of payments described in
this paragraph shall be fully disclosed to the public
annually.
``(h) Interim Contracts.--A lawful, legally binding
contract under State law 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 such State or political subdivision, or
``(2) after such State or political subdivision refrained
pursuant to legislative or official administrative action
from enforcing flow control authority 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.
``(i) 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
and may exercise the additional flow control authority
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Additional flow control authority.--A State that
meets the requirements of paragraph (1) and any political
subdivision thereof may exercise flow control authority over
all classes and categories of municipal solid waste that were
subject to flow control by such State or political
subdivision thereof on May 16, 1994, by directing it from any
existing waste management facility that was designated as of
May 16, 1994, or any proposed waste management facility in
the State to any other such existing or proposed waste
management facility in the State without regard to whether
the political subdivision within which the municipal solid
waste is generated had designated the particular waste
management facility or had issued a bond or entered into a
contract referred to in subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B),
respectively.
``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `proposed waste management facility' means a waste
management facility that was specifically identified in a
waste management plan prior to May 16, 1994, and for the
construction of which--
``(A) revenue bonds were issued and outstanding as of May
16, 1994,
``(B) additional financing with revenue bonds was required
as of the date of enactment of this section to complete
construction, and
``(C) a permit had been issued prior to December 31, 1994.
``(4) Limitation of authority.--The additional flow control
authority granted by paragraph (2) may be exercised to--
``(A) any facility described in paragraph (2) for up to 5
years after the date of enactment of this section, and
``(B) after 5 years after enactment of this section, only
to those facilities and only with respect to the classes,
categories, and geographic origin of waste directed to such
facilities specifically identified by the State in a public
notice issued within 5 years after enactment of this section.
``(5) 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).
``(j) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section is intended
to have any effect on the authority of any State or political
subdivision to franchise, license, or contract for municipal
solid waste collection, processing, or disposal.
``(k) Application of Flow Control Authority.--The flow
control authority granted by this section shall be exercised
in a manner that ensures that it is applied to the public
sector if it is applied to the private sector.
``(l) Promotion of Recycling.--The Congress finds that, in
order to promote recycling, anyone engaged in recycling
activities should strive to meet applicable standards for the
reuse of recyclable materials.
``(m) 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, and such provisions
shall also apply to the exercise by any State or political
subdivision of flow control authority before such date of
enactment unless the exercise of such authority has been
declared unconstitutional by a final judicial decision that
is no longer subject to judicial review.
``(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 bonds.
``(2) Bond issued for a qualified environmental retrofit.--
The term `bond issued for a qualified environmental retrofit'
means a revenue or general obligation bond, 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) and (B) respectively that is applicable
to such facility and no later than December 31, 1999.
``(3) Designate; designation, etc..--The terms `designate',
`designated', `designating', and `designation' mean a
requirement of a State or political subdivision, and the act
of a State or political subdivision, individually or
collectively, to require that all or any portion of the
municipal solid waste or recyclable materials that is
generated within the boundaries of the State or any political
subdivision be delivered to one or more waste management
facilities or facilities for recyclable materials identified
by the State or a political subdivision thereof. The term
`designation' includes bond covenants, official

[[Page H933]]
statements, or other official financing documents issued by a political
subdivision issuing an eligible bond in which it identified a
specific waste management facility as being the subject of
such bond and the requisite facility for receipt of municipal
solid waste or recyclable materials generated within the
jurisdictional boundaries of that political subdivision.
``(4) Eligible bond.--The term `eligible bond' means--
``(A) a revenue bond specifically to finance one or more
designated waste management facilities, facilities for
recyclable materials, or specifically and directly related
assets, development or finance costs, as evidenced by the
bond documents; or
``(B) a general obligation bond, the proceeds of which were
used solely to finance one or more designated waste
management facilities, facilities for recyclable materials,
or specifically and directly related assets, development or
finance costs, as evidenced by the bond documents.
``(5) Flow control authority.--The term `flow control
authority' means the authority to control the movement of
municipal solid waste or voluntarily relinquished recyclable
materials and direct such solid waste or voluntarily
relinquished recyclable materials to one or more designated
waste management facilities or facilities for recyclable
materials within the boundaries of a State or within the
boundaries of a political subdivision of a State, as in
effect on May 16, 1994.
``(6) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid
waste' means any solid waste generated by the general public
or by households, including single residences and multifamily
residences, and from commercial, institutional, and
industrial sources, to the extent such waste is essentially
the same as waste normally generated by households or was
collected and disposed of with other municipal solid waste as
part of normal municipal solid waste collection services,
consisting of paper, wood, yard waste, plastics, leather,
rubber, and other combustible materials and noncombustible
materials such as metal and glass, including residue
remaining after recyclable materials have been separated from
waste destined for disposal, and including waste material
removed from a septic tank, septage pit, or cesspool (other
than from portable toilets), except that the term does not
include any of the following:
``(A) Any waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste
under section 3001 of this Act or waste regulated under the
Toxic Substances Control Act.
``(B) Any waste, including contaminated soil and debris,
resulting from--
``(i) response or remedial action taken under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980,
``(ii) any corrective action taken under this Act, or
``(iii) any corrective action taken under any comparable
State statute.
``(C) Construction and demolition debris.
``(D) Medical waste listed in section 11002 of this Act.
``(E) Industrial waste generated by manufacturing or
industrial processes, including waste generated during scrap
processing and scrap recycling.
``(F) Recyclable materials.
``(G) Sludge.
``(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) Recycle and recycling.--The terms `recycle' and
`recycling' mean--
``(A) any process which produces any material defined as
`recycled' under section 1004; and
``(B) any process by which materials are diverted,
separated from, or separately managed from materials
otherwise destined for disposal as solid waste, by
collecting, sorting, or processing for use as raw materials
or feedstocks in lieu of, or in addition to, virgin
materials, including petroleum, in the manufacture of usable
materials or products.
``(9) 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.
``(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 for subtitle
D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended by adding the
following new item after the item relating to section 4010:

``Sec. 4011. Congressional authorization of State and local government
control over movement of municipal solid waste and
recyclable materials.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). Pursuant to the rule,
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be recognized for 20
minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes flow control authority. That
is, it authorizes State and local governments, rather than the people
who transport the waste, to choose where waste generated within their
borders is sent.
In its May 16, 1994, Carbone opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that
the exercise of flow control violated the interstate commerce clause.
The Court found that flow control was simply another in a long line of
mechanisms burdening interstate commerce. Only Congress or its duly
authorized designee can impose such restrictions.
In my view, this legislation is a necessary evil. In an arena where
the private sector is perfectly capable of doing the job, it authorizes
State and local government regulation over interstate commerce. Where
the waste hauler could find a cheaper disposal site, or a closer
disposal site, or a more environmentally sound disposal site, this
legislation says that under certain conditions, the hauler would have
to send that waste to another site chosen by the government. That is
contrary to my own views.
However, State and local governments across the country, in good
faith reliance on the ability to exercise such regulation, entered into
contracts and made billions of dollars worth of investment in waste
facilities. Much of this investment is in the hands of investors who
purchased bonds that could be at risk absent some congressional action.
Taxpayers also face risk if the continued stability of these facilities
and investments is not ensured. Hence this bill.
The road to the floor of the House of Representatives sometimes
twists and turns in an unusual fashion. We dispense today with full
committee consideration of this bill some 7 months after subcommittee
markup. Following subcommittee markup last May, this legislation
languished while the interested parties, primarily local government
organizations and the waste industry, stared at each other in resolute
disagreement. Only as the situation reached a dire stage for some
bondholders and certain jurisdictions, including the State of New
Jersey, did the parties open the window of opportunity. The Public
Securities Association, along with Browning-Ferris Industries and Waste
Management, approached the Committee on Commerce about negotiating a
flow control agreement. We welcome their offer and facilitated their
discussions.

After input from States, local governments, the waste industry,
bondholder organizations and of course the Members of this body, the
result is the legislation before us today. I am proud to hold a letter
supporting this legislation from the National Association of Counties,
WMX Technologies, the Solid Waste Association of North America,
Browning Ferris Industries, the Public Securities Association, and
Ogden Projects.
The principle driving this bill is that if you have bonded
indebtedness issued prior to the date of the Carbone case, or if you
entered into a contract prior to Carbone obligating you to provide a
minimum quantity of waste to a particular facility or pay for the
contract amount, then you can exercise flow control in the future for
the life of the bond or the life of the contract. If not, the recourse
for your facility is to become competitive in the marketplace.
There are a lot of situations across the country that we have sought
to take care of within the context of this principle. Many that simply
did not meet the test will find themselves in the same situation that
private sector facilities have long been in: competing for business.
Others may meet the test but were not brought to the committee's
attention in time for consideration in today's bill. I am willing to
work with Members to make sure that situations that meet the principle
are not inadvertently left out.
Another issue also bears mentioning. Flow control has long been
linked to

[[Page H934]]
interstate waste in both the House and the Senate. This bill deals only
with flow control. I am not opposed to moving interstate waste
legislation through the Committee on Commerce and have committed to
bring it up for a vote on February 28. However, that legislation was
simply not ready for consideration today because of outstanding issues
between waste importing and waste exporting States. I hope they can be
resolved soon. I appreciate the forbearance of the many Members who
selflessly have agreed to let this legislation go forward despite local
issues so we can solve pressing problems in other States.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the
many minority members who have been very interested in this issue and
whose assistance is reflected in this legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the question before this body today is whether to
suspend the rules of the House in considering legislation which would
grandfather flow control authority for certain local jurisdictions and
waste management facilities. While I support flow control legislation,
I do not believe this is an appropriate bill for consideration under
procedures which circumvent the committee process.
In bringing up the flow control bill on the suspension calendar,
there has been a serious breach of the normal legislative flow control.
Without explanation, we have bypassed the normal full committee markup
process and denied members of the Committee on Commerce their
opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation.
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials reported
a flow control bill, H.R. 2323, on May 18 of last year. H.R. 2323,
which also contains provisions addressing the issue of allowing States
and local governments to limit receipt of out-of-State municipal waste,
has been languishing before the full Committee on Commerce for the last
6 months. No full committee markup of the bill has ever been scheduled.
The language before us today was only introduced as a bill this
morning. In fact, the bill which we have is marked ``12:20,'' at 12:20
this afternoon. It is now 2:20 in the afternoon. For 2 hours we have
had the bill and the bill itself has been changed from the last version
which we saw.
Mr. Speaker, that is wrong, just from a procedure perspective, in
terms of what all Members are owed as procedural due process in the
notice of important substantive changes in legislation. It contains
provisions that were not agreed to by the minority, and it deletes the
interstate waste language.
Reportedly, this new bill was negotiated downtown between special
interests who did not favor the subcommittee-reported bill apparently
lacked the votes at full committee in order to weaken it. So as a
result, it has been weakened in the Committee on Rules, with no public
notice, with no debate, and with all Members now expected to vote upon
legislation which has not gone through the traditional legislative
committee process.
In addition to the substantive changes made in the flow control
language, the bill has also delinked flow control from the interstate
waste legislation. This creates serious problems for many Members who
are concerned that their States and localities not become the dumping
grounds for out-of-State waste.
In the past, the flow control and interstate waste bills have always
been linked together in the same legislation. In the 103d Congress, for
example, a flow control/interstate waste bill was considered by this
body under an open rule that allowed Members to offer amendments where
the will of the Members could be fully expressed. The resulting product
was approved by the House by unanimous consent. In this Congress, the
Senate passed legislation which addresses both the flow control and
interstate waste issues.
Delinking these two issues, as is being proposed today, means that we
may not have any interstate waste legislation this year, despite the
fact that 23 Governors have called for such legislation.
I must object, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to consideration of this bill
today under suspension of the rules. The bill before us is
controversial, and maybe Members have been denied their opportunity to
offer amendments as a result of this procedure. I urge the Members to
oppose the motion to suspend the rules of the House so we can defeat
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, to answer the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced and it is in the Record for
Friday. Yes, it was changed today to insert two provisions for the
benefit of the ranking minority member of the full committee. One
deleted the so-called double-dipping language, and the other was to
insert a central Wayne County fix, so I wanted to clear up that
misunderstanding.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Minge].
(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, the flow-control legislation we are
considering this afternoon, from the perspective of many of us, ought
to be written differently, but one thing that I have noticed in my
short legislative career, congressional career, is that it is almost
impossible to move legislation through this body and through the Senate
in a form that each of us feels is going to take care of every problem
that is faced by our constituents.
In the last session of Congress, indeed, we did pass flow-control
legislation in the House of Representatives. It was passed in the
Senate, but due to the lateness of the hour, the legislation languished
and it never was brought back to both Chambers for final approval.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we favorably report out this proposal today
so that the process may move forward, so that a conference committee
can be appointed, so that the differences between the House and Senate
provisions can be reconciled, and ultimate legislation which serves the
needs of our country can be passed by this institution.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying that I think there is broad
bipartisan agreement for supporting a flow-control bill. I am all for
it. I regret that the coming together of sides on this issue as it
relates to not only flow control but the interstate waste bill has been
so late in developing as we come to the floor, because there are,
frankly, folks who are not here today who have a real stake and a real
interest in this legislation who I would like to have consulted with.
Mr. Speaker, I am also for a bill that gives our local governments
the ability to prohibit out-of-State from being dumped into our
communities. I, along with the gentleman from Michigan, Fred Upton, and
the gentleman from Ohio, Mike Oxley, and a whole host of other people
on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Boucher, and many others on our side of the aisle have been fighting
for this now for a number of years, and we have come within a whisker
of having this accomplished over the last two Congresses. We do not
want the opportunity to go by without having our full say.
Mr. Speaker, we are willing to work with Members on both sides of the
aisle to get this done; in fact, to get both done, the flow control as
well as the out-of-State. It appears right now, Mr. Speaker, and I am
still talking with folks, that the out-of State provisions fall a
little bit short here. By not addressing the out-of-State-issue, as has
been mentioned by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], on the
floor of this House, or in committee, for that matter, in the House,
Members on both sides of the aisle are limited in their negotiating
ability once this goes to conference.
I am concerned about that, because the Senate bill that deals with
out-of-State is not as environmentally strong as, frankly, some of us
would like it to

[[Page H935]]
be. The House provisions that we have had over the years, and which we
seek to have come before the House today which would give more autonomy
to local units of government, as opposed to having the say on what can
come into the State in terms of out-of-State waste controlled by the
Governor.
Further, the 11th-hour negotiations still going on among many parties
involved in this issue I think clearly shows that this may not be the
best way to handle this in terms of the suspension calendar, although
there is an advantage to doing it that way, and the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and I talked about that a little earlier today.
I recognize parts of the procedural advantages.

{time} 1430

But it does shut out a lot of folks, and that is somewhat troubling
to me.
I would hope that we would be able to have an honest debate on this.
This is a big issue. This affects all of our districts; it is one of
the key environmental votes that we will have probably this Congress.
it deals with how we are going to deal with our waste in this country.
It seems to me that the proper role for local and State governments
in solid waste management really hinges upon the full participation,
not just the narrow participation, of the Representatives from those
individual States in this body. We want to work together to open up the
process and give all of the States in this debate an opportunity to be
heard.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me reserve my comments at this point and say to
my friends on both sides of the aisle, I hope we can continue to have
some good discussions on this, although I am rather troubled by the
procedure under which we are working here this afternoon.
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley], chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Hazardous Materials, who has put endless hours in on this subject.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the issues of flow control and interstate waste have
vexed this Congress for the last several years. I believe that it has
been proper all along to consider these issues in tandem, because they
both speak to how responsibly we, as a society, manage the disposal of
solid waste.
Some communities find themselves in desperate financial condition
because of the Supreme Court's Carbone decision that struck down flow
control. These communities sold bonds to investors in good faith, and
are relying on limited flow-control power to pay them back. There is a
need for Congress to act with dispatch in order to provide legitimate
relief.
Not everyone will agree with the bill in front of us today. Some
people wanted a broader bill, others, no bill at all. But this bill
sends a clear signal that obligations will be honored.
A great controversy has arisen over the last few days over the
decision to move this flow bill before the House arrived at a position
on interstate waste legislation, which is equally as important to
importing States like Ohio. Frankly, I was prepared to oppose the
decision to divorce the two titles, especially since they were approved
by my subcommittee on a voice vote.
Adding to the anxiety of importing States were recent statements that
the move to split the two bills would have killed any interstate
legislation this year.
I have received assurances, however, that in approving this flow-
control bill that we will be able to conference interstate waste with
the Senate. I had a productive discussion with Rules Chairman Jerry
Solomon this morning. I would expect that the concerns of importing
States will be adequately and forcefully represented in conference.
Meantime, I have encouraged the Governors of the affected States to
meet and to try to reach an agreement on the issues. We need to have
direct participation by all Governors with an interest in this. The
National Governors Association meeting coming up soon will allow the
Governors to have face-to-face discussions on this issue.
Again, I will give support to this flow-control bill only having been
assured by key players in the debate that interstate waste legislation
will be addressed and that the concerns of importing States, which have
fallen on deaf ears in recent years, will be resolved.
I want to pay special thanks to the full committee chairman, the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for providing an opportunity for
those States who are importing States to actually get to conference on
this important issue. I think all of us share the goal of getting to a
conference and getting to agreement on this important issue, involving
the Governors and all of the Members from the affected States.
Please remember that 23 Governors have signed a letter in support of
the legislation that passed out of my subcommittee on a unanimous voice
vote. There is strong support out there for reasonable interstate waste
provisions in the statute, coupled with flow control. I ask the Members
to support this important move forward as we get into a conference
committee.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 349
for a couple of reasons. Part of it is that this legislation does not
at all resemble what the subcommittee worked on for this bill, and the
problems that the subcommittee addressed.
Even more to the point, and I have great respect for my friend from
Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bliley, this
legislation was introduced only 2 hours ago, as the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, said.
This legislation clearly does not deal with many of the problems that
a lot of districts and a lot of taxpayers have around this country.
Putting this legislation forward after being introduced only 2 hours
ago, having no hearings on this bill, reminds us of the way that these
committees and this Congress have dealt on issues like Medicare and
Medicaid, where there might be a hearing, there might not be a hearing,
the vote comes to the floor, we vote it up or down without people
reading the bill, without people understanding what we are voting on.
In district after district in this country taxpayers will be left out
in the cold, instead of, for example, in my district in Medina County,
OH, instead of issuing bonds to construct its facilities, Medina County
entered into an $8 million cooperative loan agreement with the Ohio
Water Development Authority.
Taxpayers in Medina County will lose, will be left out in the cold
because of this bill, the way this bill is written.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I appreciate the problems of
Medina County. My home county has a similar kind of situation where
they actually save the money to develop a landfill and then use that to
initiate flow control. They did it very responsibly. They are
unfortunately not covered under this particular version, and that is
why it is important for us to get to conference on this issue so that
we can vent these issues and have them determined.
I am on the gentleman's side on this issue, and I understand where he
is coming from, but we cannot get this problem solved unless we get to
conference, and that is what this procedure is all about.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ohio is actually my
mother's Congressman, but she taught me a long time ago that I should
take care of a problem when it is there. I do not think that the kind
of back-room deals that were made in this bill with lobbyists and
special interests writing these bills, whether it is Superfund or
Medicare or this legislation, that we really want to just say, trust
us, we will take care of it in conference committee.
People in Medina County stand to lose $8 million under this bill.
People in Arkansas and people in Virginia and people of this country
stand to lose lots of taxpayers' dollars. We should protect their
investment, take the bill back to committee, have hearings, let us
write a good bipartisan piece of legislation.

[[Page H936]]

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I do not know whether the previous speaker is worried about the
taxpayers paying. I will tell the gentleman something: If this bill
does not become law, the taxpayers are going to pay through the nose,
and that is why I am here supporting this legislation. I have counties
like Dutchess County in upstate New York that have already been
obligated to bonds that have to be paid off by the taxpayers unless we
are able to get this kind of legislation through.
Let us just say that we have people on both sides of this. The only
way we are ever going to settle it, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Oxley] has alluded to it, is to pass this piece of legislation, then go
to conference with the Senate on the interstate waste, which is a very
important piece of legislation.
Once we are there, we have major Governors around this country who
are concerned about this. Let us let Governor Pataki of New York,
Governor Engler of Michigan, Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania, and
Governor Voinovich of Ohio, let us let them sit down, work out these
differences and then bring it back. I will commit, as chairman of the
Committee on Rules, that when they have worked out their differences,
let them come back here, and we will then bring this conference report
to the floor and we will pass both the interstate waste, which is very
important, as well as this flow control bill, which is extremely
important, because if we do not, the taxpayers are going to pay through
the nose, and we cannot let that happen.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
Mr. PICKETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the municipal solid waste
flow control legislation being offered today. It will have a
dramatically adverse financial impact on the municipal governments I
represent and it is a blatant repudiation of the principle of ``no
unfunded mandates.''
Late in the 1970's in the absence of any private alternative, eight
municipal governments in my region joined together to create the
Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia to manage, in an
environmentally sound way, the rising volume of solid waste. In
adopting this comprehensive waste management program, the participating
communities all executed contracts prior to 1985 committing to dispose
of their municipal solid waste to the authority. To construct the plant
to convert the solid waste to energy for sale, the authority issued
bonds that now amount to $275 million. In addition to guaranteeing the
bonds, the municipalities are obligated by their contract with the
authority to dispose of their solid waste to the authority and the
authority is obligated under contract to deliver energy.
This legislation before us will destroy this established and
operating environmentally sound regional waste management system,
undermine the value of the bonds issued by the authority, impose
additional financial burden and hardship on the participating
municipalities, and create a new avenue of intrusion by the Federal
Government into a purely State and local governmental activity.
This bill has been brought to the floor under a procedure that
circumvents the committee process and precludes Members from offering
amendments to protect their communities from financial distress. I urge
Members to reject the flawed process under which we are considering
this legislation and to vigorously oppose the flow control bill that is
before us today.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Let me begin by thanking
Chairman Tom Bliley for truly going the extra mile today; for his
willingness to understand and address issues that are so vital to some
of our States. I especially want to thank Mr. Bliley for the
statesmanlike approach embodied in this compromise in meeting the
legitimate needs of our colleagues intent on restricting the flow of
waste into their States. And special thanks to Chairman Mike Oxley--in
the House no one has worked as tenaciously as he on interstate waste
legislation. And finally, special thanks to Chairman Jerry Solomon, who
has worked hard to facilitate this bill.
After 20 months of toil and good faith compromises by all sides of
the issue, we are here today with a modest, extremely narrow, rescue
bill for locales throughout the country who have waste management
systems predicated on flow control and tied to public debt.
Over $20 billion of public bonds and obligations of local communities
and investors are today in grave jeopardy and desperately need this
solution we are proposing. Our local governments--charged with managing
their waste--are in desperate situations warranting immediate action.
The festering crisis dictates that we wait no more and fast-track
this emergency debt protection remedy.
For communities across the country--who saw a legislative remedy
vanish in the waning hours of the 103d Congress, a casualty of a failed
UC request in the Senate--this is their only hope.
Make no mistake, this legislation does not establish a broad
authority for flow control. Instead it prescribes a narrow grant of
authority and phases out of such activity allowing communities to make
a smooth transition and ensuring that investments in public projects do
not go belly up.
Under the bill flow control is permitted for the limited purpose of
paying off outstanding bonds and that is it. According to the EPA, less
than 20 percent--one-fifth--of the solid waste market is expected to
receive some type of protection under this flow control bill. And as
each day passes, and municipalities pay off their bonds, this small
share of the market will continue to diminish until it reaches zero.
No one likes it when rules of the game change in midstream.
The Carbone decision vitiated waste flow authority after States and
local governments had devised comprehensive waste management plans--at
the behest of the Federal Government--which relied on that authority to
make the plan economically viable. In other words, decisions were made
and funds expended or obligated based on assumptions that disappeared
on May 16, 1994--the date the Carbone opinion was handed down.
In the post-Carbone world, communities still have the responsibility
to manage garbage--that is: collect, treat, and dispose of it--but some
may no longer have the tools to carry it out efficiently.
Flow control has been a difficult issue for the past 2 years because
local governments and private industry have different opinions on how
much of flow control is a good thing. State and local government
organizations have historically supported the continuation of flow
control authority as an important prerogative of State and local
government and the best tool for safe and environmentally sound
disposal of garbage. Members of the private waste industry believe
there should be no constraints on the movement of waste.
The bill before us today has opted for the private enterprise
position--prohibiting any future flow control. The bill is drafted as
an extremely narrow grandfather--allowing flow control only in
jurisdictions that exercised it, designated the waste facility to
receive the waste, and sold bonds--or executed put-or-pay contracts--to
finance the facility--all prior to the Carbone decision. And once the
bonds are paid off, with the narrow exception of retrofits mandated
under the Clean Air Act, flow control ends forever.
Importantly, because these flow control provisions are so narrow,
they have achieved support from significant stakeholders on this issue:
the national organizations representing State and local government
interests, such as the National Association of Counties and the Solid
Waste Association of North America; major companies from the waste
industry, such as Waste Management Technologies, Inc. and Browning
Ferris Industries; and the Public Securities Association, representing
the concerns of bond holders and issuers. While all of them have a
different bill of perfection in mind, they have reached a compromise
that they can live with.

[[Page H937]]

The situation in my home county of Mercer illustrates how urgent the
situation is.
At present, Mercer has incurred debt obligations of over $189 million
to finance the project, with approximately $100 million more needed for
completion of the project.
Carbone has put the entire undertaking on the shelf and costs to
build the waste-to-energy facility have increased by over $4 million.
Accordingly to Mercer County executive, Bob Prunetti, each day of
irresolution of this issue costs an additional $20,000 per day.
In the 20 months that we have been debating the perfect flow control
and interstate provisions, Mercer County's bonds have been downgraded
and, last week on January 25, permits for the construction of our
facility expired. The authority has petitioned the New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection for an extension of this permit.
It is unclear, at this time, whether or not there is precedence for
such an extension.
My State with our landfills nearing full capacity and with more than
2.1 million tons exported per year to other States has attempted to act
responsibly and earnestly to resolve our waste disposal problems and
become self-sufficient. My county of Mercer exports 300,000 tons to
Bucks County, PA, just across the river.
If we are able to proceed with our waste-to-energy project at least
220,000 tons of municipal sold waste will stay in Mercer County to be
incinerated. That, it seems to me, nips the problem at the source.
And let me remind Members that self-sufficiency has been our goal for
20 years and flow control was--is--the requisite to achieving that
goal. Nearly two decades ago, the State of New Jersey took the
initiative to limit its exports on its own. The State's comprehensive
solid waste management plan is meant to achieve self-sufficiency by the
year 2000. But the plan hinges on the use of limited flow control--
without it, it just ain't gonna' happen. And worse, our 2.1 million
tons of cross-State waste will only increase.
Mercer's bond downgrading has not been unique. Other communities
around the Nation especially Pennsylvania, Florida, California, New
York, New Hampshire, and Illinois have had their credit ratings
downgraded or have been put on credit watch because they have lost the
ability to flow control.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress anxious to pass tough interstate
restrictions on the transport of garbage, take note: I respectfully
submit this is your opportunity to advance that prospect since you will
get your day in conference with this legislation. Yet, I am here to
tell you that passage of flow control authority by this Congress--
temporarily delinked from interstate--will only help alleviate the need
to export garbage.
The Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] study on flow control,
released last year unequivocally states that: ``Flow control is one
mechanism that State and local governments can use to foster
development of in-State capacity to manage municipal solid waste.''
To my friends who are disappointed that the interstate provisions
will be considered on a day other than today let me say that I have no
qualms with limiting interstate waste. There is a symbolic
relationship, however that should not be overlooked. If the goal of my
friends in the Midwest and Pennsylvania is to ban the interstate
transport of waste, then by all means you should support efforts to
allow States to flow control waste within their own borders. This, of
course, will diminish the urgency to transport garbage outside of the
State.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I remind our colleagues that the clock is
ticking. I am hopeful that like the Senate, this body will now move on
a proposal that offers real relief to communities in debt.

{time} 1445

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this process as well as
to the final product that has come before the floor. With all due
respect to Chairman Oxley, this is not the package we passed out of
subcommittee, that we debated and we came to a compromise and
conclusion on. The fact is that it is our responsibility in this House
to do a good job on behalf of our constituents, to take to a conference
a position that is good for them.
With all due respect to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who speak of their
communities who are in such danger, who have leveraged bonds, we have
communities just like that. I have communities just like that. However,
mine does not get a special fix in this bill, and it is very important
for us to go to the drawing board and look at what is fair to everyone.
I am absolutely amazed and disturbed that a bill such as the one we
are considering today is being considered on the Suspension Calendar.
This bill is not the product of Member negotiations, it is not the
product of committee consideration, and it is not the product of the
administration. However, it is a product of many interests downtown who
have drafted a bill without Member input.
As a Member who is supportive of flow control legislation and
supportive of our communities in their efforts to effectively manage
their solid waste, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill we are considering
today. While this legislation does help some of the communities out
there, it does not protect legitimate financial obligations incurred by
many of our communities.
I also urge a ``no'' vote on this bill because the whole legislative
process has been circumvented. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Hazardous Materials held a markup in May where amendments were adopted.
The subcommittee-passed bill is now probably in one of those landfills
out in the Midwest. What we are working on now is a piece of
legislation that no Member has voted on, let alone seen or examined.
The Suspension Calendar is a mechanism by which the House can
consider relatively noncontroversial issues that have broad bipartisan
support. This flow control legislation is not a worthwhile candidate
for such consideration.
This bill is controversial, not so much for what it contains but
rather for what it does not contain. It does not contain relief for
many communities holding legitimate debt, and it does not contain
interstate waste provisions.
It is our responsibility in this House to take care of those issues
and then move it to conference. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman if she would just respond.
Again, I am a proponent of prospective flow control. We did not win
that one. We tried hard. There are a sufficient number of Members who
disagree with that that we were unable to get that in there.
The compromise that is struck here says that anybody who obligated
funds, expended funds, or sold bonds prior to the Carbone decision on
May 16, 1994, they are included, they are grandfathered. It is my
understanding that those in your locale did so after the fact, after
Carbone had been handed down.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, for those communities that did extend those bonds, they
did so under the understanding that Congress was taking up that issue
last year and the year before with the idea that these communities
could be protected. They have extended their livelihood in those
communities, their tax dollars and their resources, and many of the
other communities, some of which have already been considered in this
bill, did make those decisions after Carbone.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on
this. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman
Oxley,

[[Page H938]]
for his allowing this bill to get to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House of Representatives works toward
passage of flow control legislation with bipartisan support. The
legislation is a fair compromise that would grandfather facilities
designated prior to the 1994 Supreme Court decision, but phases out
flow control as financial obligations expire.
For example, this bill will protect the local government in Onondaga
County to have the right to control the flow of municipal solid waste
for financing their waste-to-energy plant and integrated waste program.
Without such control, which had been put at risk by the Supreme Court
ruling, the county would have been without sufficient cash flow to
repay $180 million in bonds which provided funding for the plant.
It is also very good news for taxpayers in central New York. Without
the legislation, the county's credit rating could have been negatively
affected for future bonding and all future public works projects put at
risk.
In addition, flow control is pro-environment--despite rhetoric to the
contrary. If every municipality adopted a comprehensive solid waste
program, they could handle their waste locally and not ship their
garbage to other States. Our county's recycling program has received
national recognition and awards for recycling over one-third of our
waste stream. The community also benefits from the sale of electricity
produced by the waste-to-energy facility.
Working closely with Onondaga County officials, my colleagues in the
New York delegation and the Commerce Committee, we were able to develop
an excellent bill. This is the kind of cooperation between local and
Federal Government that helps communities solve problems, and I urge my
colleagues to support passage.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, and to the
procedure under which the bill is being considered.
The measure we are considering today, while well intentioned, is
incomplete.
This bill grandfathers the previous flow control arrangements of many
communities.
Unfortunately, the Hampton Roads communities of southeast Virginia
were not grandfathered in this bill.
That's not fair.
These eight communities came together in the 1970's to create the
Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia or SPSA.
Now, like so many other localities, they are burdened with long-term
bond debt.
In SPSA's case, there is $275 million in bond debt due by 2018.
The cities and towns who are served by SPSA need to be grandfathered
in this bill so they can pay their debt.
If you vote to pass this bill, you are legislating against some
communities while you help others.
Like all of you, I have a responsibility to the people I represent,
and the communities in which they live.
Under this procedure, I cannot do that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure so we
can make sure that all of our people can receive the same
consideration. I do not think that is too much to ask. Under the
procedures that this bill came under, it seems to me the plausible
thing to do.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and
I want to thank Chairman Bliley for the outstanding work that he has
overseen as we have come to develop a bill that has earned strong
bipartisan support.
This bill is very important to me for a whole lot of reasons, but
basic among those is that it will save taxpayers in my district an
untold amount of money. Without this measure, three solid waste
authorities in my district would be unable to pay off the bonds that
they have issued without unsustainable tax increases. The people and
their representatives from Oneida, Herkimer, Otsego, Montgomery,
Schoharie and Madison Counties acted in good faith when they sold bonds
in that manner. Now they will be able to have the waste stream they
need to guarantee the operation of their facilities and to be able to
pay off those bonds.
I want to thank the solid waste authorities in my district for doing
such a good job of educating me and my colleagues so that we would know
how important it is to pass this very important flow control
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and it is most likely with the intention of closing debate at this
particular point in time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple issue at this point. It is not
really substantive. It is a question of whether or not we are going to
have a proper use of the procedures of the House in order to deal with
a very important piece of legislation which for the past 3\1/2\ years
has been considered in the Committee on Commerce. Again, in the last
session of Congress we dealt with this issue, we dealt with it on a
bipartisan basis and we dealt with it in a comprehensive fashion.
This bill is being dealt with on a piecemeal basis and in a partisan
fashion. That is not necessary. We are being promised here on the floor
that if we foreswear our concern legislatively for the interstate
aspects of this bill, and, by the way, what could be more important to
the States in the Midwest than how much waste is going to come into
their States from other States? The States of New York and New Jersey,
they are basically adopting Horace Greeley's philosophy, which is, ``Go
west, trash deliverer, go west.'' That is the philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is that we have no guarantees, none
at all. If we do not deal with this interstate issue and if the Senate
acts on it, which we hope that it does--we are not sure that it does--
we are ceding our legislative responsibility to the Senate--something
which I find to be highly undesirable generally given their overall
conduct--that we should in fact deal with these issues ourselves.
However, if in fact they deal with this interstate issue and they send
it back, we are going to be dependent upon the Rules Committee to
determine whether or not this issue is within the scope of the bill,
given the fact that the House never in fact acted upon it.
If the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee,
would get up and promise us that that bill will come out on the floor,
no matter what, it will be out here on the floor, dealing with
interstate waste, then that will give us all a lot more comfort.
However, if that is not the case, we are going to be like Lucy holding
the football for Charlie Brown. They are holding the ball for us right
now, run up to the football, but at the end of the day, and I mean
April or May when the bill comes back, we are not sure that the Rules
Committee will ever allow an interstate bill to come out here.

This is our opportunity to act. Vote ``no.'' Force this process, this
House of Representatives, to produce a bill that deals with both
aspects of this problem, and then we can go to the conference committee
with the Senate with all of the cards on the table and a guarantee that
the issues of the Midwest, the issues of all those States that might
ultimately become the home to this waste, are dealt with properly.
That is my message to the House today, that a vote ``no'' on this
issue guarantees that we will get a good and comprehensive bill dealing
with all aspects of this legislation.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Please remember on the separate issue we have a letter from 23
Governors supporting interstate language. There is no way in the world
that a conference committee will come back with anything less than a
bill that will deal with interstate commerce.
Mr. MARKEY. I respect the work the gentleman has done. The gentleman

[[Page H939]]
did good work at the subcommittee. I supported the gentleman's work. It
should have come through the full committee and out here on the floor
in a comprehensive way. We should not cede our responsibilities to the
Senate.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the diligent work of our
chairman of the full committee and subcommittee, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. This is
a very tough and complex issue, flow control and interstate waste.
There has always been a fear, particularly from those of us in the
Midwest, that one might pass without the other. Frankly, I was prepared
to vote against this bill under suspension, in fact signed a bipartisan
``Dear Colleague'' letter with a number of my colleagues asking us all
to do so. But today's assurance that the Governors of the impacted
States will in fact help forge an agreement that is acceptable to all
of us helps resolve my goal of making sure that we will not see unfair
control of interstate waste legislation move forward unless they in
fact are dealt with together.

{time} 1500

I accept Rules Committee Chairman Solomon's pledge of cooperation in
working this out. In fact, I am going to go back to all of my
colleagues to make sure that when this conference report comes out that
it will be an acceptable bill.
Out-of-State waste is a very important issue.
Our landfills will fill up years ahead of schedule because cities
like Chicago, New York, and Boston churn out garbage faster than they
can deal with it.
Interstate waste is an important tool. It allows States the ability
to limit garbage that crosses my borders. My State should not be forced
to accept other people's garbage. Michigan isn't a dumping ground for
other States' mistakes.
Michigan has had the foresight to develop a plan to dispose of our
waste. We are now being forced to deal with garbage from States who
haven't.
I make no apologies--frankly, New York City, Boston, Chicago, your
garbage isn't our problem.
`We Recycle'--it says so right on the blue trash cans in my office.
I've got to separate white paper from wet trash, glass from cardboard.
But the Federal Government doesn't afford my communities with this
luxury.
Michigan communities shouldn't be forced to clog up their landfills
with trash from cities hundreds of miles away. When it comes to dumping
in landfills, it all gets thrown into the mix--Kalamazoo's, New York
City's, Benton Harbor's, and Boston's--Michigan couldn't bar any State
from dumping trash on us--until now.
In a recent letter sent to Speaker Gingrich, Michigan Governor John
Engler and several other Midwest Governors wrote ``Citizens constantly
ask us why they should recycle in order to conserve space for other
States' trash. We need assurances that we can conserve landfill space
for our own State's disposal needs.''
Governor, you got your assurance today.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter:

State of Ohio, State of Michigan, State of Indiana,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
January 25, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: We are writing to express our opposition
to considering a flow control bill on the House floor under
suspension of the rules without the inclusion of interstate
waste provisions. As governors of states that have been
receiving considerable amounts of out-of-state waste, we feel
it is essential that the House move interstate waste and flow
control together as one bill.
As you know, 23 governors wrote you in June to express
strong support for the interstate waste provisions in H.R.
2323, the State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control
Act of 1995, introduced by Congressman Mike Oxley and passed
by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous
Materials in May.
For too long, states have had only limited ability to place
restrictions on shipments of municipal waste across state
lines. Although mandated by federal law to develop
comprehensive waste management plans, states' efforts to
enforce their own planning rules have been overturned
repeatedly by the federal courts. Lacking 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 trash.
We are not asking for outright authority to prohibit all
out-of-state waste. We are asking Congress to provide state
and local governments with the tools they need to manage
their own waste and limit waste from other states. Any
proposal to grant specific flow control authorities,
therefore, should not be considered without also including
these essential interstate waste provisions.
We strongly believe that Congressman Oxley's interstate
waste provisions address many of our concerns. Twenty-three
governors and the Western Governors' Association have
supported the interstate waste provisions in this bill and
seek two strengthening amendments. One would allow states to
place a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste
that can be received at new facilities or major modifications
of existing facilities. The other would allow states to
authorize the collection of a $1-per-ton surcharge on waste
from other states.
H.R. 2323 would give large exporting states sufficient time
to plan for the disposal of their own waste. It also would
give those states that have acted responsibly to implement
environmentally sound waste disposal and recycling plans
assurance that they can save space within their borders for
their own disposal needs.
In addition, we oppose any provisions that would prohibit
interstate waste restrictions at facilities that are subject
to flow control authorities. Such a provision would prohibit
state and local governments that exercise flow control
authorities from having the opportunity to accept or reject
out-of-state waste shipments, and they could be forced to
receive it unwillingly. We strongly believe that one
community should not be forced to accept other states' waste
while another community has the opportunity to turn it away.
Again, we respectfully urge that interstate waste and flow
control move together as one bill. By considering flow
control separately, Congress would only address one side of
the equation and would not give importing states the tools
they need to limit the large amounts of waste crossing their
borders.
Sincerely,
George V. Voinovich,
Governor of Ohio.
Evan Bayh,
Governor of Indiana.
John Engler,
Governor of Michigan.
Tom Ridge,
Governor of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
(Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the flow control
legislation before us today.
This compromise bill is now limited in scope and duration, a
culmination of several months of negotiation between public and private
stakeholders. Most importantly, this compromise bill protects local
communities and preserves our commitment to free-market competition in
the solid waste industry.
Like many States, my State of Florida enacted a law requiring
communities to manage their own waste, including a goal that 30 percent
be recycled. My district, Dade County, invested nearly $200 million so
they could meet this challenge.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should not break up monopolies, but this
legislation will not do that.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
(Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
vitally important measure and ask my statement become a part of the
Record.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I have been involved
with for 4 years as have most of the Members speaking on this issue
today.
Frankly, I came to the floor prepared to vote against this measure,
because of the real concern by dividing flow control from interstate
garbage provisions, we were going to lose any consideration of
interstate garbage. I am now told we have an extraordinary procedure
involved here which will ensure that we will have a marriage of these
two items before this thing comes back to the floor before it is
ultimately resolved.

[[Page H940]]

It is not as good as I would hope. I can assure you, given the
concerns Pennsylvania has as the largest importer of interstate garbage
in the country, that we could not possibly go for anything that does
not include those provisions.
I am persuaded, however, we are probably not going to see either flow
control or interstate garbage provisions unless some procedure such as
this is adopted. I still have some skepticism. I can assure you I will
be fighting very hard if this thing comes back without adequate
provisions for interstate garbage. But given that fact, unless a
concern we not get either, this moves the process forward.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, to close debate on our side, I yield the
balance of my time, 1 minute, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor],
a member of the committee.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise in support of this legislation. Although it is not the
legislation I would have preferred to see out here, I would have
preferred to see something closer to what we are dealing with in the
Committee on Commerce. But I do so in part because of the assurances
that interstate waste is going to be considered as a part of this
conference committee.
I supported both flow control legislation and interstate waste
legislation, because they are, in fact, part and parcel of the same
principle, and that principle is giving State and local government
officials both the authority and the responsibility over waste
management.
The coupling of these two issues is supported by Governors from
liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans, and I rise in support of
this with the hope that this will give us the opportunity to come back
with a conference committee report that deals with both of these
important issues in a satisfactory way.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity as a
Member of the New Jersey delegation to speak on behalf of S. 534, the
Flow Control Act. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this bill with the
understanding that it is going to address certain problematic
situations that exist in my congressional district--namely, in Passaic
and Essex Counties. This legislation is necessary for the protection of
government entities who have operated in good faith under a State
mandate for waste disposal. It would be unjust to both the taxpayers
and the local entities if deregulation were to allow such law abiding
local governments to default on their payment of debt.
Following the Clarkstown versus Carbone decision of 1994, in which
the Supreme Court struck down a local ordinance directing the shipment
of waste to a local waste facility, local governments throughout New
Jersey have been greatly affected by this decision. New Jersey, in an
attempt to responsibly deal with the disposal of waste, has invested in
facilities with the expectation that their cost could be financed with
revenues accumulated by directing local waste to those facilities. The
repayment of bonds depends on the practice of flow control. While I
respect any decision passed down by the Supreme Court of the United
States, I also respect the integrity of local governments that have in
good faith supplied facilities to handle municipal solid waste.
The idea of grandfathering certain facilities that were in process
when the Carbone decision was rendered should not even be in question.
I feel that it is our duty to protect the taxpayers' investments in
such facilities. The Public Securities Association recognizes that this
is our duty and has voiced their support for the legislation.
It is also important to note the unique situation in the Garden
State. New Jersey is the only State in our Nation in which all
municipal solid waste is now flow controlled and has been flow
controlled for over a decade. We must provide for preexisting
arrangements of fiscally responsible local governments. The local
entities in the eighth district of New Jersey should not be abandoned
to default on several millions of dollars of outstanding bonds that
support their waste program.
For example, Passaic County in my congressional district has in
excess of $80 million in outstanding bonds for transfer stations which
deal with their waste. It is my understanding through my discussions
with the Commerce Committee, as well as with Governor Whitman's office
and Members of the New Jersey congressional delegation, transfer
stations will be included among the in-state facilities whose debt will
be protected. It is important to me that this legislation addresses the
ability to pay all outstanding debt that is waste related, regardless
of the particular nature of the waste facility.
Furthermore, it is my understanding through such discussions that
localities that send municipal solid waste through in-state transfer
stations prior to sending that waste out-of-state are clearly covered
under this legislation. With that in mind, I will support this bill.
It is about time that we address the effect of the Carbone decision
on local governments throughout the United States and protect the
monetary commitments of those localities.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, through its constitutional authority to
regulate interstate commerce and in response to the U.S. Supreme
Court's Carbone decision, Congress sets forth in this legislation the
limits and conditions on flow control authority. The impact on
interstate commerce of the flow control authority exercised in
conformance with the provisions of this legislation has been sanctioned
by Congress and may not be challenged on commerce clause grounds.
The legislation further sanctions flow control authority exercised by
a particular State or local government before enactment of this
legislation, to the extent the exercise of that flow control authority
is in conformance with the provisions of this legislation. Congressman
Nethercutt and others have asked for clarification on this point. The
intent of this sanctioning by Congress of previously exercised flow
control authority is to end pending litigation in which such exercise
of flow control authority has been challenged as unconstitutional on
commerce clause grounds. However, the legislation makes clear that this
congressional sanction does not apply in cases where a final judicial
decision no longer subject to judicial review has declared, before
enactment of this legislation, the specific exercise of flow control
authority by the State or local government to be unconstitutional. Of
course, that same State or local government may exercise the flow
control authority granted by this legislation after enactment of this
legislation, if the State or local government meets the grandfather
criteria set forth in the legislation.

statement on use of flow control revenues

This compromise legislation limits the use of revenues derived from
the exercise of flow control. Such revenues may only be used to repay
the principal and interest on eligible bonds issued by a grandfathered
community, to repay the principal and interest on bonds issued for
qualified environmental retrofits of designated facilities, or to repay
the financial obligations incurred by a community pursuant to certain
contracts specified in the bill. However, to protect the viability of a
community's investment in a designated facility financed by a bond, the
legislation provides that all expenses necessary for its intended
operation and proper maintenance, such as operation and maintenance
expense of the other integral facilities, may also be paid with
revenues derived from the exercise of the flow control authority.

statement on sham recycling

The legislation prohibits a community from exercising flow control
authority over recycled materials unless such materials are voluntarily
relinquished to the community by the generator or owner of the
materials. The definition of recyclable materials in the legislation
makes clear our intent that this prohibition is only to apply to
materials that will be recycled, reclaimed, composted, or reused, and
have been separated for these purposes from waste which is to be
disposed. Our intent is to prevent sham recycling. Sham recycling
occurs when an entity seeks to avoid a grandfathered community's
exercise of flow control authority over a particular waste material by
claiming that it intends to recycle the material but does not actually
recycle, or recycles only very minimally, with the intent to dispose of
the material at a non-flow controlled facility.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 534,
legislation to reestablish a modest degree of local flow control for
the disposal of municiple solid waste. The bill seeks to preserve local
flow control authority for communities which had such rules in effect
prior to the Supreme Court's Carbone decision in 1994.
Mr. Speaker, Dutchess County, New York offers a good example of the
desperate need to pass flow control legislation. The Dutchess County
Resource Recovery Agency runs a waste-to-energy and recycling facility
that was constructed with the belief that a steady stream of waste--and
revenue--would be available to meet the financial obligations incurred
by the county.
However, the Supreme Court's Carbone decision invalidated local flow
control ordinances under the view that they violate the interstate
commerce clause of the Constitution. Since that time, revenue streams
and the bond ratings for waste facilities have fallen off.
In New York State alone, over $1.2 billion in public debt for solid
waste management facilities and programs is threatened unless this can
be resolved--$43 million of that debt was incurred by the Dutchess
County Resources Recovery Agency. The loss of flow control authority
resulted in a $3 million shortfall to the facility last year, and a
similar shortfall is expected this year unless corrective action is

[[Page H941]]
taken. Of course, in the end, Dutchess County taxpayers must make up
the difference for any shortfall to the facility.
Mr. Speaker, similar legislation passed the House of Representatives
during the last session by an overwhelming margin. It was recognized
then, as in the case today, that once the bond obligations have been
met, flow control authority ceases and the free market takes over.
I recognize that legitimate concerns remain with respect to the
regulation of waste streams between States, but we cannot let this
issue further delay the passage of this fair and commonsense
legislation. Dutchess County, and many others around the country, can
no longer afford to see the resolution of this issue delayed.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation which restores
limited local control over municipal solid waste.
Local governments across this country would be burdened with enormous
financial debts unless this Congress acts and approves legislation such
as is before us today. Whether Members favor flow control or not, the
fact of the matter is that local governments have been legitimately
using this planning tool for over a decade, and have outstanding
contractual agreements and obligations they are responsible to meet.
This bill is a fair compromise that allows our local governments to
basically keep their promises to investors and citizens on a good faith
basis.
This bill is not perfect. From my stand point, I support stronger
flow control authority granted to the States, counties, and
municipalities. I believe flow control provides State and local
governments with the tools to manage waste disposal responsibility and
effectively. A framework for solid waste recycling and disposal has
been established in Minnesota and other States that is truly working
with the underpinning of flow control. Solid waste disposal is
certainly an issue that is inherently local, and State and local
governments should have the authority to address the policy without
being whipsawed between jurisdictions. The rationalization of sound
solid waste policy responding to the environmental limits and reality
is a key role of local government, surely we should permit them to do
their job.
This, of course, is the broader debate that Congress should be
shaping. But until we face up to the total task, let us make certain
that we do not let default and harm befall our States and local
governments. They need certainty and predictability, not philosophic
platitudes on the magic of the marketplace. Our local governments are
facing an $18 billion debt. Local governments need flow control relief
today that responds to their legal obligations, and this bill provides
modest and necessary relief.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We cannot continue
to leave our local and State governments swinging in the wind.
Cooperation and responsible action should be our response to the
circumstance; a commonsense pragmatic policy to the problem before us--
I urge positive support for this measure.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
but also to express the concerns of Hillsborough County, FL, in my
district, concerns that I understand are held by other entities in
other States regarding this legislation, as well.
As is well known, the measure we consider today is intended to exempt
from constitutional challenge State and municipal flow-control laws in
effect on or before May 16, 1994. The necessity of this stems from the
fact that the Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that solid waste flow-control
was an unconstitutional interference in interstate commerce.
Nevertheless, the States and municipalities in question depend upon a
steady stream of waste material to their disposal facilities in order
to repay bonds issued to finance construction of these facilities.
Clearly, this matter needs to be addressed and this legislation seeks
to do so. However, if we are to address it, we must ensure that our
meaning is certain.
This measure also grants flow-control authority to State and local
government facilities if, among other requirements, eligible bonds were
presented for sale on or before May 16, 1994. Such was the case with
Hillsborough County, FL, but the county refinanced these bonds in July
1994, with an expiration date on the new bond identical to that in
place on May 16.
This refinancing should in no way jeopardize the flow-control
authority in this case.
No changes in conditions were made other than the county's valid and,
indeed, commendable desire to secure more favorable interest rates and
a better financial deal for the ratepayers. Through discussions with
members and staff of the Commerce Committee, it is my understanding
that under this legislation this is, in fact, the case: the authority
is not jeopardized.
In view of this, I support this limited flow-control-authority
legislation and urge its adoption by the House. I will continue to work
with the committee and its members to assure the enactment of the
soundest possible solid waste flow control legislation.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation to allow
for limited flow control. As a representative of a State whose
communities rely upon flow control for their solid waste disposal
systems, I know first-hand the urgent need for this legislation.
It has been almost 2 years since the Supreme Court ruled that State
and local flow-control ordinances violate the Interstate Commerce
clause without congressional authorization. Since then, thousands of
communities in my State and across the Nation have had trouble meeting
their legal obligations to provide for solid waste disposal. Many
resource recovery facilities, which depend upon flow control to receive
enough waste to pay back municipal bonds, are being denied a steady
stream of revenue. Connecticut's resource recovery authorities alone
have issued over half a billion dollars in bonds to finance
construction of their facilities. Without flow control, those debts
might not be repaid.
In addition, the lack of flow-control authority may lead to increased
taxes on millions of people if towns that entered into put-or-pay
contracts with waste facilities before 1994 cannot deliver agreed-upon
levels of waste. Worse, many States' solid waste disposal plans,
adopted in accordance with Federal law, will be virtually unenforceable
because communities will not be able to direct solid waste to resource
recovery plants rather than landfills or other less environmentally
preferred systems.
Those of us who represent States with flow-control ordinances
understand the concerns raised about this kind of policy. However, this
legislation represents a reasonable middle ground which will
grandfather in flow-control laws that were on the books prior to the
Court ruling and would limit their duration. This makes sure that
communities that entered into obligations to dispose of waste have the
ability to fulfill those obligations until their conclusion.
If we do not take this action today, the more likely it is that our
country's waste disposal systems will be undermined, our environmental
policies will be harmed, and our constituents will be forced to pay
more taxes. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this desperately needed
legislation.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 349
and in strong support of flow control.
New Jersey is facing a crisis situation that can only be averted by
swift passage of this legislation. A recent court decision--the Carbone
decision of May 1994--has placed New Jersey's waste management system
in chaos.
Currently, 17 of 21 New Jersey counties have public debt tied
directly to flow control and more than $2 billion in outstanding debt
backed by flow-control bonds. This debt was incurred in compliance with
a State mandate for each waste region to become self-sufficient in
managing its waste.
While the Supreme Court has ruled that flow control is an undue
interference with interstate commerce, the legislation that the House
is voting on today allows flow control only in jurisdictions that
exercised it, designated the waste facility to receive the waste, and
actually sold bonds to finance the facility prior to the May 1994
Carbone decision. This is expected to apply to less than 20 percent of
the solid waste market. And, once the bonds are paid off, flow control
ends. This gives densely populated States like New Jersey the
opportunity to regroup and plan for the redirection of their municipal
waste streams.
Concern over the omission of coverage for construction and demolition
debris language has been expressed by the Morris County Municipal
Utilities Authority, and I will continue to work for the inclusion of
these provisions which are important to Morris County and other New
Jersey counties. However, in the meantime, I strongly support passage
of this legislation.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to commend the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley] and the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] for their
bipartisan cooperation on this bill.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, regulatory reform is a lot like the
weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody ever does anything about
it.
We've had a lot of passionate debate on both sides of the aisle this
year saying we all want regulatory reform, that we need to put a stop
particularly to the old style of regulation that costs a lot but does
very little to actually improve the environment. Well, this is our
chance to prove we mean it.
Unless we act, EPA will be forced to issue another one-size-fits-all
regulation that will cost, by EPA's own estimate, $800 million per year
to implement.
EPA is asking for our help, because they know that little, if any,
real risk reduction would occur if these rules are promulgated.
What this means for me is that one chemical plant in my district
could be forced to

[[Page H942]]
spend about $34 million to replace a well-operated wastewater treatment
system.
Risk assessments performed by the company show that its surface
impoundments already protect human health and the environment to RCRA
risk standards. In fact, the emissions of highest risk hazardous
constituents from all plant sources, including wastewater treatment,
has been determined to have a lifetime cancer risk to the nearest
receptor of less than one in a million.
This plant has been growing and could put the resources to greater
economic and environmental benefit.
This bill represents a bipartisan agreement between Congress and the
administration, and is the kind of targeted regulatory reform that many
have been advocating. Chairman Oxley should be commended for
recognizing the need to correct this court-imposed conflict between our
environmental statutes. The administration also deserves credit for
including this correction in its RCRA rifle-shot proposals.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Flow Control Act of
1996. Since 1990, the United States has generated 195 million tons of
municipal solid waste--more than any other country in the world for
which data are available and almost double the amount generated by
Japan and the European Union. The challenge before us today is to
manage the flow of all this solid waste in a manner that strikes a
balance which is both environmentally sound and protects free-market
principles.
The legislation we have before us on the floor attempts to strike
this balance by partially restoring flow-control authority to some
local governments so that they can pay off their debts without having
to raise taxes. Some will argue that flow control is an unfunded
mandate on taxpayers. Yet, the real unfunded mandate is the mandate the
Federal Government leveled on State and local governments under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in 1976. Under this law,
the Federal Government required the States to dispose of solid waste in
an environmentally sensible fashion. To meet this unfunded Federal
mandate, local governments in the State of Minnesota sold 400 million
dollars' worth of municipal bonds--$48 million in my district--to build
environmentally sound waste facilities, charged for their use, and
directed the flow of waste to those facilities in order to pay for
them. Despite the RCRA mandate, Congress never explicitly provided
States and local governments the authority to control the flow of
municipal solid waste.
I'd like to illustrate the problem facing local governments by
highlighting two counties in my district. Responding to Federal and
State mandates, the counties of Wright and Martin built state-of-the-
art composting facilities in the early 1990's. Instead of landfilling,
the waste is turned into composting material, which can be sold on the
market and into refuse-derived fuel, which provides electricity needs
for some Minnesota cities. As a result, the amount of solid waste
headed for overcrowded landfills has been reduced by 80 percent, which
benefits the environment.
These facilities were built with public bond financing based on the
premise that flow control would guarantee an adequate flow to the
facilities to keep them financially stable. This stability was put in
jeopardy in 1994 when the Supreme Court struck down local flow-control
laws. The Court said that only Congress has the power to grant flow-
control authority. Since the 1994 decision, much of the waste is now
going out of State, making it extremely difficult for counties to pay
off their bonds.
If Congress does not act to allow those counties to pay off their
debts through flow control, the taxpayers will ultimately and unfairly
be forced to pay higher property taxes to meet debt obligations.
Certainly, this is not an outcome this Congress should condone. This is
a result that no one wants, yet it is already happening in my district.
For example, in Wright County, the county commissioners were forced to
raise property taxes by $1.25 million in 1995 to make up for the
shortfall of revenues caused by the diversion of waste out-of-state
rather than to the county's compost facility. This is patently unfair,
as it penalizes those who generate the least amount of waste by forcing
them to pay higher taxes. With flow control in place, on the other
hand, those who generate the most waste pay the highest fees, which is
a fairer way to proceed. And in Martin County, commissioners are
deciding whether to shut down their facility and just pass on the
remaining $7 million in debt to the taxpayers absent congressional
action.
The legislation before the House is narrowly drafted. It is
apparently intended to allow those facilities currently in operation to
meet their debt obligations. Flow-control authority will expire after
the bonds are paid off. Under the bill, an estimated 80 percent of the
waste stream will be immediately available to the private sector. As
grandfathered communities pay off their debt, the private sector will
gradually assume responsibility for the remaining 20 percent of the
waste stream. This compromise language was drafted after months of
intense negotiations and is supported by local governments, the public
securities community, and the waste industry. It should assure
communities which have accumulated debt predicated on flow-control
authority that they will have that important tool. At the same time, it
ensures free-market competition in the solid waste industry.
Unfortunately, there may be some drafting glitches in this bill that
may handicap some communities. If these glitches unintentionally
exclude some communities from being covered by this important
legislation, then those glitches must be fixed in the conference
committee. I expect the Chair shares my commitment to pressing for any
corrections that are necessary to carry out the full intent of this
bill.
It is important that any legislation passed, balance the need to
protect the environment with the need to promote free-market
principles. I am confident that this legislation meets both of those
tests. I do not believe this legislation goes far enough to protect
taxpayer liability. However, it is a good basis to move forward on this
issue and provide the beginning of relief to our local governments.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 534. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
The Supreme Court decision in the case of C&A Carbone, Inc. versus
Town of Clarkstown has significant implications for municipalities and
taxpayers across the country. The case invalidated the use of flow
control to manage solid waste generated within the borders of a
community. The implications are far reaching because according to the
Congressional Research Service [CRS], 41 States exercise flow control
either through statute or other means. Many States have used flow
control to ensure that municipal solid waste [MSW] is disposed of in
accordance with several Federal laws and regulations.
Flow control authority is especially important to communities across
my State of Connecticut. Many small towns in eastern Connecticut have
contracts with solid waste disposal facilities which require them to
deliver a minimum amount of waste or face financial penalties, also
known as put-or-pay requirements. Towns entered into these agreements
because they believed that flow control ordinances, authorized under
State law, would allow them to meet their contractual obligations.
Without flow control, residents in communities such as Norwich, Vernon,
Groton, Tolland, Westbrook, and many others will be forced to pay
higher taxes to pay penalties for failing to deliver the minimum volume
of waste.
To make matters worse, the majority of solid waste disposal
facilities in my State have been financed with State revenue bonds.
Disposal authorities require a minimum amount of waste to operate at
levels sufficient to generate revenue to repay these bonds. If
facilities cannot make these payments, the bondholders could be forced
to make the payments. According to Connecticut's attorney general, the
State and its taxpayers could ultimately be responsible for 520 million
dollars' worth of bonds. This would be fully disastrous for our State
which is only beginning to fully recover from the recession.
S. 534 will provide relief to these communities. It grandfathers
existing flow control ordinances, statutes, and agreements. It also
allows communities to flow control certain recyclable material provided
that the material is voluntarily relinquished. This is especially
important because flow controlling common household recyclables in
urban areas helps to subsidize recycling efforts in rural communities.
The bill makes it clear that such authority does not place an undue
burden on interstate commerce.
Contrary to what some opponents of the bill argue, this is a limited
approach. Communities must have applied flow control through formal,
legally binding methods on, or before, the date of the Supreme Court
decision to qualify under the bill. In addition, flow control can only
be exercised during the bond repayment period or life of a contract. As
a result, flow control authority will expire when bonds are repaid and
put-or-pay contracts have expired.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to comment on the charge flow
control damages the environment. I am not aware of a single case where
this argument has been proven conclusively. In fact, the vast majority
of communities use flow control to direct waste to state-of-the-art
disposal facilities. In my State, waste goes to transfer stations,
landfills, and other facilities which meet strict State, Federal, and
local standards designed to protect the air, water, and public health.
Claims that flow control damages the environment are a red-herring
designed to prevent Congress from providing important relief to small
communities across the country.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the House pass this legislation
today. If we fail to act, taxpayers across the country could face much
higher tax bills as their communities are penalized for failing to meet
their contractual obligations. This is a balanced bill which provides

[[Page H943]]
needed relief while placing reasonable limits on future flow control
authority. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Flow Control Act
of 1996. Prompt House action on this legislation is essential for
people and counties of New Jersey, and their continued ability to
dispose of solid waste.
Although this is not the exact bill that I would have written by
myself, the time has come for the House to take action on this very
serious issue nevertheless.
Essentially, this legislation will restore to towns and cities the
ability to enact flow-control ordinances, which dictate the terms and
conditions of how solid waste, or garbage as most people call it, is
disposed of in New Jersey.
In May 1994, the Supreme Court, in its Carbone versus Town of
Clarkstown ruling, held that without congressional authorization, it
was an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce for towns
and cities to dictate the disposal of solid waste.
At that point in time, 17 of the 21 counties in New Jersey had issued
more than $2 billion in debt to finance the construction of solid waste
disposal facilities. Thus, the Supreme Court's rulings immediately put
all of these bonds--as well as the counties that issued them--in dire
jeopardy, because the bonds had been floated based on the assumption
that the ability to flow control waste would remain intact.
The bill before us today grandfathers State and local flow-control
arrangements made prior to the Carbone decision, as well as any
existing lawful contracts entered into between May 16, 1994, and
November 10, 1995. The grandfathering is in effect for the life of a
county's bonded debt or an existing solid waste disposal contract,
whichever is longer.
In the 36 months since the Supreme Court's ruling, I have worked
diligently with all of my House colleagues from New Jersey, most
notably Congressman Chris Smith, to have the Congress pass legislation
that restores to our State the authority to flow control solid waste.
In fact, during the 103d Congress, a bipartisan effort to approve
flow-control legislation as part of a larger solid waste bill was
passed by the House, only to die in the Senate in the waning hours of
the session. Although the need for flow-control legislation was urgent
then, it is even more serious today, almost 15 months later.
Last summer, the Senate passed its own version of solid waste
legislation. The House cannot afford to delay anymore. With this in
mind, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting
passage of this bill.
I recognize the fact that some of my colleagues are urging the House
to defeat this bill. However, their opposition to this bill is not
centered so much on the provisions of the bill before us today, as much
as the process by which it has been brought to the floor.
In the public arena, there is the old cliche ``Don't let the good be
the enemy of the perfect.'' Clearly, today, the legislation before us
today meets this test--it isn't perfect, but we know that it is good
and worthy of our support. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote in
support of its passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution
349.
The question was taken.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

____________________