Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

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

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

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray-Gorton amendment. We worked on it hard to try to craft a compromise to accommodate as many people as possible on this legislation. The amendment of Senators Gorton and Murray would simply open up the current provisions under S. 534 and would allow prospective flow control for areas that currently do not have flow control, and some areas that do flow control but do not have bonds and currently need to be paid off. The whole spirit of the compromise worked out so carefully as we put this legislation together was we would not do things prospectively, that the intent here was to protect those people who had made financial commitments. Most specifically, they had let bonds or contracts that would require substantial losses possibly, conceivably, to the investment. That was the purpose. We were not trying to pass a bill here that would open up the whole interstate commerce issue again and allow States to prospectively implement flow control anywhere or any time for whatever reason, no matter how small the cost, whether it be the purchase of a truck or some minor item of cost. Local flow control laws are by their very nature monopolistic and they are anticompetitive. I have stated numerous times during the course of this debate that I personally do not favor flow control, but in working with my colleagues I tried to help out some of the States that had very, very significant financial commitments, most specifically bonds, or in the case of a State like New Jersey, where they had an entire system for flow control and we wanted to try to accommodate them, we put a grandfather clause in here that would say that all flow control would be by the boards after 30 years. That was to allow for any bonds that may have been let to run out and then it would be entirely the free market system. This amendment just flies in the face of the entire bill, the entire compromise. It is very important that my colleagues understand that if you support the free enterprise system and want to see less flow control in the future--not more--then you would be opposed to this amendment. The Supreme Court ruled last year that these types of flow control laws are a violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Yet, it can be argued that governments that issued bonds--and the key here is bonds--to build facilities in reliance on flow control should be allowed to continue flow control only until these bonds are repaid. After this, the free market should prevail. The purist argument would be they knew what they were doing when they let the bonds, and the free market ought to prevail anyway. Frankly, that is my position. But in an effort to compromise on this, Senator Chafee and I and others agreed that we would allow this grandfather, that it would be restrictive, that it would not be an open-ended grandfather that would simply allow prospectively anybody to think, ``Well, I might have an opportunity in 10 years to implement flow control and, you know, we might want to sign a contract, or we might want to let a bond, or prospectively, we may want to do it in 10 years.'' That is not the intent of this legislation. It would not be in the best interests of those who want to see flow control restricted rather than increased. So the key here is that this amendment vastly expands the universe of communities that would be allowed the flow control--I mean vastly. This is not just Washington State. This is an open end that is going to allow flow control, and it would be flow control allowed not on the basis of financial need, not on the basis of financial commitments, not at all; just maybe we will have some financial commitments, or maybe in the future we would like to pass a bond, or maybe we would like to sign a contract, or maybe we would like to build a facility sometime in the future. That defeats the entire purpose of the legislation. I cannot emphasize that strongly enough. This amendment goes beyond the principles that only those facilities that incurred bonded indebtedness should be grandfathered and instead it local governments who are simply implementing a State solid waste management plan. Again, I go back to the hearing that we held in the subcommittee on flow control when we heard from New Jersey and other units which were affected by this. We heard that bond holders were going to be harmed and even some of us felt that they knew what they were doing or should have known what they were doing when they let the bonds and invested in the bonds. We decided, be that as it may, to be as fair as possible, we were going to allow the grandfather to kick in. A 30-year period gives everybody a chance to recoup any losses that they might have as a result of investments in the bonds. That was a compromise. It was very carefully struck. It was not my position. It was not the position of Senator Lautenberg or others on the committee who supported flow control. But it was a compromise. As compromises are, you give a little bit and you take a little bit. And that is the way it works. But now to say we are down to the end, or very close to where we want to have a vote on this bill, to say now we are going to open this whole thing up prospectively to any locality or any community whatsoever anywhere which may want to have flow control is basically undoing the bill. It is an anti-free-market amendment. It opens up flow control to a variety of communities that currently do not practice it, and it will shut out private companies that could meet the solid waste disposal needs of these areas. What we are hoping will happen in States like Washington and other States is that the free market will kick in; that over the next 30 years as we grandfather those who are currently implementing flow control, we will see the free market kick in in States like this where there is no flow control now, and it will work and it will work very well, and the free market frankly usually works, if not always works. So I think that is the approach we ought to take. To just now come in with an anti-free-market amendment is a serious mistake. Recent studies indicate that flow control jurisdictions charge, on average, 40 percent higher rates than non-flow-control jurisdictions--40 percent higher. This amendment goes against the spirit of the bill, the intent of the bill, and it should be defeated. Flow control is not necessary for recycling, according to a recent EPA report called ``Report to Congress--Flow Controls and Municipal Solid Waste'': There are no data showing that flow controls are essential for the development of new solid waste capacity or for the long-term achievement of State and local goals for source reduction, reuse, and recycling. That is a quote from that report. Thus, even the EPA has demonstrated that there is no need for flow control to meet State recycling goals. The bottom line, as has been said before, my colleagues, is that this is a killer amendment. It kills the bill. It guts the bill. It makes the bill totally worthless, and it should not be passed. I hope my colleagues will think very carefully and weigh this very carefully before the vote. I call attention to item three in the amendment, which says significant financial commitments have been made. What is a ``significant financial commitment''? Is it a few dollars, $10, $15, or $20? Maybe it is a fee to buy a license or a permit. We are not talking about that. We want to limit future flow control in this legislation. We want it to end in 30 years. We do not want it to begin in States that do not have it. We are just allowing the exception or the grandfather in the States that do. So, Mr. President, with the greatest respect to my colleagues who have offered the amendment, it is ill advised. It will hurt what we are trying to do in this compromise, and frankly if this is passed, this could lead to the very defeat of the flow control bill, which will hurt those people, those very people out there, the bond holders who are sitting there now worried about whether or not they are going to get relief. And if the bill is defeated or somehow taken down because of this, then those people are not going to get relief. So I hope this amendment will be defeated. Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Chafee first of all for his very fine remarks. It has been a delight to work with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on this legislation. He several months ago said we want to try to get the flow control bill and the interstate waste matter brought up. And I took it seriously. We were able to do that. It has been a delight to work with him and his staff as we brought this bill here to the floor for a close, hopefully. It has been a long haul. We tried to accommodate a number of Senators. I had a long list of some 27 or 28 Senators I think that we were able to accommodate that had specific concerns. I know there were some who we were not able to accommodate because we felt it would essentially violate the spirit and intent of the legislation that we brought forth. But particularly the majority staff, John Grzebian, Steve Shimberg, and Jeff Merrifield who were really right there doing a lot of work, most of the work I guess behind the scenes to work on these amendments and get the compromise language agreed to. Certainly, Cliff Rothenstein and Tom Sliter and Scott Slesinger on the minority staff; and Peter Phipps of Senator D'Amato's staff and Melissa Murrell of Senator Coats' staff were all particularly helpful, and as were others. I think we ended up with essentially a good bill. There are some things I would not have put in it, and Senator Chafee would not have put in it. There are certain things we wish we had put in. But the bottom line is that this legislation is a compromise. We tried to accommodate those who brought up concerns that you had not thought of or maybe did not realize that needed to be put in there. And they come up with these ideas, and we tried to work them out. I think it deals essentially with the issue of flow control. It takes care of those people who made investments, who stood a grave risk had we not passed this legislation. It does grandfather the flow control authority so that it is not a permanent anticompetitive piece of legislation. It does grandfather it. So we went to great lengths to reach a compromise. Again, I want to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership. It has really been a pleasure to work with him in the position of subcommittee chairman. He has been 100 percent cooperative every step of the way personally and at the staff level. As the Senator said, last week I had a number of conflicts. I had three separate subcommittees to chair at the same time, two on Superfund, which is another priority item in our subcommittee, and Senator Chafee was willing to step in and participate almost fulltime on the floor debate and the management of the bill, for which I am very grateful. Mr. President, at this point, I will yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, this legislation provides flow control authority which is predicated on meeting debt obligations. The issuance of new debt at a facility that has operated since 1972 and that would require expanded flow control authority is not one that the committee has had the opportunity to examine in any detail at this time. I would be glad to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania as the bill goes forward and to determine whether the Harrisburg facility is or should be covered by this legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that action of the Senator from North Dakota. I am speaking against his amendment, so I would say that is a very generous action. I say with the greatest respect to the Senator from North Dakota, this is really a killer amendment. We do not know how much industrial waste is shipped nationwide. We have no idea. We have no idea how this amendment is going to affect our national system of disposing of this material. Every State, nationwide, ships industrial waste. There is the potential to adversely affect every single State in the Union. We had a very careful agreement on export and import ratchets in this bill, very carefully crafted. This is going to adversely affect the whole amendment. We just have no idea what the impact would be. So my concern is that it opens the door to other restrictions on exports, such as incinerator ash, sludges, hazardous waste, asbestos-- who knows? That is my main concern. We have not had any hearings. It is just a new issue that is suddenly injected into the debate here, so I strongly urge the amendment be defeated. I thank my colleague and yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send a manager's amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to by both sides. It is a managers' amendment, a very technical amendment that has been requested by EPA, and it applies to tracking interstate waste pursuant to title I of the bill.

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. The Senators from Virginia are correct. This legislation is not intended to expand a local government's flow-control authority beyond that permitted under existing State law.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I will make some remarks in response to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, in regard to shortening the grandfather to the length of the bonds. This is a difficult situation for this Senator, because in concept and in philosophy I totally agree with what the Senator from Arizona is trying to do. I have made my statement here on the floor regarding this issue in the opening debate on the bill that I oppose clause should be safeguarded. I do not want Congress to interfere. The reason why we have had a difficult time with this issue, I say to my colleagues, is that there are special circumstances where people have incurred a tremendous amount of expense. As the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, said in his very eloquent remarks regarding his amendment, the free enterprise system should be allowed to work. We might say, why did those people go ahead and make these financial obligations, knowing full well that they did not have the protection of the law? I think that is a very valuable argument and an argument that we certainly considered as we crafted this bill. The problem was, and we had a hearing on this matter, and as we heard from so many witnesses, there truly are some real national hardships out there that, in terms of the investors, in some cases through no fault of their own, perhaps, although not deliberately misled, some of the bondholders probably did not get the full explanation of the impact of the Carbone decision and what it meant for all of their investments in these bonds. It was something that we really struggled with, those members on the committee, Senator Chafee and myself and others on the committee, who really oppose flow control and did not want to interfere with the free market on this issue. On the other side there are two sections of the bill. The interstate waste transfer is part of this legislation as well. So we have flow control and interstate waste. The two parts of this bill, together, is a very carefully crafted compromise to move both things forward at the same time. I guess with some amusement we think of how when laws and sausages are made, we would be sick if we knew it. Maybe this is an example of that. Again, I will with great reluctance oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arizona because of the fact it interferes with the compromise. I will be specific, again, on the basis of the compromise, not on the basis of philosophy. We heard testimony from the Public Securities Association that $20 billion in bonds were used for flow control facilities. So, nationwide there is some $20 billion in bonds out there. These people have a liability. There is some question, we would say, well, we went in knowing full well--maybe they did, maybe they did not. This Senator is not convinced that all investors knew this. I could be wrong. I think it is pretty obvious, based on the testimony, all investors were not fully aware of the impact of this, and I think people invested in these facilities believing that they were going to have the protection of flow control. Right or wrong, they believed, in some cases, that they did. I am sure on the other side there are many people who knew full well that they did not and took the risk. Again, every investor bondholder, I do not believe, was fully aware of the ramification. When Carbone invalidated flow control, this whole situation was left in limbo. Nothing is happening, no one knows what to do. No one knows whether there will be flow control or no flow control. So here it is before the Congress. Now, most members on the EPW Committee did not want to have the Congress speak to overturning the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. There are dozens of incinerators and landfills in immediate danger if flow control is not reauthorized immediately. What we have here is not only a delicately crafted compromise, but an urgency in the sense that every bond based upon flow control authority at this point is threatened. So I think there is an emergency. Senator Chafee asked me to hold hearings on this quickly and to try to move this out of committee and to the floor, and it has been on the calendar for quite some time. We were looking for an opening to get it here. The purpose, again, looking at the negatives of this which the Senator from Arizona pointed out, the purpose, though, is to try to give relief to these people. It is not to permanently interfere with the free market, which is why the 30-year grandfather was placed there. The reason for the 30 year was we did not want to go back and review every single bond, whether it was a 10-year bond, a 5-year bond, 20- year bond, or 25-year bond. There were not any bonds beyond 30 years, which is why we selected that date. Could we have selected 15 years and been more in line with what the Senator from Arizona favors? Yes, we could have. Could we have selected the life of the bond as the Senator's amendment addresses? Yes, we could have. The problem is, though, we also added through language in the bill the opportunity to upgrade facilities. And I think that is where we get into a problem with the amendment of the Senator. If, after the expiration of a bond, someone wants to upgrade these facilities--not really expand but upgrade, keep them maintained--then they have no protection under the Kyl amendment. The underlying bill provides a very narrow flow control authority to protect these bonds. It may not be a perfect compromise, it certainly is not. But I think it is a fair compromise. It serves notice on everyone. I hope 20 years from now, 25 years from now, Congress will not go back and extend this. It is our intent it be ended. Everybody, all 50 States, all the entities in those 50 States, all the haulers and the Governors and the systems, everyone who is involved with flow control in any way should be on notice that, effective with the passage of this bill, it is over in 30 years and they ought to plan accordingly. That is the goal. The Kyl amendment disrupts that slightly and provides more uncertainty, although it is well intended. Again, the Kyl amendment does limit flow control. There is no question about it. It limits it further than the underlying bill. Philosophically I agree with that but, again, it is the compromise we are concerned about. The amendment would provide grandfathered authority only until the time the bonds are paid off. So if you have a 15-year bond and a contract that extends beyond those 15 years, or the need to upgrade your facility beyond the 15-year length of the bond, then you cannot do it under the Kyl amendment. You cannot do it with the protection of the flow control legislation. This amendment also does not cover contracts. It will create havoc in a number of cities and towns that made financial commitments based on the mistaken impression--true, mistaken impression--that they had this authority. I think the phrase ``mistaken impression'' really goes to the heart of why I came down on the side I did on the amendment, on the Kyl amendment, as well as the underlying bill. There are innocent people here who have been impacted. I could not in good conscience allow that to continue without the protection they thought they had when they entered into this agreement. Maybe it is an interesting conclusion here that it is a compromise, and if to you wanted to put it in direct statements, those who love flow control do not like the Smith-Chafee bill. Those who oppose flow- control do not like the bill. I think that probably means the compromise is about right. It is in the middle. I know there are those who are going to, from a philosophical perspective, support the Kyl amendment. My fear, and I think it is a legitimate fear, is that at the time the Kyl amendment is agreed to and becomes part of the underlying bill I think it could possibly, conceivably, kill the bill or at least kill the compromise. I think if that happens and the bill gets pulled back from the floor because of the budget legislation which will be coming up next week, the budget resolution that will be coming up next week, then I do not know when we would get back to it as we get into the pressures of time with more legislation. Again, those people who need immediate relief will not have it. I might just say in conclusion, we have tried to work with a number of States that have had concerns: Florida, Maine, Minnesota--the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and I agreed on an amendment yesterday. Senator Lautenberg and I disagreed on another amendment in New Jersey. States do have special considerations and special problems. But, again, the intention here--and I want to make was to strike this balance and not to move too far. Not to allow open- ended flow control authority on the left, if you will, on the one side; and at the same time not to allow it to go back so far over to the free market side on this particular bill that we would lose the balance. I might say for the benefit of the Senator from Arizona, we have rejected a number of amendments that would allow for open-ended action. If this community says, ``We would like to think about having flow control at some point within the 30-year period, will you exempt us?'' The answer is, ``No, we will not.'' In other words, there had to be some financial commitment, preferably a bond or contract, some amount of money had to be committed, usually in the form of a contract or a bond. So we were very, very tough on those people who came to us. We did not agree to allow that far-reaching aspect of the bill. Again, it might not be exactly what everybody wanted but it is a compromise and I urge my colleagues, no matter whether you are moving further to the free market side as I am, or whether you are moving further toward flow control where Senator Lautenberg and others are, whichever one of those positions you favor, I urge my colleagues to stay here in the center, in the compromise, and reject the Kyl amendment and reject any amendments on the other side that may come up to expand flow control authority. So, on the one hand let us not expand it. On the other hand, let us not restrict it. I again encourage my colleagues, when the vote does come on this amendment, to defeat it for the reasons given. Mr. President, I yield the floor. If no other Senators are seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is a unique situation when the Senator who has an amendment on the floor is presiding, because he is in the unfortunate situation of not being able to respond at this particular time. I apologize to the Senator for that, because I have another commitment. I have to chair a subcommittee meeting at 1:30. I do want to make some remarks, but at some point later, if the Senator wishes to engage in any type of colloquy, I would be more than happy to do that with him. Mr. President, I want to clarify that the current business before the Senate is the Kyl amendment; is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we have accepted the amendment. The Senator from New Jersey has mentioned his amendment is a special situation in New Jersey. We are aware of this. It was the spirit and intent of the compromise language in the bill to deal with those special circumstances that New Jersey has, being an entire system for flow control. Even though we have some philosophical disagreements on the subject of flow control, part of the very carefully crafted compromise was that we would do our best to deal with those folks who had made certain commitments in this rather unique situation in New Jersey. This side has no objection to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH. My colleague from Pennsylvania is correct in his conclusions regarding the spirit of the legislation. Flow control will continue under certain conditions but is not required or mandated. As I have said before, the free market must be allowed to prevail.

Mr. SMITH. This legislation does not impose flow control. Flow control is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of free enterprise, market competition, and the best interest of the consumer. Requiring the use of flow control would be a step backward in the handling of municipal solid waste. This bill is designed specifically to protect the bond holders and commitments previously made. The free market is not broken, and with the inclusion of a 30-year sunset provision, the free market will once again take over.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, the interstate title gives the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Governors of other affected States authority to ensure that their States do not continue as unabated dumping grounds for States which do not act to site their own disposal capacity.

Mr. SMITH. I have stated before that I am not in favor of flow control. Flow control is anticompetitive. But it is only fair and equitable that communities that have indebted themselves--completely within the law prior to the Supreme Court decision--must not be left to suffer the consequences of financial failure. The outstanding municipal bonds that total more than $20 billion must be honored and the communities' financial stability must be maintained. However, only those facilities with bonded revenues are given grandfather coverage under this bill. Any municipality indebted after the Carbone decision is not and will not be protected. The free market must prevail. Rather than assisting with the creation of yet another bloated Government bureaucracy, we should be encouraging the establishment of a healthy free market, one in which competition keeps prices low, offers consumers better services, and disposal techniques are state-of-the-art.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this amendment offered by the Senator from Idaho has been agreed to on both sides. There is no objection on either side. It is a technical amendment to title III and it deals with ground water monitoring.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Mr. Paul Longsworth, a U.S. Department of Energy employee assigned to my staff for a period of 1 year, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of S. 534.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Yes. If the majority leader will yield, the majority leader is correct. I think if the bill does not get completed this week because these amendments do not get offered, they are jeopardizing the things we are trying to accomplish. We are here, and if those who have amendments get them here, we can finish this by this week.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank Senator Chafee for making that point. He is correct. This is not a partisan issue. It is a carefully crafted compromise to try to accommodate some genuine concerns out there among many individuals. Again, in the Senate, controlled by the Democratic Party last session, it was passed unanimously. The Republicans are now under control, and we are offering the same language again on interstate transfer. There is not any reason why we should have a huge fight here, unless people, for whatever reason, are trying to capitalize on something or take unfair advantage. We felt it was fair and we continue to feel that now. Senator Chafee and I are in agreement on that, and I know there will be Senators from both the importing and exporting States that will try to weaken or strengthen, depending on their position, the interstate portions of this bill. The bill is in two sections--both interstate as well as flow control. There are two sections to the bill. My response is, we struck this compromise last year, all parties agreed, and there have been no significant changes. What would be the fight? Let me move to the issue of flow control, because we have heard statements from a variety of individuals before our committee, very prominent individuals. Senator Bill Cohen, Governor Christine Whitman of New Jersey and others, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who asked Members to move quickly to address the issue of flow control. And we did. We moved very quickly at the behest of those individuals. Frankly, ever since we moved quickly at their behest, we have been getting beat about the head and shoulders by some who asked Members to move at their behest. A number of witnesses expressed a strong concern that without prompt congressional action to provide for continued authority in this area, many communities would be in danger of having their bond ratings lowered. That is true. For those of my colleagues who may not have heard me speak to this issue on the subject of flow control, let me be clear. This bill is in my subcommittee, the Superfund Committee, which I chair. It is in my jurisdiction. I tried to craft a compromise, which I think we did successfully, to get the bill to the floor and help those people who did have a problem. I oppose flow control. I think it is wrong. I do not support walking away from the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. I believe that we ought to stand firm on that. There is a situation that has developed, as Senator Chafee has already outlined, where individuals--municipalities--have let bonds, and there are people who stand to lose on this. So we tried to craft a compromise. In that compromise, we basically grandfathered, with reasonable grandfathering provisions, those communities. I do not believe that flow control is necessary to deal with the problem of solid waste. We do not--I think the private sector can do it just fine. I do not believe the free market is broken. There is no evidence that the free market is broken in this area. There are many people who are involved in the transport of this material, and I refuse to believe that recycling cannot be accomplished without flow control. I simply do not believe it. I do not think there is any evidence to say that. But some States and some communities got themselves in a bind, and we are trying to help them out of that bind. Instead, we are being attacked for trying to help them, in many ways by those who wanted it and now have dramatically changed or moved their position. That is the reason why nothing has happened, because everybody wants their position. This is a compromise. That is the point. I am sympathetic to the communities that feel they need congressional assistance on this matter. There are some. If we are starting from ground zero and there were no bonds let, no contracts signed, Mr. President, I would be here on the floor saying no flow control, period. However, it was because of this plea, that Senator Chafee and I moved forward to introduce this legislation, S. 534, that would provide the flow control authorities to those municipalities that imposed flow control and either constructed or began construction of facilities prior to May 15, 1994, the Carbone decision. While our bill provides limited grandfather protection for flow control, it also--and this is the key issue--it gives finality. This is final. At the end of 30 years it is over. There is no flow control anymore. We now have the free market kick in. We have help during this 30-year period which I think is more than ample. There are not any bonds I am aware of beyond the 30-year period. So precisely 30 years after the legislation is adopted, no further flow control measures will be allowed--none, zero, zilch. Both my subcommittee as well as the full committee moved very quickly to mark up this legislation. We did so primarily to help those communities whose bond ratings are endangered as a result of the Supreme Court's recent action. They are. We agree they are. They should not have gotten themselves in that position, but they did. Rather than get into whether or not they should not have gotten into that decision, we did not use that as a criteria. We simply said for whatever reason, they made some decisions that maybe they should not have made, but they are in that position so we will help them out. Speaking for myself, I am very uncomfortable with providing flow control authority. I do not want flow control authority. I felt that the bill of Senator Chafee and myself struck a fair balance in accommodating those who are strong proponents of States rights and those who are strong proponents of the free market. It is a compromise for both of those positions. During the course of the last 2 months, I have continued to work to accommodate Senators who had concerns about various proceedings in the bill. Everyone wants a fix. We are now hearing from the sublime to the ridiculous. ``Well, we might have a contract in 5 years, we are thinking about it. Could we be exempted?'' No, absolutely not. We are not going to exempt them, if I have anything to say about it. That is wrong. It defeats the spirit and intent of what we are trying to do. We cannot satisfy everyone. We have tried. We tried hard to address the legitimate concerns, and we will address those concerns. Some of the amendments we will accept. Some we will not. As a result of our efforts, the EPW Committee ordered this reported as amended on March 23 by a rollcall vote of 16-0. Again, the whole sequence of events here: Last year it was unanimous, no objection by Republicans or Democrats in the Senate in a Democrat Congress. We have a Republican Congress, it passes the committee 16-0. That says something about this bill. It says that those people out there who are trying to dramatically alter the bill are simply on a course that is not going to be in the best interest of those people who are sitting out there right now waiting for help, which is why we mark this bill up. I have to say if we ask Senator Smith, ``What are your priorities in the subcommittee of the Superfund?'' It is Superfund reform. That is what we are working on. We have had six hearings on it. We have another hearing tomorrow. We had one yesterday. We will try to draft a bill in the next 6 weeks to 2 months, and that is a high priority. Because people came to me, including the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, and outlined these problems, we agreed--Senator Chafee and I and others--- that we would bring this bill to the floor as quickly as possible. We have done that and, frankly, with great difficulty, simply because we have been focused on the Superfund issues. I did not anticipate the amount of amendments and the amount of opposition that would be generated on this bill. But let me just make this very clear to my colleagues. I believe this is an emergency bill for those communities or individuals or entities that have let those bonds. There are communities in a number of States that need quick passage of this legislation to provide them with the financial relief for their previously flow-controlled facilities. If this bill gets bogged down because of amendments, everyone trying to get control or no grandfathering or we move into the interstate waste transfer and they want no exporting or total exporting or the Governor having the total right to make decisions and communities having no rights or whatever--whatever the position may be, if they insist on that, this bill will get bogged down. It will not get passed by the end of this week, this legislative week, on Friday. And the budget will be up next week. After that, I cannot imagine where there will be a window of time to deal with this again. So I appeal to my colleagues who desperately want this bill to help them and their communities in their States with this flow control to not hold this bill up by adding amendments or trying to add amendments that may in fact derail it. Because once it is derailed, in my opinion, it is going to be a long time until it gets back here. It is the leader's decision, of course, when it comes up. But the point is there is so much on the table after Monday when the budget comes up, any discussion of flow control, with all due respect, is going to be way down here when the budget and the numbers in that get out and the American people begin to interact with their Senators and Congressmen on that. So I think there is going to be a lot of discussion. If Members choose to oppose this or dilute it or whatever they choose to do, or even--maybe they would like to strengthen it--they will do it at their own peril. This issue, which has been simmering for the last 6 or 7 years, will continue to remain on the back burner during the 104th Congress. I hope that does not happen, but the choice is clear. Either vote to pass this bill which has the overwhelming majority support, maybe unanimous support, in the Senate and protect those facilities that come within the scope of this bill, or risk it all to protect a small handful of communities that do not fit within this legislation, who are trying desperately to create a situation where, if they want to have flow control at some point in the future, they can have it, or if they have let a little bit of money out there somewhere, a relatively insignificant amount, and they are not sure what they are going to do-- that violates the spirit and intent of this bill and I hope it does not happen. We will be down here as long as it takes to deal with the amendments. I appeal to colleagues, if they have amendments, let us try to work them out. We will try to work out the ones we agree with, and if we can agree with them, we will accept them. If they violate the spirit and intent of what we tried to do in drafting this bill, we will oppose them forcefully on the floor of the Senate. Let me conclude with a brief summary as follows. Communities out there, as far as flow control is concerned, are in a tough situation. According to the public securities situation, $20 billion in bonds have been issued to pay for flow-controlled facilities. That is not the fault of the U.S. Senate. The interstate commerce clause, I believe, was in effect when that happened. But somehow it got ignored and they got into this bind and they have $20 billion in let bonds. We are going to try to help them and we do help them with this legislation. We grandfather them, we protect them. We protect the investors, the bondholders, the taxpayers, the individuals out there who have in whatever way participated in these bonds. As a result of the Carbone decision, the Supreme Court invalidated flow control, so it is in limbo. Here we are in limbo. Nobody knows what to do. They do not know whether to proceed or not to proceed, because they do not know what Congress is going to do in regard to the interpretation of that decision. Six incinerators in New Jersey have had their bond ratings lowered, and I am sure that is the case in other States, because flow control was invalidated. Again, we are trying to help those communities. That is the goal. Dozens of incinerators and landfills are in immediate danger if flow control is not reauthorized immediately, and every bond based on flow control authority is threatened, every one. Every single bond out there is threatened unless we do something soon. The longer it goes on the worse the threat gets. So the bill provides a narrow flow control authority to protect those bonds. Again, it is a compromise. It is a fair compromise. It is not my position totally. I would be for no flow control. That is not my position. But it is a compromise position to help those individuals. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and indicate I hope we could get some time agreements and some reasonable information regarding these amendments. If Members who have amendments could come to the floor and offer them in a timely manner so we do not get bogged down and not pass this bill by the end of the week.