John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for her kind comments. She has been a loyal supporter and active worker in connection with this Medicare Select effort. I congratulate her for what she has done.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield whatever time I have.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, just in summary then, what we have done is, First, we have promised that in the Finance Committee we will have a hearing on Medicare Select once the HHS report comes in; second, this legislation extends Medicare Select to all 50 States, the 15 that have it now plus any others that want to come in over the next 18 months, and that it will continue indefinitely, beyond the 18 months unless the Secretary of HHS determines that the beneficiaries do not save money compared to other MediGap policies or there are additional expenditures by the Government under Medicare, or access to or quality of care is diminished. Finally, there will be a GAO study on whether or not the beneficiaries have a problem getting coverage under another MediGap policy, if they wish to change policies. Furthermore, the GAO would make recommendations if there are problems. So, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Senator Hutchison, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Kennedy, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send now to the desk an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which is sponsored by Senators Packwood, Chafee, Dole--does Senator Hutchison wish to be listed likewise?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Disability Policy of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I share all of the views set forth by the distinguished Senator from Indiana. We have all been struggling with this issue for many years, nobody as hard as he has and with more tenacity. As he indicated, we are this close. I think he said we are in the bottom of the ninth. I hope we complete the game, and I know we will. Then, of course, comes what the House does and then the conference with the House. But all of that we will pursue with great vigor.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire is the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation and has done wonderful service here on the floor despite demands on his time with very difficult matters that came up simultaneously. So I want to pay tribute to Senator Smith for his very, very helpful support on this entire legislation, for his knowledge of it, and the fact that he moved along so swiftly in the subcommittee. We would not be here but for Senator Smith taking charge of that subcommittee and determining that this bill was going to come to the floor in due order and in short order. So we are very grateful to Senator Smith for what he has done and appreciate it and look forward to continued working with Senator Smith as his committee has a series of other bills that will be coming, including the great big Superfund bill, which is a real challenge. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their work on this bill. The Senate has been grappling with these issues for several years. They are very contentious. They are very arcane. They are hard to understand and in many respects they are totally confusing. But, nonetheless, I believe we came out with a bill that is balanced on the interstate portion of the bill. The bill in effect is divided into three sections, the first being the interstate part. It is very difficult balancing the views of the importing States, those who have garbage shipped into them, and those who are the exporting States who do not want to be cut from exporting their trash. We tried to wrestle with that. I hope and I believe we have been successful. I hope that the package we put together will resolve many of the differences that have prevented a solution to the interstate waste. The flow control dilemma has been a separate one. We have had several votes in connection with that, not leaving everybody happy, but hopefully this will resolve itself in the months and years to come. I want to thank the staffs of Senator D'Amato and Senator Coats who labored hard to develop the compromise on title I, the interstate portion of the bill. I would like to thank Jim McCarthy of the Congressional Research Service, George Hall of the EPA, and Tim Trushel of the Senate Legislative Counsel's office for their work in facilitating passage. On our side of the aisle, the staff, I want to thank John Grzebian and Steve Shimberg, and Jeff Merrifield who worked so hard on this. Senator D'Amato's office, Peter Phipps; Senator Coats' office, Sharon Soderstrom and Melissa Murrell. Of course, we are deeply indebted for the splendid work of the ranking member of the committee, the senior Senator from Montana who has always been helpful and knowledgeable on these difficult issues. I want to pay my respects to him for the splendid work he has done, and to Cliff Rothenstein and Tom Sliter and Scott Slesinger also. So, Mr. President, we are winding up a long and contentious period. If all goes well, this will be approved at 2:15 this afternoon. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. No. But it is this Senator's view that this colloquy confirming our understanding of section 4011(a)(4)(A), as previously set forth in the committee business meeting, does not apply to amendment 1077, an amendment that was offered by Senator Coats and only affects the State of Indiana.

Mr. CHAFEE. The provision applies both retroactively and prospectively to those host community agreements that were in effect before and after the date of enactment.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct, a cap would be inconsistent with such an agreement.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Idaho is correct. Where a host community agreement contains no specified tonnage, a Governor's use of his authority to ban interstate waste shipments would be in violation of, or inconsistent with, the terms of the host community agreement.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on the Domenici amendment there appears to be no further debate. I support the amendment and also want to say the views of the Senator from Montana were certainly worthy of consideration. We are ready to go forward with this amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I gather from what the Senator said she, therefore, will not proceed with the amendment? We had a reserve amendment slot for the Senators from California, and I gather the Senators will not proceed on that.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, several times the Senator has said he is puzzled. First of all, with regard to Vermont, there are exceptions in the Vermont situation, and I might point out that this Senator, nor the committee, did not support the Vermont amendment. Was it adopted? Yes, by a vote, over the objections of this Senator and others who are managing the bill. To take a whole State such as Washington that has never had flow control--they are seeking something they never had--talk about puzzlement. I wish the Senator from Washington would explain why he needs flow control. Why is he here? Because they had this remarkable record as recited of the recycling and they have achieved all of that without flow control. Now, once again, why did we bring this bill to the floor? The Senator says, why did they bring it up? We brought it up to take care of those communities that were truly hurt by the Carbone decision. Those communities had enacted flow control, had issued bonds, usually revenue bonds, to pay for either an incinerator or very carefully planned landfill. They wanted to pay it off, and they are planning to pay off their bonds through the flow control that required all the trash within the municipality or the county--wherever it is--to come to a central place. That is not the situation with the Senator and the State of Washington at all. If there are explanations that are needed here, I think they are needed from the Senator, or the prime sponsor of the amendment, if she would say what they need these for. They had all these wonderful recycling achievements without flow control, so now they are in here asking for an exception to an entire State. By the way, in all fairness, there is some difference between the population of Vermont, which is relatively modest, and the population of the State of Washington and what this will trigger, should this amendment be adopted. Mr. President, I suggest during these pauses that the time be equally divided.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to make the record clear right from the very beginning that this is not a case of the Federal Government interfering in the affairs of any State. The current law of the United States that is defined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court is that you cannot have flow control. That is not the EPA or the Environment Committee or anybody else saying that. The Federal Government is not interfering. The law of the land is that they cannot have flow control in the State of Washington or anywhere in the United States. So we came forward with this legislation. Why are we here? We are here because of the Carbone decision just a year ago. In that decision, they said having flow control interferes with the commerce clause. However, the Congress of the United States can make arrangements in its acts and they can do something about the so-called flow control. And we have. We realize that there are lots of communities across the country--or several, anyway--that were caught. They had flow control and they had committed money for a facility that bonded indebtedness or general obligation bonds and that facility was dependent upon the municipal solid waste that would come to it, pursuant to flow control that had been enacted. So we are taking care of that. Indeed there is one county in Washington that appears to fall within that category. That does not satisfy the folks from Washington. Indeed, it is not restricted to the State of Washington. I suppose the argument could be made, ``Well, under the act, when certain things have to be enacted, it is solely Washington,'' but there is no restriction solely to Washington. We do not know how many other areas in the country might qualify under this. They are saying, ``We never had flow control. However, we would like to be given that privilege for the future. And we do not even have to have had bonded indebtedness.'' Indeed, if we read the amendment, it says ``Bonds have been issued or significant financial commitments have been made.'' Actually, it is the other way around--``Significant financial commitments have been made or bonds have been issued.'' Now, what does it mean by ``Significant financial commitments have been made?'' They spent some money on some trucks, for example. But they want that to qualify them to have an exception to the Constitution of the United States. Where do we draw the line? Clearly, this is a place that does not qualify, it does not even come close to qualifying now, under the rules that we have set forth, after a lot of deliberation. Now, they have pointed out that they have had wonderful success in recycling. That is great. They did not need flow control for that because they never had it. In some communities, yes. But they did not have it in these other communities, and they had the successes of the recycling that the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray pointed out. Mr. President, this just goes too far. Clearly, if this amendment prevails we might as well say all across the country, forget the Constitution. We make an exception to it--not an exception. We just say in the whole Nation of the United States we can have flow control. California is next up. Mr. President, I just think it is very unfortunate that they are pursuing this amendment. After long discussions we worked out what seemed to me to be a fair compromise. It took care of the specific situation where they had flow control but they had some commitments, general obligation bonds, have made a commitment, but this is not similar to that. Mr. President, I hope very much that the amendment would not be accepted.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a quick question. It is my understanding that this amendment she filed is the same as the one she previously circulated, except the previous one had in it additional waste besides solid waste. I

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the leader time has been reserved, and the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 534, the solid waste disposal bill. We will proceed under the provisions of the consent agreement reached on Friday. Senators should be aware that rollcall votes are expected this morning, possibly as early as 10:30 a.m., on or in relation to the amendments to the solid waste disposal bill. Following the disposition of the solid waste bill, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 395, the Alaska Power Administration bill. A cloture motion was filed on that measure yesterday, and Senators will have until 2:30 p.m. this afternoon to file first-degree amendments to S. 395. The Senate will recess between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. Under the previous order, Mr. President, the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, has an amendment and she has 1 hour on that equally divided in the usual form.