Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his excellent presentation on the central provisions of our bill. I wholeheartedly agree with the points he has made.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I certainly agree, there is much more to be done in our generation on campaign finance reform. I look forward to participating in that. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree with the comments of the Senator from Arizona. I believe the Court's decisions indicate that a range of contribution limits would be constitutional depending on the circumstances. Certainly, the determination through difficult negotiations in this bill that the limit should be raised to $2,000 per election, but not higher, is an indication that Congress believes that in most races contributions of greater than that amount present the appearance of corruption.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree with my friend from Arizona. Let me note, in addition, that the new effective date also helps to ensure that an expedited court challenge to the law can be resolved well before the 2004 election campaign gets underway. We recognize that a court challenge to this bill is not only likely, but inevitable. We welcome the challenge and firmly believe the courts will uphold what we have done. In section 403, the bill provides expedited judicial review rules and rules for an orderly process of intervention in the litigation that could theoretically be filed shortly after the President signs the bill. That this will allow the litigation before a three-judge court here in Washington, DC, to have progressed substantially even before the operative provisions take effect in November. This expedited judicial review process will assist an orderly transition from the old system to the new system under this bill. Furthermore, the FEC is charged with promulgating soft money regulations well before the date that the soft money ban will take effect. In short, with enactment of the bill, promulgations of key regulations, and a prompt and efficient resolution of the litigation, we will be in a position in which a new campaign finance system can be implemented in a certain and sure fashion for the 2004 elections. section 323(f)(1)

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need. Madam President, I thank the many Members of this body, past and present, who have helped to bring us to this moment. Most important, as I mentioned in my other statement, the most important person I have to thank is, of course, my friend, John McCain. I also thank our earliest supporters, who gave their support to the McCain-Feingold bill when it was first introduced in the 104th Congress, Senators such as John Glenn, Paul Simon, Nancy Kassebaum- Baker and Alan Simpson, who gave us crucial bipartisan support when this effort was just getting off the ground. This kind of bipartisan bill wasn't totally unprecedented. But it was pretty unusual, and the support of those distinguished Senators lent important credibility to our effort in its early days. I particularly thank Senator Carl Levin for his leadership and support during every debate we have had on this bill since 1996. His insight on the substance of the issue, and on the workings of this body have been absolutely crucial to the advancement of this legislation. Senator Levin is as tenacious and committed as any Member of this body. We truly would not be here today if he were not on our team. I also thank our distinguished colleague, Senator Susan Collins, for her invaluable contributions to this effort. She came on board our bill as a freshman Senator in 1997, despite tremendous pressure from her caucus. Over the years, we have met together with many of our colleagues. She has been a tireless advocate for reform, a terrific ally in this fight, and I am proud to call her a friend and a colleague. I, again, thank Senator Joe Lieberman, who has been a steadfast supporter of reform, and who helped to build crucial momentum for this legislation with his leadership on the 527 disclosure bill in the last Congress. The success of that legislation was a great breakthrough after so many years when any reform effort was stonewalled by our opponents. The day that bill passed the Senate, I remember thinking that enactment of the McCain-Feingold bill was not going to be far behind. And, of course, the great breakthrough at the beginning of this Congress was the day when Senator Thad Cochran joined us in introducing this bill. I have great respect for Senator Cochran, and his support on this bill has been invaluable. I cannot thank him enough for his commitment to this legislation. Once he joined our effort, he was with us with every ounce of determination and grace that he brings to all of his work here in the Senate. One of our newest Members, Senator Maria Cantwell, also gave us important momentum when she made campaign finance reform a central issue in her campaign, and gave this bill her strong support. After her victory, the oft repeated claim that no Senator has ever lost an election over this issue could simply no longer be made. Senator John Edwards and Senator Chuck Schumer have both been terrific assets on this issue, especially right here on the Senate floor. Both of them have devoted a great deal of their time, and skill as debaters, to this bill, and I am very grateful for their efforts. The efforts of Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Jim Jeffords to craft the provision on phony issue ads that came to be known as the Snowe-Jeffords legislation have been essential to this bill. They worked tirelessly to put together a balanced provision that gets at the root of the issue ad problem, and I thank them for their tremendous contribution. The Snowe-Jeffords provision is an integral part of our bill, and their mastery of this topic was invaluable to us. I am deeply grateful to Senator Fred Thompson for his longstanding and steadfast support of this bill, and for his great skill and fairness in negotiating an agreement on hard money limits that the vast majority of this body could support. Without that agreement, we simply could not have moved this bill through the Senate. I also pay special tribute to Senator Thompson for the work he did investigating the 1996 campaign finance scandals. Senator Thompson cut his political teeth with his work on another great scandal in our Nation's history known as watergate, but his work in 1997 showed the Nation that the campaign finance issue is truly a bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution. We will miss Fred Thompson leadership in the Senate. I also thank Senator Chris Dodd for his tremendous work as floor manager on the Democratic side, especially during the extraordinary and sometimes unpredictable debate we had last year. He led us through those 2 weeks with grace and humor and a fierce passion for reform that I deeply respect and for which I am deeply grateful. I of course, thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Tom Daschle, and his very able staff, for everything they have done to bring about the success of this legislation. In the fall of 1997, the entire Democratic Caucus united behind this legislation, and that unity has been crucial to our success. We are soon to have the vote on final passage because Tom Daschle was true to the principles of this party and led our caucus to follow through on our commitment we made to reform 4\1/2\ years ago. I am proud of the bipartisan effort we have made, but I am also proud to be a Democrat, and I deeply appreciate the solid support of my caucus on this issue. This list of thank-yous would not be complete without thanking my own staff. They have worked tirelessly to help me move this legislation forward, and they have done so with great skill and dedication. First I thank my chief counsel, Bob Schiff, for the outstanding contributions he has made to this legislation and to the cause of reform, and for the various all- night efforts he had to put in to get this thing done. I also thank my chief of staff, Mary Murphy, and other staffers, past and present, who have worked to make this moment possible, including Kitty Thomas, Andy Kutler, Sumner Slichter, Bill Dauster, Susanne Martinez, and Tom Walls. I also thank Jeanne Bumpus, Mark Salter, Mark Buse, and other members of Senator McCain's staff, past and present--in some ways it seemed as if we merged our staffs to accomplish this--and I thank them for their outstanding contributions to this bill. They have been a pleasure to work with. Many other current and former staffers from my office, and from other Senate and House offices, have also made vital contributions to the progress of this bill. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify this provision, which is one of a number of provisions in the soft money ban intended to prevent new loopholes for spending soft money from developing. New Sec. 323(f)(1) prohibits State candidates and officeholders from spending non-Federal money on public communications that refer to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, regardless of whether a State candidate is also mentioned. This restriction, however, only applies to communications that promote, support, attack or oppose the Federal candidate, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate. Thus, it is not our intention to prohibit State candidates from spending non-Federal money to run advertisements that mention that they have been endorsed by a Federal candidate or say that they identify with a position of a named Federal candidate, so long as those advertisements do not support, attack, promote or oppose the Federal candidate, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate. The test for whether a communication is covered by Sec. 323(f)(1) will be whether the advertisement supports or opposes the Federal candidate rather than simply promoting the candidacy of the State candidate who is paying for the communication. That will be up to the FEC to determine in the first instance, but I believe that State candidate will be able to fairly easily comply with this provision. All we are trying to prevent with this provision is the laundering of soft money through State candidate campaigns for advertisements promoting, attacking, supporting or opposing Federal candidates.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, as my colleagues are aware, the House passed the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill in the early morning hours of February 14, 2002. The bill that we are debating today, and that we will pass and send to the President this week, is the exact bill that the House passed. During the debate on the bill, Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut spoke on the floor at some length about the compelling need for the Congress to ban soft money. He related the enormous growth of soft money over the last decade and the appearance of corruption that these unlimited contributions from unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals cause. Using examples such as the Enron debacle, the Hudson Casino controversy, the tobacco industry, and the infamous Roger Tamraz, Congressman Shays illustrated how soft money damages public confidence in the legislative process. He includes statements from former Members of Congress of the power of money in providing access to lawmakers and the public cynicism that results when these stories become known. Mr. Shays' remarks appear in the Congressional Record of February 13, 2002 at pages H351-H353. I entirely agree with Mr. Shays' statement. In my view, it explains very well the appearance problem that soft money creates and provides an excellent justification for the action we are about to take in this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the senior Senator from Arizona for highlighting that particular part of the legislative history. I also believe Mr. Shays does an excellent job of explaining how the Levin amendment is supposed to work. In addition, Mr. Shays discussed how the provisions of the bill dealing with electioneering communications permit the FEC to promulgate regulations to exempt certain communications that are clearly not related to an election and do not promote or attack candidates. I also endorse that discussion, which appears in the Record of February 13, 2002, at pages H410-411.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Section 301 of the bill amends 2 U.S.C. section 439a to specify which candidate expenditures from campaign funds would be considered an unlawful conversion of a contribution or donation to personal use. The language continues to allow candidates to use excess campaign funds for transfers to a national, State or local committee of a political party. It is the intent of the authors that--as is the case under current law--such transfers be permitted without limitation. Furthermore, while the provision is intended to codify the FEC's current regulations on the use of campaign funds for personal expenses, we do not intend to codify any advisory opinion or other current interpretation of those regulations.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator is correct that as part of the soft money ban, the legislation deletes language in current law expressly excluding donations to a national or state party committee specifically to finance the purchase or construction of a party office building from the definition of ``contribution.'' Accordingly, a national party committee may no longer receive non-Federal donations for the purpose of purchasing or constructing any party office building, or for any other purpose. Likewise, Federal law will no longer allow a State or local party committee to receive non-Federal donations to purchase or construct a State or local party office building where such donations would violate that State's laws relating to permissible sources and amounts of non- Federal donations to such a party committee. The bill does not, however, regulate State or local party expenditures of non-Federal donations received in accordance with State law on purchasing or constructing a State or local party office building. It is the intent of the authors that State law exclusively govern the receipt and expenditure of non-Federal donations by State or local parties to pay for the construction or purchase of State or local party office buildings. Thus, non-Federal donations received by a State or local party committee in accordance with State law could be used to purchase or construct a State or local party office building without any required match consisting of Federal contributions.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it gives me enormous pleasure to yield 15 minutes for the last major comments on this bill on our side to the man who made it all happen and started the whole thing and carried it to the finish, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would be happy to respond to my friend from Maine, and I appreciate her question. In the bill, the phrase ``refers to'' precedes the phrase ``clearly identified'' candidate. That latter phrase is precisely defined in the Federal Campaign Election Act to mean a communication that includes the name of a federal candidate for office, a photograph or drawing of the candidate, or some other words or images that identify the candidate by ``unambiguous reference.'' A communication that ``refers to a clearly identified candidate'' is one that mentions, identifies, cites, or directs the public to the candidate's name, photograph, drawing, or otherwise makes an ``unambiguous reference'' to the candidate's identity.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree with the Senator from Arizona's answer to the question from the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would be happy to address this question, and I thank the Senator from Connecticut for raising it. It is important that our intent in this provision be clear. The concept of ``coordination'' has been part of Federal campaign finance law since Buckley versus Valeo. It is a common-sense concept recognizing that when outside groups coordinate their spending on behalf of a candidate with a candidate or a party, such spending is indistinguishable from a direct contribution to that candidate or party. Accordingly, such coordinated spending by outside groups is, and should be, treated as a contribution to the candidate or party that benefits from such spending. As such, it is subject to the source and amount limitations under federal law for contributions to federal candidates and their parties. An effective restriction on outside groups coordinating their campaign-related activities with federal candidates and their political parties is needed to prevent circumvention of the campaign finance laws. The bill bans soft money contributions to the national political parties, which totaled $463 million during the 2000 election cycle. Specifically, under the bill, corporations and unions can no longer donate amounts from their treasuries to the national parties, and wealthy individuals can no longer write six-figure checks to the national parties. The legislation shuts down the soft money loophole in order to prevent the corruption and unseemly appearances that arise when national parties and Federal officeholders solicit unlimited donations from special interests and then spend those donations to support federal candidates. Absent a meaningful standard for what constitutes coordination, the soft money ban in the bill would be seriously undermined. In the place of outside special interests donating six-figure checks to the national parties to be spent on Federal elections, these entities could simply work in tandem with the parties and Federal candidates to spend their own treasury funds--soft money--on federal electioneering activities. This would fly in the face of one of the main purposes of the bill to get national parties and Federal candidates out of the business of raising and spending soft money donations. Unfortunately, based on a single district court decision, the Federal Election Commission's current regulation defining when general public political communications funded by outside groups are considered coordinated with candidates or parties fails to account for certain types of coordination that may well occur in real-world campaigns. The FEC regulation is premised on a very narrowly defined concept of ``collaboration or agreement'' between outside groups and candidates or parties. This current FEC regulation fails to cover a range of de facto and informal coordination between outside groups and candidates or parties that, if permitted, could frustrate the purposes of the bill. For example, if an individual involved in key strategic decision-making for a candidate's political advertising resigned from the candidate's campaign committee, immediately thereafter joined an outside organization, and then used inside strategic information from the campaign to develop the organization's imminent soft money-funded advertising in support of the candidate, a finding of coordination might very well be appropriate. The FEC regulation, however, would find coordination neither in this circumstance nor in various other situations where most reasonable people would recognize that the outside entities' activities were coordinated with candidates. This would leave a loophole that candidates and national parties could exploit to continue controlling and spending huge sums of soft money to influence federal elections. The dangers of coordinated soft money spending were noted by Senator Fred Thompson during his Committee's review of 1996 election activity. The Minority Report of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs states: The fact that coordination of soft money spending and fundraising has become commonplace and expected should be examined by Congress. By permitting such coordinated efforts to raise soft money and spend it on political activities that advance the interests of presidential campaigns, the federal election laws create a tremendous loophole to both contribution limits and spending limits. As the Chairman [Senator Thompson] has acknowledged: Acceptance of this activity would allow any candidate and his campaign to direct and control the activities of a straw man . . . . For such activity, these straw men could use funds subject to no limit and derived from any source . . . . If the interpretation is that this is legal and this is proper, then we have no campaign finance system in this country anymore. To remedy this problem, the bill requires the FEC to reexamine the coordination issue and promulgate new coordination rules. These rules need to make more sense in light of real life campaign practices than do the current regulations. The bill accordingly repeals this FEC regulation and requires that the Commission promulgate a replacement regulation. The bill does not change the basic statutory standard for coordination, which defines and sets parameters for the FEC's authority to develop rules describing the circumstances in which coordination is deemed to exist. Section 214 directs the FEC to promulgate new regulations on coordinated communications and lists four specific subjects that the FEC must address in those new regulations. It does not dictate how the Commission is to resolve those four subjects. On one issue, section 214 does direct the outcome of the Commission's deliberations on new regulations. The current FEC regulations say that a communication will be considered to be ``coordinated'' if it is created, produced or distributed ``after substantial discussion'' between the spender and the candidate about the communication, ``the result of which is collaboration or agreement.'' This standard is now contained in 11 C.F.R. Sec. 100.23(c)(2)(iii). The FEC's narrowly defined standard of requiring collaboration or agreement sets too high a bar to the finding of ``coordination.'' This standard would miss many cases of coordination that result from de facto understandings. Accordingly, section 214 states that the Commission's new regulations ``shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.'' This, of course, does not mean that there should not be a finding of ``coordination'' in those cases where there is ``agreement or formal collaboration.'' But it does mean that specific discussions between a candidate or party and an outside group about campaign-related activity can result in a finding of coordination, without an ``agreement or formal collaboration.'' Existing law provides that a campaign-related communication that is coordinated with a candidate or party is a contribution to the candidate or party, regardless of whether the communication contains ``express advocacy.'' Accordingly, the bill provides that an ``electioneering communication'' that is coordinated with a candidate or party is considered a contribution to the candidate or party.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his remarks on this topic. I agree that this provision addresses a serious problem of abuse that has been amply demonstrated.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I deeply appreciate the hard work of so many Members of the other body who fought for years to pass this legislation. Of course, especially, my thanks and those of Senator McCain go to Representatives Chris Shays and Marty Meehan for their determination and outstanding leadership on this issue, as well as to the House Minority Leader, Dick Gephardt. I also recognize the contributions made by many other House Members, including Representatives Zach Wamp, Mike Castle, Lindsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi, Jim Matheson, Harold Ford, Sander Levin, Jim Turner, Jim Leach, Jim Greenwood, Sherwood Boehlert, Amo Houghton, Nancy Johnson, Mark Kirk, Tom Petri, Todd Platts, Marge Roukema, Rob Simmons, John Lewis, Charlie Stenholm, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers, and Silvestre Reyes, and former Representatives Tom Campbell and Linda Smith. Our bill also benefitted immeasurably from the incredible effort put in by outside organizations in support of this legislation. I recognize the outstanding contributions made by Fred Werthheimer and Democracy 21. I also thank Don Simon, Scott Harshbarger, Meredith McGehee, Matt Keller and the staff of Common Cause for their tireless work to pass this legislation. Joan Claybrook and the staff of Public Citizen, including Frank Clemente and Steve Weissman, made crucial contributions to the progress of this bill. I also very much appreciate the work of Jerome Kohlberg, Cheryl Perrin, and Elaine Franklin of Campaign for America and Charles Kolb and Ed Kangas of the Committee for Economic Development to move this legislation forward. I realize that is a long list of people and organizations to thank. But it has been almost 7 years, and the praise I offer is well deserved. Without the work of these people, not just during this Congress but over many years, we would not have reached this exciting moment for reform and for our democracy. How much time remains on our side?

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thanks to the courtesy of Senator McCain, it is my honor to bring the debate to a close. I will make a few brief comments and perhaps we can proceed to final passage of the bill. First of all, I wish to indicate my respect for the Senator from Kentucky. This has been a tremendous battle. We have had in this Chamber 3 weeks in the last 2 years debating this issue. I think it has been a very good process, and I certainly take seriously his arguments. Although we may have to pursue this matter in the courts, as we have done in some other matters, it is always an honorable venture. The main point I make, in conclusion, is that I believe in maybe 20 or 30 years people will say: You know, there was a time when Members of Congress could actually ask people for $100,000, $500,000, or a million-dollar contribution, and it was perfectly legal. I think it will remind people of the stories we have heard about how there used to be briefcases full of cash floating around this building. It is almost unbelievable that there ever was a time in our recent history--in the last few years--when these kinds of almost inherently corrupt contributions could be given from corporate treasuries, union treasuries, or by individuals. It was a loophole that completely swallowed all the laws we had. They were imperfect laws. The hard money rules were the rules we had concerns about when we started this initiative. We wanted to fix that. This soft money system grew in such a way that we invited some of the greatest corruption in the history of our country. So it is my hope that 25 or 50 years from now people will say: How could you have possibly had a time when unlimited contributions were allowed? I look forward to people saying that. The reason I mention that time in the future is that, more than anything else, I care about this issue because of the young people in this country. I care about it because, believe it or not, I was once 18. I am looking at the pages here who help us. When I was 16, 17, 18, I thought maybe I would have a chance to go into politics someday. Not a single person ever said to me: Well, you have to be a millionaire or you have to be able to access $500,000 or a million-dollar contribution. I was a person of average means, so it looked to be an area that maybe I could go into, and it excited me. Nothing has bothered me more in my public career than the thought that young people, looking to the future, might think that it is necessary to be multimillionaires or somehow have access to the soft money system, in order to participate--being able to participate as a voter and, yes, even being able to participate as a candidate as part of the American dream. Today, we hope to return a little bit of that dream to you. Yes, someday, as John McCain has said, you are going to have to clean it up again because every 20 or 30 years the system needs some work. In the name of the young people of this country, whom I know will provide the enthusiasm to support future reforms, I want to bring the debate to a close. I yield the floor and the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday I joined as an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by my Midwestern colleague, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich. This legislation is similar to legislation introduced by the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, in the previous Congress. I am pleased to be working with the Senator from Ohio on this very important issue. I know that he, as a former Governor, is intimately aware of the concerns that the growing trash trade poses for the States that we represent. We in the Midwest, especially those of us fortunate enough to be from the Great Lakes States, enjoy a very high quality of life, beautiful scenery, small, neighborly towns, and spectacular natural resources. We hold it as a particular point of pride that we, in many instances, have the luxury of avoiding many environmental problems, and we have structured our State and local governments in Wisconsin to try to be sure that we continue to avoid them. We in Wisconsin, however, are unable to protect our communities, which have done a good regulatory job, from having to deal with the solid waste mess created by our neighboring communities in other States. Instead, my State has been forced to accept other States' municipal solid waste in ever increasing amounts. We need to enact legislation to give back to States the power to be able to control the flow of waste into State-licensed landfills from out-of- State sources. This legislation would give states the tools to do just that. It gives States the power to freeze solid waste imports at the 1993 levels, and to charge a $3 per ton fee on out-of-State trash. States that did not accept out-of-State waste in 1993 would be presumed to prohibit receipt of out-of-State waste until the affected unit of local government approves it. Facilities that already have a host community agreement or permit that accepts out-of-State waste would remain exempt from the ban. States would also be allowed to set a statewide percentage limit on the amount of waste that new or expanding facilities could accept. The limit cannot be lower than 20 percent. Finally, States, under this bill, are also given the ability to deny the creation of either new facilities or the expansion of existing in- State facilities, if it is determined that there is no in-State need for the new capacity. My home State has tried to address this issue repeatedly on its own, without success. On January 25, 1999, a Federal appeals court struck down a 1997 Wisconsin law that prohibits landfills from accepting out- of-State waste from communities that don't recycle in compliance with Wisconsin's law. Wisconsin's law bans 15 different recyclables from State landfills. Under the law, communities using Wisconsin landfills must have a recycling program similar to those required of Wisconsin communities under Wisconsin law, regardless of the law in their home State. About 27 Illinois towns rely on southern Wisconsin landfills. Since the law took effect, waste haulers serving those communities have had to find alternative landfills for their clients, incurring higher transportation costs in the process. Ilinois-based Waste Management Inc. and the 1,300-member National Solid Waste Management Association were the entities that challenged Wisconsin's law. By recycling, Wisconsin residents have reduced the amount of municipal waste heading to landfills. Since the State's previous out- of-State waste law was struck down by the appeals court in 1995, the amount of non-Wisconsin waste in Wisconsin landfills has tripled. When the law was in effect, 7.7 percent of the municipal waste in Wisconsin came from out of State. That has risen to more than 22.9 percent since the law was struck down. Though this legislation will not afford Wisconsin the ability to block garbage containing recyclables from our landfills, it will at least give my State the ability to address the overall volume of waste entering our State. In 1995, I supported flow control legislation sponsored by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and drawn substantially from the work of the former Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats. I have been very concerned that the Senate, which passed that bill by a significant majority vote of 94-6, has not taken up legislation to address this issue since that time. The issue of interstate waste control affects my home State and more than 20 other States. For years, States have been faced with the challenge of ensuring safe, responsible management of out-of-State waste, and the need for State control is even more acute today than in was in 1995. Congress is the only body that can give the States the relief that they need from being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of trash. We need to take prompt action on this matter, and this legislation is a good first step. I urge my colleagues to consider lending this bill their support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the nomination of Randal K. Quarles to be Assistant Secretary for International Affairs of the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 10 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Accounting and Investor Protection Issues Raised by Enron and Other Public Companies.''