[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17466-17467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CALLING OF THE BANKROLL

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I promised that from time to time when I 
participate in debates on legislation I would point out the role of 
special interest money in our legislative process, an effort I have 
entitled the Calling of the Bankroll. When I Call the Bankroll I will 
describe how much money the various interests lobbying on a particular 
bill have spent on campaign contributions to influence our decisions 
here in this chamber.
  Of course I embarked on this effort with the hope of exposing the 
corruption of our current campaign finance system, and in particular 
how wealthy donors exploit the soft money loophole.
  When I began this effort, I never worried that I would lack for 
opportunities to Call the Bankroll, and as I've demonstrated over the 
past few months, there are countless opportunities to Call the Bankroll 
about efforts to influence legislation before this body.
  For example, so far I have talked about the contributions of special 
interests working to influence the debate over the Patients' Bill of 
Rights, I have discussed the contributions of the high tech industry 
and trial lawyers lobby during debate on the Y2K legislation, and I 
have pointed out the contributions of gun makers and gun control 
advocates during the juvenile justice debate, just to name a few.

[[Page 17467]]

  And now we have before this body the Commerce, State, Justice 
appropriations bill.
  During his state of the union address last January, the President 
called for the Justice Department to prepare a ``litigation plan'' 
against the tobacco companies to reclaim hundreds of billions of 
taxpayer dollars spent through federal health-care programs such as 
Medicare to treat smoking-related illnesses.
  But this bill does something quite different. The language in the 
committee report on the Commerce, State, Justice Bill attempts to grant 
immunity to the tobacco industry from any federal litigation. Instead 
of a litigation plan, this bill would create a protection plan for the 
tobacco companies.
  I hope my colleagues in this body would agree that the Justice 
Department must be able to pursue litigation based on the law, and that 
we should do everything in our power to enable the department to 
enforce the law.
  But the language currently in the committee report prevents the 
Justice Department from enforcing the law. So instead of a huge federal 
lawsuit, the tobacco industry will have immunity from federal 
litigation. It looks like the tobacco companies have really gotten what 
they wanted in this bill, Mr. President.
  It's a fortunate turn of events for the tobacco companies, but based 
on the tobacco industry's track record of political donations and 
political clout, I can't say that it's surprising.
  The nation's tobacco companies are some of the most generous 
political donors around today, Mr. President, including Philip Morris, 
which reigns as the largest single soft money donor of all time. During 
the 1997-1998 election cycle the tobacco companies, including Philip 
Morris, RJR Nabisco, Brown and Williamson, US Tobacco and the 
industry's lobbying arm, the Tobacco Institute, gave a combined $5.5 
million dollars in soft money to the parties, and another $2.3 million 
in PAC money contributions to candidates.
  I offer this information to my colleagues and to the public to paint 
a clearer picture of who is trying to influence the bill before us, and 
how they are using the campaign finance system--very successfully, I 
might add--to get what they want from this bill and this Congress.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1217, the 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Bill for 
2000.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $34 billion and new 
outlays of $23.1 billion to finance the programs of the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, and the federal judiciary.
  I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for producing a bill 
that complies with the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This is one of 
the most difficult bills to manage with its varied programs and 
challenging allocation, but I think the bill meets most of the demands 
made of it while not exceeding its budget. So I commend my friend, the 
chairman, for his efforts and leadership.
  When outlays from prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into 
account, the bill totals $34.1 billion in BA and $34 billion in 
outlays. For general purpose activities as well as crime funding, the 
bill is at the Senate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for both budget 
authority and outlays.
  I ask members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which 
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge 
the speedy adoption of this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 S. 1217, COMMERCE-JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS, 2000--SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  General
                                  purpose    Crime   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
  Budget authority.............   29,460     4,150        523    34,133
  Outlays......................   28,214     5,271        529    34,014
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.............   29,460     4,150        523    34,133
  Outlays......................   28,214     5,271        529    34,014
1999 level:
  Budget authority.............   27,165     5,509        523    33,197
  Outlays......................   26,364     4,369        529    31,262
President's request:
  Budget authority.............   32,347     4,216        523    37,086
  Outlays......................   31,327     4,538        529    36,394
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.............  ........  ........  .........  ........
  Outlays......................  ........  ........  .........  ........
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.............  ........  ........  .........  ........
  Outlays......................  ........  ........  .........  ........
1999 level:
  Budget authority.............    2,295    (1,359)  .........      936
  Outlays......................    1,850       902   .........    2,752
President's request:
  Budget authority.............   (2,887)      (66)  .........   (2,953)
  Outlays......................   (3,113)      733   .........   (2,380)
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.............   29,460     4,150        523    34,133
  Outlays......................   28,214     5,271        529    34,014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill will be 
read the third time and passed.
  The bill S. 1217, as amended, was read the third time, and passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________