too low because we're already there and this is the biggest chunk of the garbage process. That's right, Mayor? Mr. KEMP. Yes, sir. Mr. SIKORSKI. And you said we should get them to do a better job of getting the metals out, because that's a real problem. I'll give you a minute, or whatever I have left, to amplify on your words. I just wanted people to hear it. We talk a lot and I wanted people to listen to your message so that, as we mark it up, we do something besides pat you on the back when we're home for the holy picture-taking ceremonies at your city council chamber. Mr. KEMP. And you're going to hear other people follow that can address this a great deal better than I can. I can assure you that some of the folks in places like Seattle have much more eloquent way of addressing Mr. SIKORSKI. Mr. Zarker is on next and he's saying the same thing. Mr. KEMP. Right, and you'll hear that. But one of the reasons why we say you can't look at it as an industry, and not look at it plant by plant or factory by factory, or at least company by company, is because he might be able to do it in Seattle, because he's got the Pacific Rim to ship the recyclables to. Mississippi doesn't have that. Other places don't have that. So if you don't impose on the companies that they need to do it company by company, then we may very well be caught in one of the poorest sections of the country and not be able to see industry, not be able to see the companies help us what they need to be doing to help us. The answer is not going to be in regulation, in my opinion. It's going to be in market stimulation sooner or later. Now, there may be a great deal more need in the packaging field and in the other fields. Somebody alluded to the fact that we produce about twice as much municipal waste per capita as they do in Europe, for instance. I've been to Europe and I've seen that. That's true. That regulation is going to have to be imposed somewhere along the line, again on the companies as well as giving us something to go by. That's the kind of help we feel like we need. Don't give us regulations we can't live with; give us the ones that we can work with and give us the stimulation for the markets. Mr. SIKORSKI. We're going to videotape your comments and send them to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who had to leave momentarily, just so he hears. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SWIFT. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Alabama for 5 minutes. Mr. CALLAHAN. Mayor Kemp, with respect to your comments about the 40 percent minimum content recycling requirement for the paper industry, I think the purpose of all of this, and I think your goal, is to address the waste problem. Why should we demand a company-specific minimum content level if we can find other alternate sources? In your district, and your Congressman, Congressman Montgomery, is one of the most respected members of the House of Representatives. In Congressman Montgomery's district there are papermills. Where did your organization come up with the figure that the 40 percent requirement, company-specific requirement, is too low? I mean, did you do it with any degree of research, or is this just something that you think sounds good and you would like to see it higher? Mr. KEMP. No, sir. And I can understand your talk about as well as I can anybody up here, Congressman. Mr. CALLAHAN. If I can convince you of my logic, we'll be in good shape. Mr. KEMP. I also want you to know that the James River Corp., which is located in your State and adjoining my county Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes. A lot of people who live in Meridian, Mayor, travel over there to work every day. Mr. KEMP. Every day that rolls. By the same token, I have been privileged to serve on our national office paper recycling project, which has been a very good project. It has been supported by such paper companies as Boise Cascade and various others, Fort Howard and so on. We had a study performed by the Franklin Group, which gave us the majority of what we are using to say the market is now at a third or so. We have also based that on what folks like the gentleman from Seattle who will follow us is saying. So I don't think there's any doubt about whether or not that's right. I also think that if folks like the James River Corp., the folks like the other paper companies, are trying their best to do their part, and they understand that, I think given time you're going to see them not be out there in an adversarial role to what we are proposing but to be in a position of trying their best to help. They aren't going to have any choice, either. That third grade student that I'm talking about, Congressman, from Poplar Springs School in Meridian, Miss. understands in his or her mind that cutting a tree down that is not needed to be cut down is bad. Now, you can put it any other way you want to, but he understands that. That is going to drive part of what we're doing, and they're going to have to work with it. I think the evidence out there of the companies that are in the paper business working with us is there. I can tell you, they put big money into our national office paper recycling project. I think the cooperation is there that we're going to need. Mr. CALLAHAN. If the demand is there, why should the government impose more control? I guess that's the question. Then when you get into minimum content and get into company-specific minimum content, how do you recycle toilet tissue? Mr. KEMP. I don't know how you recycle toilet tissue. Mr. KEMP. I would suppose, now, that that's not the only product that James River recycles. Mr. CALLAHAN. I know. Mr. KEMP. Or the only product that they produce, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect you get that little package each year that shows you what they produce, and all of it by no means is toilet paper. But I can tell you this. Based on what we've seen in other sections of the country, newspaper being one of them, if you don't mandate some kind of use of recycled product, then you're not going to be market driven, in our opinion. That may not be the Mr. CALLAHAN. There already is a market for newspaper. There is a sufficient market for newspaper already. This is a concern we have, that if we're selling it to Japan, or selling it to anybody, there is already a market there. Why do we need to impose more Federal regulations on minimum content when that market is already being taken care of? Mr. KEMP. I guess, simply stated, we are not together on whether or not we think it is stimulated as much as it should be, and whether or not it will be stimulated without some kind of regulation. It is our opinion that it will not. You remember now, I'm the guy that is there where the “water hits the wheel" and where the material hits the curb and has to do something with it. We need all the help we can get in the stimulation field, too. Mr. SWIFT. The time of the gentleman has expired. I would mention to the two valuable members who have joined us that, due to the ambitious schedule of this hearing, we are enforcing the 5 minute rule. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to take just a second to address the question of interstate waste transportation, one of the more controversial issues involved in the RCRA debate, and a matter in which we've been striving to obtain a measure of balance—and I think we're making progress in that direction. Mr. Flosdorf, you are speaking today on behalf of several local government organizations. Is the National Association of Counties among the organizations that you're speaking for today? Mr. FLOSDORF. Yes, along with the National League of Cities and the Solid Waste Association of North America. Mr. BOUCHER. I notice in your prepared statement, on page 4, that you make reference to legislation which I have introduced, H.R. 3952, which essentially would say that local governments would have an opportunity, in each case in which there is proposed a private landfill that would accept out-of-State waste, to approve or disapprove of the deposition of out-of-State waste in that landfill. It essentially would vest in the local government the power to determine the destiny of that locality with regard to interstate waste importation. I noticed that in your statement you alluded to it and you say that and I'll quote this: "It is worthy of consideration as a way to avoid adversarial means of solving interstate waste transport issues", and I appreciate that statement. I would like to take you, however, a step further. The National Association of Counties, on March 1, in its board of directors meeting, passed a resolution that essentially endorsed the concepts that are embodied in H.R. 3952 and specifically said in the conclusion of that resolution, "NACO endorses legislation such as H.R. 3952 which embodies the above provisions" and then details what some of those concepts are. Are you familiar with that resolution? Mr. BOUCHER. All right. Can you represent to this subcommittee that, in fact, such a resolution was adopted by the board of directors of the National Association of Counties? Mr. FLOSDORF. Yes, it was. Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request the permission of the subcommittee to have included in the record the resolution adopted by the board of directors of the National Association of Counties at its meeting on March 1 of this year. Mr. SWIFT. Without objection, so ordered. [The resolution follows:] ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND Land Use STEERING COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION ON INTERSTATE TRANSPORT of Solid WASTE WHEREAS, each year millions of tons of municipal solid waste are transported across state lines for disposal; and WHEREAS, some states have seen dramatic increases in recent years in the amount of waste imported from other states; and WHEREAS, the transportation of waste across state lines to environmentally unsound disposal facilities has created political, economic, and environmental problems for the recipients; and WHEREAS, a shortage of environmentally sound options is the dominant reason for interstate waste disposal; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency has projected a further decline in landfill capacity coupled with a lack of development of new capacity; and WHEREAS, there is an urgent need for long range waste management planning and stricter environmental regulation of waste disposal by states; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has declared attempts by states to ban or otherwise limit interstate movements of waste are unconstitutional and constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce; and WHEREAS, the National Association of Counties [NACo] represents both communities that export their solid waste and communities to which such wastes are exported: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Association of Counties believes that Congress should consider the issue of interstate transportation of municipal solid waste as part of a comprehensive reauthorization of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that National Association of Counties urges Congress to develop a national policy on the interstate transportation of municipal solid waste that recognizes the role of county and other local governments in land use and waste disposal decisionmaking, and which includes: A. An immediate ban on disposal of waste generated in another state at a disposal facility that does not meet state and federal environmental standards; and B. The authority for a state to halt the importation of waste from another state which does not have an approved comprehensive waste management plan pursuant to section 4007 of the Resources Recovery and Conservation Act; and C. The right of a local governing body with primary jurisdiction over land use to approve acceptance of solid waste from another state at a disposal facility; and D. The right of a local governing body which has approved acceptance of out-ofstate waste to negotiate with a disposal facility owner/operator the fees, terms, and conditions for out-of-state waste disposal at a disposal facility; and E. The right of municipal or regional authorities in a state with an approved comprehensive waste management plan to export waste to an environmentally sound disposal facility located in a community which has approved acceptance of such waste; and F. The authority of a state and/or local government to prohibit the exportation of waste which has been designated within a state and local comprehensive waste management plan; and G. NACO endorses legislation such as H.R. 3952 which embodies the above provisions. Adopted by Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee (unanimous) February 29, 1992. Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Flosdorf. I appreciate that. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. RITTER. Mr. Chairman, if I just might add, with respect to Mr. Boucher's question, does the National League of Cities have a position on that? Mr. FLOSDORF. We have not adopted a formal resolution, but the basic position is that local units of government are responsible for managing our wastes. We're held accountable for it; we're held liable for those wastes, as well as recyclable materials. We can't do everything with those wastes within our own districts. We need to make partnerships with other communities. We may need to send batteries to a battery plant in another town, or waste to an incinerator in another town, or to landfills, or to a glass manufacturing plant. We need to have those partnerships, regardless of what county lines or State lines fall in between. So if the local units of government are going to be held responsible, it ought to be that those local units of government are given the ability to make partnerships with sister units Mr. RITTER. The question was, does the National League of Cities support the Boucher bill? Mr. FLOSDORF. I can't—I don't know that they've taken a formal position, no. Mr. RITTER. But NACO has. Mr. FLOSDORF. NACO has. Mr. RITTER. We would like for the record, if there is a position out there, perhaps to have that for the record. Mr. FLOSDORF. I will get that for you. [The information was not received by the time the hearing went to press.] Mr. FLOSDORF. If I could just take a second here on this 3-yearold, you're talking about the 3-year-old who believes in recycling and Congress is following the 3-year-old. The 3-year-olds believe in Santa Claus, too. We can't finance Santa Claus. I give you caution. to that. Just because we believe that recycling is good, recycling may be good for some materials and some plants, but not for all materials and all plants. Mr. RITTER. In other words, if we drive overly rapidly the supply side, politically and emotionally, ideologically the supply side, we may have a real tough time finding real time markets for that if it goes too fast, is that correct? Mr. FLOSDORF. That's what we've seen. Mr. KEMP. And I agree with him, but it wasn't 3-year-olds. It was third graders. There is a difference. Mr. RITTER. When I was in the third grade, I sure believed in Santa Claus. Mr. SWIFT. One might suggest that there are some people with Ph.D.'s who believe in recycling as well. I would recognize the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes. Mr. LENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It may not be Santa Claus, but I would point out-and I think everybody out there in the audience knows it-that many members of Congress who years ago |