John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to table the Kyl amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is the pending amendment, right?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, am I correct in believing that 2:30 is the time set for the vote on the Kyl amendment?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAFEE. I think the Senator made a rather telling point. He pointed out that if they enter into these contracts and the town fathers say, ``Look, if you do not like it you can vote us out of office,'' you say, ``What good does it do to vote you out of office, you have locked us in for 20 years? It is little satisfaction for us that you are gone but we are stuck with the contract.'' But I would like to say this. Here we are in a situation where if this Senate does nothing or this Congress does nothing, there will be no flow control at all. Yet we have publicly elected servants, Governors, Senators, coming to us and say, ``Extend this in perpetuity.'' That is what many of them want. These are people who are saying this before it is a done deal. In other words, the public knows their position, should know it, and many Governors--it has been no secret--do not say, ``Don't tell anybody, I am urging you to do this.'' So there are a lot of factors involved. But pursuant to the wishes and the views of the Senator from Arizona, and our own views likewise, we have set a sunset. We said this is all over with. We do not care what your arguments are. At the end of 30 years, there is not going to be any more flow control. You did give us arguments about bonds, this, that, but that is it. You may say 30 years is a long time. It is not just some people on the floor of the Senate who are after us to change that.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is a good question. But the answer is--and we have had this raised, obviously, not only on the floor here but in calls from Governors that come to us. The original plea of the Governors is, ``Why can't we do what we want to do? Who are you in Washington, always telling us, yes/no?'' As the Senator has pointed out, it is the Supreme Court that said no. It is not us who said ``no.'' Indeed, what we would, of those communities that want to extend flow control or have flow control because, as the Senator knows, it was declared unconstitutional. So we are stepping in, trying to fill a void, fill a problem that exists. But you say, OK, if you step in just step in for this limited period which is, as you say, the length of the bonds that are outstanding or what the contract requires between the facility and the community-- whatever it might be. But the answer is that in many of these States and communities they set up arrangements based on flow control continuing to exist. In other words, they pass statutes that flow control be there. So we have some occasions where the length of time of the contract is not necessarily going to cover all the expenses and is going to be renegotiated for a variety of reasons, but all with the anticipation that the flow control statute that the municipality had entered into was going to continue to be there. So they say, ``We made arrangements.'' The arrangements might be the original bonds, for example, and did not cover the total construction cost of the facility. Or that they were dependent upon flow control to provide the flow of waste and the tipping fees for the rather high maintenance costs. They had it all worked out and they say, ``Why can't we continue to do that?'' That is the rationale that we have, when we have State A, or B, or C, or Governor A, B, or C, calling us and saying this is what we want. So we have tried to juggle it around, leaving not everybody happy, as is apparent today.

Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CHAFEE. It was my understanding that refinancing was permitted but it could not extend beyond the date of the original financing. I may be wrong there.

Mr. CHAFEE. In your bill--in other words, you refinance and you could extend beyond the period of the original bond?

Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would just like to say a few words about the amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Arizona. In our Environment and Public Works Committee, there are 16 members: 9 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The bill that is before the Senate today that the Senator from Arizona seeks to amend was approved in the committee by a vote of 16 to 0. Every Democrat and every Republican voted for it. Now, this bill before the Senate represents a delicate balance. There are two sides to this issue. On one side is the following: The State and local governments say, why should we not be allowed to designate that all municipal solid waste, all solid waste within this entity, be it the city of Detroit or be it some small town in Michigan or town or city in Rhode Island, whether it is in the Nation--why should we not be able to designate that all of the municipal waste within that community go to a facility that we designate--we, the town fathers; and in that fashion, we, the town fathers and the community, will be able to afford a proper disposal facility, be it an incinerator or be it a licensed proper landfill? If our citizens do not like this arrangement, if they think they can have their solid waste hauled away by some private entrepreneur in a different fashion, then they can vote Members out of office and we will be gone and the citizens can have a separate system, if that is what they want. At least we ought to have that power. Now, on the other side of the equation is the view espoused by Senator Kyl, which is that flow control is anticompetitive and is against the U.S. Constitution, in addition to all that. The Constitution has said that flow control is against the commerce clause and it should not be permitted. However, the Senator in his amendment recognizes that there are some facilities that have been built pursuant to the belief that flow control will be there in perpetuity and, therefore, he has arranged under his amendment that those investments made by those communities can be paid off. In other words, his amendment is tailored to the life of the outstanding bonds. Once they are paid off, then that ends it regarding flow control existing in that community. In other words, he has kept the flow control limited to a minimal period to provide for the payment of the bonds. Now, he has put a lot of thought into that argument, and as I say, an argument can be made for it, as indeed he has made. In crafting this view, we balanced these two views. The ones who say on competition; and on the other side those who say, why should we, in our communities, not be able to do what we want to do? If it is wrong we will be voted out of office. Leave that to the citizens. Do not have Big Brother in Washington, DC, saying how to do things. We had those views vigorously brought to our attention both in the committee and on the floor of the Senate and in our conversations with other Senators. What did we say? We set limits. We said, ``We are going to give broader flow control possibilities than that suggested by the Senator from Arizona in his amendment.'' However, we are going to set an outside limit. This is going to end at a certain time under our bill. It ends at 30 years. That does it. But we did not want to cut it off immediately, for the same reasons the Senator from Arizona has suggested. We go a little beyond him because there are communities here that are tied up in contracts that are different from just paying off the bonds. They have different situations. Indeed, they feel very strongly about the arrangements they have made within their communities, within some States. They do not want this limitation. If we are going to have this legislation passed, then it seems to me we have to recognize the views on both sides to a greater extent than is recognized by the Senator from Arizona in his amendment. Therefore, Mr. President, when the proper time comes I will move to table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona--not that I think it is totally out of line. I can see the rationale that is behind his amendment. The truth of the matter is it will upset this delicate arrangement that we have put together here over the past several weeks. I might say this was not just created by the imagination of this Senator or that Senator. It came as a result of hearings we had in connection with flow control and trying to craft a bill that is very, very difficult. Indeed, what has been going on today and yesterday? We were on this bill starting at 12 o'clock yesterday, going up until something like 6:30. Today we have been on it since 9:30, with very little action on the floor. Why? Because we are trying to compromise and recognize and deal with these various forces that are tugging in exactly opposite directions here. That is difficult to reconcile. Therefore, Mr. President, I would hope that our colleagues would support the efforts of the committee in trying to meet this very, very, difficult compromise. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to address the pending amendment which is, indeed, the Kyl amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this deals with flow control and it pertains to a community in North Carolina which had a very specialized situation. In effect, it is a technical amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Faircloth and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside at this time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, that vote will occur at 2:30 p.m. on the tabling motion unless it is vitiated. As it is now, it appears we will be having that tabling vote at 2:30. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a tabling vote occur in relation to the pending Kyl amendment at 2:30 p.m. today and that no second-degree amendments be in order to the Kyl amendment prior to the tabling vote.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on the topic of long-term care financing.