Now, interstate waste and flow control aren't new issues for the Committee. Concerns about increased interstate shipments of solid waste and the potentially adverse economic impacts of flow control have been around for almost a decade. And this Committee, the full Senate, and the House have all tried on several occasions to address those concerns through federal legislation. We've never succeeded.
I think that the legislation we crafted back in the 104th Congress represented a good compromise for the time. It balanced the interests of importing states with the legitimate disposal needs of exporting states, and tried to provide a narrow grandfather for facilities that had relied on flow control authority.
As I say, it was a good bill for the times. But things have changed. I appreciate the concerns raised by states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio that import large volumes of solid waste. I can certainly understand that those States don't want to be become, or be perceived as, the "dumping grounds" for New York City's or anybody's trash.
There's another side to the story, however. Interstate waste shipments have increased over the past five years, but this is due largely to the closure of hundreds of small landfills that were unable to comply with new, stringent environmental standards. As a result, waste may be crossing state lines, but it is ending up in facilities that meet the highest standards -- double liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater monitoring requirements. In most cases, furthermore, it is being shipped to facilities in communities that chose to accept out-of-state waste.
The facts on flow control also have changed since this Committee last considered legislation. In 1995, in the wake of the Carbone decision in the Supreme Court, state and local governments across the country predicted that recycling and disposal facilities would go bankrupt, and entire waste management systems collapse, without flow control authority. Those predictions turned out to be overly pessimistic. The vast majority of facilities that previously relied on flow control have survived without it.
The facts have changed from 1993 and 1994. So, the proponents of federal legislation on interstate waste and flow control in 1999 have a special burden to make the case that legislation is indeed still needed.
The principles that I will use to evaluate any legislation are simple. I believe that solid waste fundamentally is like any other commodity and therefore should be protected by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that principle. If Congress is going to restrict shipments of solid waste, whether through limitations on interstate movement or flow control authority, it should do so in a way that minimizes the interference with free commerce and that ensures the highest degree of protection for the environment. For me, that means that solid waste should generally be permitted to cross state lines, whether for recycling or disposal. By the same token, state and local governments should not be given broad authority through flow control to create solid waste monopolies. Consumers, in this case the solid waste generators, should have the freedom to send their waste to the best, most economically efficient facilities available, whether in-state or out-of-state.
The issue is no longer one of ensuring adequate capacity for our nation's trash. Instead, the question we should be asking ourselves now is "How can we ensure that solid waste is managed in the most environmentally responsible manner." I believe that the answer lies in recognizing the economies of scale that have enabled regional, state-of the-art landfills to comply with EPA regulations, and continuing to allow solid waste to flow to the best new facilities.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning.