Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Chair what the pending business is.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today has turned its attention relatively early in the session to a bill of primary importance to my State of Indiana and to many other States in this Nation. It is a bill that the Senate is very familiar with, one to allow States to limit the importation of out-of-State waste. We have discussed it on numerous occasions. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and the chairman of the full committee, Senator Chafee, for bringing this bill to the floor, as well as the ranking member, Senator Baucus, and, of course, Senator Dole for scheduling this legislation. Early in my Senate career, which has not been that long, I observed a phenomenon in Indiana as I was driving through the State. All across the State homemade signs posted on telephone poles or stuck in the ground appeared that said, ``Don't dump on us.'' I began to inquire what the subject was. We checked into that and found that the citizens throughout Indiana, many small towns in particular, found that, instead of the local garbage dump which received a truck or two of local community waste, garbage, a day, suddenly they discovered that 18-wheelers were lined up for blocks waiting to enter the local dump to dump their waste. And people said, ``Where is all this coming from?'' You really cannot call these facilities landfills, because they were designed for receipt of small amounts of everyday household trash, waste, that was picked up maybe a couple of times a week at most and delivered to the local dump. In a little more than a year, our State saw negligible volumes of out-of-State trash that were coming into the State explode to more than 20 percent of our total waste disposal. Virtually overnight, the State of Indiana became a target for out-of-State trash. The statistics do not begin to tell the story. Because, as I said, the trash parade targeted many small communities in rural areas in Indiana. So the magnitude of the change was dramatic for the citizens of those communities. Let me just tell you one story, the story of Center Point. This small town in Indiana, a town of 250 people, had a local garbage dump. Not a landfill, it was not certified as a big landfill. It was just a place where the local citizens were able to dispose of their local trash. A couple of trucks picked up the trash in the community and surrounding areas and disposed of it in this area. In 1989, the local landfill was purchased by out-of-State investors, and the site was doubled. Ads began appearing in national magazines that said: ``Send us your trash.'' Narrow country lanes were clogged with 18-wheelers loaded with trash and garbage from other States. Local citizens, rightfully so, I believe, began to keep a watch on a daily basis, on a 24-hour-a-day basis. They would log in the license plates of the trucks coming to bring the trash, States. I heard about the incident. I asked my staff to take me there. We went early one morning, and we stood on a hill overlooking the landfill, which now had been expanded considerably. I saw on this narrow, unpaved country lane a whole long line of 18-wheeler trucks that had driven all night to bring east coast waste to Indiana because the disposal fees were so much less than they were at the point of origin. Suddenly, this little town of Center Point was overwhelmed, as its fragile country roads were torn up by the weight of the 18-wheelers, as signs and posts were knocked over as the 18-wheelers tried to negotiate the narrow turns, and as a landfill facility, a garbage disposal facility designed to take care of the needs of that community for many, many years in the future suddenly was the subject of unwanted and extraordinary volumes of trash, which became obvious were going to quickly fill up that local community's disposal site, leaving its local citizens with no local option to deal with their own waste problem. Capacity that was sufficient to meet local needs for years was suddenly being used up in months. Hoosiers were understandably angry, and I was angry. We had a very clear message we wanted to deliver, and I delivered that on this Senate floor: That our State, which had mustered the political will to site landfill capacity in our own State borders, within those borders, to dispose of our own generated waste, were overwhelmed by trash flowing from States that were unwilling to responsibly handle their own waste. Today, Mr. President, over 15 million tons of trash cross State lines. Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan have borne a disproportionate share of receiving that capacity. We happen to be on an interstate route that runs east to west, Interstate 70. Interstate 70 has become the trash corridor for the flow of east coast trash to lower fee landfills in the Midwest. Americans throw away about 180 million tons of solid waste yearly. That is enough trash to spread 30 stories high over 1,000 football fields. The question that confronts us is where are we going to put all this? Some communities have been pretty creative. Ten miles from downtown Detroit, there is an old landfill accommodating 21 years' worth of the city's garbage. It rises 150 feet into the sky. It no longer receives trash, but city officials have covered it with some top fill and they make snow in the winter and they declared it a ski area. It is colloquially called ``Mount Trashmore,'' and it attracts thousands of visitors a year. But for most, trash is not a recreational resource; it is a municipal nightmare. Landfills fill up, and there is nowhere else to take the waste. So our Nation's heartland is becoming our Nation's wasteland as trash increasingly moves across State lines following the route of cheap disposal from the East to the West. Of the 15 million tons of trash crossing State lines, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan have borne, as I said, a disproportionate share. This rising tide of trash wreaks havoc with our planning efforts which, by our own State law, must ensure local capacity for 20 years. Some States have reacted to this influx of out-of-State trash by forbidding all new landfill sites. Others have taken measures which amount to the nationalization of the trash industry by banning for- profit disposal facilities in order to give States control over this. Because public facilities may discriminate between in-State and out-of- State, one method of eliminating unwanted out-of-State trash is to restrict the commercial sector altogether. These are not feasible solutions. These do not go to solving the problem. Our own legislature has tried to take care of the problem, but has found that its ability to act effectively is extraordinarily limited. We had a discussion of that this morning. The Senator from Rhode Island, and others, talked about the fact that under the commerce clause of the Constitution, garbage waste is considered a part of interstate commerce, and unless the Congress affirmatively acts to grant States and local jurisdictions the authority to control the flow of waste, they do not have the power to do so. That is why we are here. That is why we have been pursuing for these last several years the prospect of giving these States and these local communities the authority to regulate the flow of out-of-State trash. We passed laws in Indiana, for instance, that would impose additional fees, that allowed us to check the content of the material coming in. The statute that we passed was on the books 4 days before it was challenged in the court as a violation of the commerce clause, and that case eventually was lost by the State. Frustrated by the court decisions, Indiana has turned to bilateral agreements. Our Governor and the former Governor of New Jersey agreed to cooperate in stopping illegal waste from New Jersey. They agreed to share information and to pursue joint investigations. Mr. President, the vast majority of waste shipped across State lines is not illegal waste, it is just ordinary garbage. It is the coffee grounds and eggshells and orange peels, discarded Dr. Pepper bottles, the newspaper, unless it is recycled--just the ordinary waste that each of us carries out to the trash bin in the garage and puts out once or twice a week in front of the house. In addition, we have no way to accurately count the amount of trash we are receiving illegally to determine what that is. Many shipments are sent indirectly through collecting points in other States. To determine what came from a particular State to Indiana that might be legal or illegal requires a procedure that is an investigative nightmare. As our own Governor has indicated, and as many other Governors have indicated, and as I believe a solid majority of Senators and Representatives have indicated, the only hope for a solution lies with Federal legislation. In November 1989, my first year in the Senate, the 101st Congress, I introduced the first bill in the Senate which would allow States to ban, regulate, or impose fees on the interstate transportation of solid waste. After a strenuous debate, this bill passed by a very significant and, I think, surprising vote of 68-31. Unfortunately, in the conference with the House of Representatives, the bill which was passed here was stripped from that bill and the legislation died before becoming law. In the very next Congress, I again introduced legislation and again forced the issue on the Senate floor. And, again, the Senate acted decisively on the interstate issue, now by a vote of 89-2. The Senators became aware of the problem and realized that their States may not have been the current target of out-of-State waste, but a little bit further down the road they were going to become targets. Many realized that the problem we identified in Indiana in 1989 was now a problem in their State. Senator Exon came to me and said, ``Since you raised this issue, I have discovered communities in my own State that are becoming the recipients of out-of-State trash and they are overwhelming our efforts to deal with this.'' That bill I introduced in the 102d Congress operated on three basic principles: First, it allowed communities that did not currently receive out-of-State trash to prohibit new shipments without express authorization. Second, it grandfathered facilities that were receiving trash from other States in order to give the exporting States time to site their own State capacity. It recognized that States in the crowded east coast corridor had significant waste disposal problems, and that to simply slam the door and say that, as of this date forward, you cannot export any trash whatsoever was simply not going to be a solution to the problem. So in recognizing that, we grandfathered a certain amount of shipment of out-of-State waste. Third, it allowed Governors the authority to freeze volumes at current levels at the grandfathered facilities, because we wanted to give the Governors of the importing States the ability to say we can continue to take so much with this capacity but no more. Again, that legislation, while it passed the Senate 89-2, did not pass the House of Representatives and it died in that Congress. In the next Congress, the 103d Congress, I used those principles to craft and the House positively addressed, but unfortunately it died in the last hours of the session coming very close to being enacted into law. Now, here we are in the 104th Congress and I indicated back in 1989 that this issue was not going to go away. They can kill it in conference; the House can kill it; it can die by procedural methods, but I was not going to give up. I was like a dog who had his teeth sunk deep in the bone and I was not going to let go; I was going to come back and back and back until we got this thing passed. And here I am in the 104th Congress, and I hope this time we will be successful. I am getting lockjaw from keeping my teeth locked onto this issue. I would like to release that grip, send it to the President, get it signed into law, and move on to some other legislation. Now, the bill before us today recognizes the principles upon which we have operated. The bill, I think, is a reasonable compromise that grants States and local communities the authority that they need to plan for their own needs, to say ``no'' to out-of-State trash. It recognizes the problems of exporting States, and it gives them methods and ways in which to reduce significantly the amount of trash they send out of State. It balances a lot of different needs. As has been described here, it deals with flow control and ground water monitoring. The heart and soul of this bill, however, is the question of interstate trash shipment. We are working now on some areas of the bill that we feel may need some adjustment, as it has come out of committee. There are negotiations underway, and I trust they will be successful and will allow us to avoid offering some amendments to clarify some of these provisions. We will talk a little bit more about that later.

Mr. COATS. Six years.

Mr. COATS. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me just say that we have tried several approaches. We have tried the path of patience. We have waited our turn and bided our time. We have agreed to continue to accept some levels of out-of-State waste in exchange for having realistic controls over how much waste we will receive from other States. There is simply no other way for States to realistically plan for their own future capacity, unless we can enact legislation that gives them the authority to regulate the volume of out-of-State trash which that State receives. The problem here is very basic. There is no negotiation; there is no arm's length or both-parties-at-the-table negotiation that takes place, because States are virtually powerless to sit at the table with the exporters and sit down and say, let us establish some reasonable volumes, let us make sure that we have the capacity to receive what you are sending in; let us negotiate the fees on which this will be shipped back and forth; let us determine the terms of the contract. Because of the Constitution's commerce clause, it is possible--and it is a practice that has been used over and over again--for someone outside the State, or even inside the State, to purchase a landfill and suddenly open up that landfill, which was designed originally for local needs, to massive volumes of out-of-State trash, which fills up the landfill in a very short period of time and leaves the local citizens few, if any, alternatives. In fact, it forces them to ship their waste out of State in order to find a place to dispose of it. So we end up with a game of pass the trash. Everybody is passing it on down the highway, generally from east to west. Not always. Metropolitan areas to rural areas, across State lines, it is pass the trash. As the landfills get filled up, no new ones get built, no new efforts put in place to dispose of out-of-State waste, to reduce the amount, to recycle, to reduce the amount generated initially, to find other ways to dispose of the waste. So we just are moving it around the country to different locations, filling up the cheapest hole in the ground that is available for a certain fee for out-of-State trash. In the 5 years that Congress has debated the issue, the trucks continue to roll. The garbage continues to mount. The changes that we are proposing here are not an attack on any particular State. They are a defense of our own States. They are not rooted in bitterness, but they are rooted in urgent need. Again, I want to commend my colleagues on the Environmental Committee for moving expeditiously in this new Congress on this legislation. I look forward to working with them, to strengthening the bill to ensure that we afford real protection to importing States while allowing exporters sufficient time to get their house in order. That is our goal, Mr. President. I am confident that we can accomplish that goal in the time that we have in the next day or two. I am very, very hopeful that within 48 hours or so we will be able to report that the U.S. Senate has, once again, taken action to deal with this problem and that we will work carefully and closely with the House of Representatives, which in my understanding is moving forward on this expeditiously also, and finally resolve this issue and send the legislation to the President's desk for his signature, which in the past he has indicated he will sign. Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS. I appreciate that very much. Obviously, the Senator's cooperation and input is necessary for this. I am anxious, also, to move forward on this. I would be delighted if we can finish this bill tomorrow and not have to carry it over until Friday. We are working as we speak on this matter and hope to have some answer to the Senator shortly.

Mr. COATS. I will not bring up any amendments in the immediate time period ahead of us here, and certainly the Senator will have an opportunity to leave the floor.

Mr. COATS. I say to the Senator from Rhode Island that it is virtually all of the affected parties, both from the exporting States as well as the importing States that are working together to try to resolve these issues.

Mr. COATS. Actually, I plan to defer discussion of those amendments now because we are in negotiation with the Senator from Rhode Island, and other Senators of affected States, to try to reach a resolution on these amendments, which we can hopefully put into a package that would be acceptable and offer them as a package rather than as individual amendments. So I would be premature in offering those amendments at this particular time.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this has truly been a year of reform. Since the outset of this Congress, the pervasive theme has been to fundamentally change a system of government that has gone awry. Thus far, most of these efforts at reform have been targeted at the Congress, and rightfully so. As some have said, we must first stop the bleeding. However, there are many very formidable tasks before us. One of which we discuss today. Mr. President, I rise today to dedicate my support to the effort to reform the product liability system. Justice in America is fundamentally rooted in the principles of the equality, product liability is in conflict with all of these principles. Where product liability cases are concerned, we certainly, cannot say that there is equality in the system. There is a total lack of uniformity in the current product liability system. Due to the broad diversity of legal standards from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is absolutely impossible to predict what, when and how you will be compensated for losses resulting from a faulty product. Where businesses are concerned, this unpredictability leads to disproportionately high risk calculations and insurance rates as companies are forced to calculate the worst-case-scenario in assessing liability risk. These risk costs have, not only an adverse effect on those directly involved in any particular case, but on all Americans. Disproportionately high insurance costs have several negative effects on American business. In each case, that negative impact effect all of us. Confronted with impossible-to-calculate liability costs, American businesses often choose not to introduce new technologies and innovations into the marketplace. Thus denying consumers the benefits of enhanced products and services. Nowhere is this more evident than the biomedical industry. In my State of Indiana, there is a large biomedical industry. Among other things, these companies make artificial limbs. This is an industry that provides hope and freedom to so many people who may otherwise find their lives limited by disability. However, due to disproportionate liability costs, the manufacturers of the raw materials utilized in the construction of these prosthetic device are increasingly choosing to forego the market. The sales to the biomedical industry represent such a small percentage of total profits that liability costs outweigh benefits. Furthermore, American businesses are confronted with insurance costs 20 times greater than their European competitors and 15 times greater than those of Japanese industries. In addition to making American products more expensive at home, this adversely effects competitiveness in a global marketplace. That means damage to job creation. An excellent example of this is a case in Coatesville, IN. A small community of around 600 people, Coatesville is the home of the Magic Circle Corp.--a company employing around 30 people from Coatesville and Filmore, a small town next door. Magic Circle is a small business that produces riding lawn mowers. The engine of these mowers is manufactured to automatically shut off when a person gets up from the mower seat. Unfortunately, in a cemetery in a nearby State, someone decided to tape down the seat so that the mower continued to run when that person left it unattended on a hillside. The mower rolled forward and injured their foot. That person, the one who taped down the seat and left the mower unattended on the side of a hill, sued Magic Circle for $7 million. There was no alteration or misuse defense in the State in which the incident occurred. The amount of damages requested exceeded the total of all Magic Circle profits and assets. In the end, they were forced to pay $10,000 in attorney fees and its insurance company paid out $35,000 to the claimant. There is an interesting footnote to this case. Officials of a foreign government later contacted the owners of Magic Circle to see if they would be interested in relocating in that country. One of the selling points of their presentation was the country's product liability laws. There are those who argue that the threat of large punitive damages is what makes America's products safe. This argument is fundamentally flawed. What makes American products the best in the world is not a lottery-style product liability legal system. The American consumer operating in a free market, who demands quality and excellence, is what makes American manufactured products the most high-quality products in the world today. However, the impact of our current product liability system is beginning to take its toll. If we do not take action now, we will be in danger of losing our competitive edge. Even the most adamant defenders of our current system certainly cannot say that it is expedient. A GAO report shows that product liability cases take an average of 2\1/2\ years to move from filing to verdict. One case cited took nearly 10 years to move through the judicial process. The cynical result of these delays is that both parties are ultimately forced to negotiate compromises because they are overwhelmed with legal costs. These compromises often have little to do with guilt or innocence and much to do with predatory lawyers and a bizarre patchwork of legal standards and procedures. Mr. President, I am an attorney. Many of my distinguished colleagues are attorneys. I am not here to attack lawyers. However, in the legal industry, as in any industry, there are those who lack scruples. There are those who will pursue personal financial interests above ethical considerations. In civil liability cases, lawyer's fees account for 61 percent of funds expended on product liability claims. These expenses include both defendant and plaintiff costs. The net effect of this incredible statistic is that realistic accessibility to the legal system and legal defense is a mere myth in most situations. Mr. President, clearly there is a need for fundamental reform to the product liability legal system. We have debated this issue since I came to Washington. Fundamental product liability reform offers the hope of removing one of America's most destructive obstacles to job growth. When frivolous suits are traded, when weak cases are brought, when litigation explodes, our economy is crippled. New technology never comes to market. Medical costs increase. The doors to factories close. Insurance costs increase. American products are unable to compete around the world. Perhaps most sorrily, a legal system that was once the envy of the world, has been twisted and distorted to a point where the very principles on which it was originally constructed cannot even be recognized. We must turn this tide. A Rand Corp. study found that most of the money awarded in injury cases is taken by the legal process itself. Less than half actually gets through to victims. According to a GAO study, 50 percent or more of payments made by defendants in a product liability trial goes to lawyers. Victims get less than 50 percent. This same report discovered that when a case is appealed, defense costs can actually double. Estimates vary, but one professor at the University of Virginia has estimated that when all the costs are finally counted, a mere 15 percent of injury litigation awards go to a victim. Innocent victims must find relief and the help they deserve--and this bill preserves that obligation. But a runaway legal system must not be allowed to make victims of us all. The current state of product liability law does not work for victims, it does not work for manufacturers, for consumers, for America. Like so many of the reforms that we have already passed and stand to take action on, product liability reform is long overdue and at a critical stage. For the sake of our workers, for our economy, and for the victims trapped in a legal morass, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the Forest Service land management planning process.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony regarding the Department of Defense quality of life programs related to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 and the future years defense program.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Wednesday, April 5, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on various flat tax proposals.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment be granted permission to conduct an oversight hearing Wednesday, April 5, 9:30 p.m. regarding the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA].

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony regarding the Department of Defense quality of life programs related to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 and the future years defense program.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building on providing direct funding through block grants to tribes to administer welfare and other social service programs.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on the FDA and the future of the American biomedical and food industries, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 5, 1995 at 10 a.m.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 5, 1995.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on the subject of earned income tax credit.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill that is ready to be read a second time?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on the bill at this time.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. Without his leadership I do not believe we could have been successful. It has truly been a bipartisan effort and the then-chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's leadership was invaluable to this process. As I said it was the most extensive set of hearings and extensive investigation ever conducted on this subject or perhaps any other subject. That has been placed as a matter of record and is part of the law. I thank him for his support and leadership.