[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 27 (Monday, February 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1727-S1735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 430. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to 
provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the Kake Tribal Corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


       kake tribal corporation public interest land exchange act

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
second of two bills of which passed the Senate last year with unanimous 
consent. The first bill which was introduced on February 12, 1999, 
amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), to provide for 
a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Huna Totem 
Corporation, a village corporation created under that Act. The second 
bill provides for a similar land exchange between the Secretary and the 
Kake Tribal Corporation. Both of these bills will allow the Kake Tribal 
and Huna Totem Corporations to convey land needed as municipal 
watersheds in their surrounding communities to the Secretary in 
exchange for other Forest Service lands.
  Enactment of these bills will meet two objectives. First, the two 
corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic 
benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that 
supply the communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kake, Alaska will be 
protected in order to provide safe water for those communities.
  The legislation I offer today clarifies several issues that were 
raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up last year. First, the 
legislation directs that the subsurface estates owned by Sealaska 
Corporation in the Huna and Kake exchange lands are exchanged for 
similar subsurface estates in the conveyed Forest Service lands. Second 
the substitute clarifies that these exchanges are to be done on an 
equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
corporations insisted on this provision. I believe this is critical, 
Mr. President, because both these bills provide that any timber derived 
from the newly acquired Corporation lands be processed in-state, a 
requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the 
corporations are exchanging. Therefore, if this exchange simply were 
done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the 
corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions, 
would have a much higher value than what they would get in return. It 
is for this reason that these exchanges will not be done on an acre-
for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive 
additional compensation, either in additional lands or in cash to 
equalize the value, then it is my hope this will be done in an 
expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times 
specified in the legislation.
  I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of 
the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds 
are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and 
pass these bills out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bills be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 430

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Kake Tribal Corporation 
     Public Interest Land Exchange Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF SETTLEMENT ACT.

       The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203, 
     December 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), as 
     amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof:

     ``SEC.   . KAKE TRIBAL CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE.

       ``(a) General.--In exchange for lands and interests therein 
     described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall, subject to valid existing rights, convey to the Kake 
     Tribal Corporation the surface estate and to Sealaska 
     Corporation the subsurface estate of the Federal land 
     identified by Kake Tribal Corporation pursuant to subsection 
     (c): Lands exchanged pursuant to this section shall be on the 
     basis of equal value.
       ``(b) The surface estate to be conveyed by Kake Tribal 
     Corporation and the subsurface estate to be conveyed by 
     Sealaska Corporation to the Secretary of Agriculture are the 
     municipal watershed lands as shown on the map dated September 
     1, 1997, and labeled Attachment A, and are further described 
     as follows:

[[Page S1728]]

                          MUNICIPAL WATERSHED

                         COPPER RIVER MERIDIAN

                               T56S, R72E

Section                                               Approximate acres
13...............................................................82....

23..............................................................118....

24..............................................................635....

25..............................................................640....

26..............................................................346....

34................................................................9....

35..............................................................349....

36..............................................................248....

Approximate total.............................................2,427....

       ``(c) Within ninety (90) days of the receipt by the United 
     States of the conveyances of the surface estate and the 
     subsurface estate described in subsection (b), Kake Tribal 
     Corporation shall be entitled to identify lands in the 
     Hamilton Bay and Saginaw Bay areas, as depicted on the maps 
     dated September 1, 1997, and labeled Attachments B and C. 
     Kake Tribal Corporation shall notify the Secretary of 
     Agriculture in writing which lands Kake Tribal Corporation 
     has identified.
       ``(d) Timing of Conveyance and Valuation.--The conveyance 
     mandated by subsection (a) by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall occur within ninety (90) days after the list of 
     identified lands is submitted by Kake Tribal Corporation 
     pursuant to subsection (c).
       ``(e) Management of Watershed.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with 
     the City of Kake, Alaska, to provide for management of the 
     municipal watershed.
       ``(f) Timber Manufacturing; Export Restriction.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, timber harvested 
     from land conveyed to Kake Tribal Corporation under this 
     section shall not be exported as unprocessed logs from 
     Alaska, nor may Kake Tribal Corporation sell, trade, 
     exchange, substitute, or otherwise convey that timber to any 
     person for the purpose of exporting that timber from the 
     State of Alaska.
       ``(g) Relation to Other Requirements.--The land conveyed to 
     Kake Tribal Corporation and Sealaska Corporation under this 
     section shall be considered, for all purposes, land conveyed 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
       ``(h) Maps.--The maps referred to in this section shall be 
     maintained on file in the Office of the Chief, United States 
     Forest Service, and in the Office of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, Washington, D.C. The acreage cited in this section 
     is approximate, and if there is any discrepancy between cited 
     acreage and the land depicted on the specified maps, the maps 
     shall control. The maps do not constitute an attempt by the 
     United States to convey State or private land.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 431. A bill to amend the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 to 
grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry 
out the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                alcoholic beverage labeling act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 432. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the rate of tax on wine and to dedicate the resulting increased 
revenues to programs for the prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse; 
to the Committee on Finance.


   the alcohol abuse, prevention and treatment trust fund act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 433. A bill to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 
to prohibit additional statements and representations relating to 
alcoholic beverages and health, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


         the alcoholic beverage label preservation act of 1999

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address an important 
national health concern. On February 5, 1999, the Department of 
Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approved two 
new health statements for wine labels. This decision, in my opinion, 
was irresponsible and constitutes poor public policy.
  Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in our country. For years, drunk 
driving, underage drinking, drinking during pregnancy, and alcoholism 
have had devastating effects on the health and safety of our citizens. 
During the 1980s, I was proud to be part of a national public health 
campaign that resulted in congressionally mandated alcohol container 
warning labels.
  Since the implementation of these warning labels, the wine industry 
has been determined to undermine their effectiveness. Through a 
vigorous lobbying and marketing campaign, the wine industry has enticed 
the public with the assurance that alcohol consumption is healthy. A 
recent New York Times editorial by Michael Massing provides an 
insightful summary of the wine industries' irresponsible efforts to 
manipulate public policy toward this end. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of that editorial be printed in the Congressional Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1)
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, unfortunately, the wine industry may 
already have had ironic success in its campaign. According to a recent 
study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, four times as 
many pregnant women frequently consumed alcohol in 1995 than did in 
1991. The study attributes reports about the so-called health benefits 
of moderate wine consumption as a cause for this terrible increase.
  The decision by Treasury and A.T.F. to approve new health claims 
labels will escalate the problems of alcohol abuse. Last week, several 
big liquor firms signaled an intent to attach health-benefits labels to 
bottles of liquor. The alcohol industry's veiled attempt to use health 
claims as a marketing scheme has gone on long enough. And the passive 
complicity of Treasury and A.T.F. is unacceptable. Today I am 
introducing three bills that will address this public health dilemma.
  The first bill, the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1999, will 
transfer authority over alcoholic beverage labeling from the Department 
of Treasury to the Department of Health and Human Services. Treasury 
and A.T.F. proved themselves incapable of managing the responsibility 
of alcohol labeling when they decided to favor the aggressive lobbying 
tactics of the wine industry over the public health concerns of such 
groups as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American 
Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American 
Heart Association. The issues of public health and labeling require a 
level of experience and expertise that Treasury and A.T.F. apparently 
do not possess. My legislation will give the labeling authority to the 
Department of Health and Human Services and its subsidiary the Food and 
Drug Administration which have more experience in these matters.
  The second bill I am introducing, The Alcohol Abuse, Prevention and 
Treatment Trust Fund Act of 1999, will create a trust fund dedicated to 
programs for the prevention and treatment of alcohol related problems 
and will be paid for by a new tax on wine. Wine is currently taxed at a 
rate slightly lower than beer and significantly lower than distilled 
spirits. Distilled spirits are taxed more heavily than beer because, 
according to the Congressional Research Service, more affluent 
taxpayers drink distilled spirits while working class taxpayers drink 
beer. Like distilled spirits, wine is consumed by more prosperous 
taxpayers, so it is reasonable that wine should be taxed at a rate 
similar to distilled spirits.
  The revenue generated by this tax will be used specifically for the 
prevention and treatment of alcohol related problems such as heart 
disease and birth defects. Funds will also be used to address problems 
caused by moderate alcohol consumption, such as breast cancer and 
hypertension.
  For many years the tobacco industry deceived the public about the 
consequences of smoking. It appears as if the wine industry is 
following the lead of the tobacco industry. Rather than wait for the 
long term repercussions of an alcohol health benefits campaign, we 
should take action now to thwart its inevitable effects.
  The third and final bill I am introducing today, the Alcoholic 
Beverage Label Preservation Act of 1999, will block the use of the two 
new health claims labels approved by Treasury and A.T.F.
  I urge my colleagues to review these important pieces of legislation 
and support passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of all three 
bills be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of an article by 
the Marin Institute, which provides helpful background information on 
this subject, be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S1729]]

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 1999]

                     Wine's Unfortunate New Labels

                          (By Michael Massing)

       The Government's announcement on Friday that it would allow 
     the wine industry to use bottle labels that mention the 
     ``health effects of wine consumption'' exemplifies what is 
     wrong with the political process in Washington.
       In making the label decision, the Treasury Department's 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms drew on a growing 
     body of scientific research showing that moderate alcohol 
     consumption can reduce the risk of heart disease in some 
     people. Yet the new labels were vigorously opposed by an 
     array of medical and public health groups, including the 
     American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, 
     the American Heart Association and the Center for Science in 
     the Public Interest (as well as Senators Strom Thurmond and 
     Robert Byrd), on the grounds that the labels would simply 
     encourage more people to drink and would drive moderate 
     drinkers to drink more heavily, with potentially steep 
     medical and social costs.
       That the Federal bureau would override such concerns is 
     testimony to the political clout of the wine industry. Its 
     lobbying arm, the Wine Institute, has an annual budget of 
     more than $6 million, a staff of two dozen at its 
     headquarters in San Francisco, satellite offices in seven 
     other cities and lobbyists in more than 40 states. Its 
     Washington office is headed by Robert Koch, who is a former 
     staff director for Representative Richard Gephardt (as well 
     as being George Bush's son-in-law).
       The Wine Institute's president, John DeLuca, had made 
     approval of the new labels a priority for several years. 
     Mobilizing the industry's many supporters in Congress (who 
     include virtually the entire California delegation), Mr. 
     DeLuca succeeded first in softening the warnings about 
     alcohol consumption in the Federal Government's Dietary 
     Guidelines.
       Building on that, he mounted a campaign to persuade the 
     bureau--long a handmaiden to the alcohol industry--to approve 
     new labels referring to the health benefits of wine. The 
     bureau would not go that far, but it did approve language 
     that will undoubtedly help to boost sales. ``To learn the 
     health effects of wine consumption, send for the Federal 
     Government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans,'' one label 
     will read, giving an address at the Agriculture Department.
       Public health groups protested that such a move would 
     undermine years of patient efforts to raise awareness of 
     alcohol abuse, one of the nation's biggest health problems. 
     But they could not match the wine industry's political and 
     financial resources, and so the vintners' narrow commercial 
     interests won out. In the end, perhaps a limited number of 
     moderate drinkers will benefit, but for the general public 
     the risks--in terms of increased alcoholism, drunk driving 
     and birth defects--seem far greater.
       In the coming months, when you pick up a bottle of merlot 
     or chardonnay bearing a label urging you ``to consult your 
     family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption,'' 
     take it as a sign of how unhealthy our political process has 
     become.
                                  ____


                                 S. 431

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Alcoholic Beverage Labeling 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

       Section 203(9) of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 
     1988 (27 U.S.C. 214(9)) is amended by striking ``Secretary of 
     the Treasury'' and inserting ``Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services''.

     SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, unless 
     otherwise provided or indicated by the context--
       (1) the term ``Federal agency'' has the meaning given the 
     term ``agency'' by section 551(1) of title 5, United States 
     Code;
       (2) the term ``function'' means any duty, obligation, 
     power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, activity, 
     or program; and
       (3) the term ``office'' includes any office, 
     administration, agency, institute, unit, organizational 
     entity, or component thereof.
       (b) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred to the 
     Department of Health and Human Services all functions that 
     the Secretary of the Treasury exercised before the effective 
     date of this section (including all related functions of any 
     officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury) 
     relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 (27 
     U.S.C. 213 et seq.).
       (c) Determinations of Certain Functions by the Office of 
     Management and Budget.--If necessary, the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall make any determination of the 
     functions that are transferred under subsection (b).
       (d) Transfer and Allocations of Appropriations and 
     Personnel.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the 
     personnel employed in connection with, and the assets, 
     liabilities, grants, contracts, property, records, and 
     unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, 
     allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, arising 
     from, available to, or to be made available in connection 
     with the functions transferred by this section, subject to 
     section 1531 of title 31, United States Code, shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services. 
     Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this subsection 
     shall be used only for the purposes for which the funds were 
     originally authorized and appropriated.
       (e) Incidental Transfers.--The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, at such time or times as the Director 
     shall provide, may make such determinations as may be 
     necessary with regard to the functions transferred by this 
     section, and make such additional incidental dispositions of 
     personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, contracts, property, 
     records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, 
     authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, used, 
     held, arising from, available to, or to be made available in 
     connection with such functions, as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section. The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall provide for the termination of the affairs 
     of all entities terminated by this section and for such 
     further measures and dispositions as may be necessary to 
     effectuate the objectives of this section.
       (f) Effect on Personnel.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by this 
     section, the transfer pursuant to this section of full-time 
     personnel (except special Government employees) and part-time 
     personnel holding permanent positions shall not cause any 
     such employee to be separated or reduced in grade or 
     compensation for 1 year after the date of transfer of such 
     employee under this section.
       (2) Executive schedule positions.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this section, any person who, on the day before 
     the effective date of this section, held a position 
     compensated in accordance with the Executive Schedule 
     prescribed in chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     who, without a break in service, is appointed in the 
     Department of Health and Human Services to a position having 
     duties comparable to the duties performed immediately before 
     such appointment shall continue to be compensated in such new 
     position at not less than the rate provided for such previous 
     position, for the duration of the service of such person in 
     such new position.
       (3) Termination of certain positions.--Positions whose 
     incumbents are appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, the functions of which are 
     transferred by this section, shall terminate on the effective 
     date of this section.
       (g) Savings Provisions.--
       (1) Continuing effect of legal documents.--All orders, 
     determinations, rules, regulations, permits, agreements, 
     grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations, 
     privileges, and other administrative actions--
       (A) that have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to 
     become effective by the President, any Federal agency or 
     official of a Federal agency, or by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, in the performance of functions that are 
     transferred under this section; and
       (B) that were in effect before the effective date of this 
     section, or were final before the effective date of this 
     section and are to become effective on or after the effective 
     date of this section;

     shall continue in effect according to their terms until 
     modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in 
     accordance with law by the President, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services or other authorized official, a court of 
     competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
       (2) Proceedings not affected.--
       (A) In general.--This section shall not affect any 
     proceedings, including notices of proposed rulemaking, or any 
     application for any license, permit, certificate, or 
     financial assistance pending before the Department of the 
     Treasury on the effective date of this section, with respect 
     to functions transferred by this section.
       (B) Continuation.--Such proceedings and applications shall 
     be continued. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings, 
     appeals shall be taken from the orders, and payments shall be 
     made pursuant to the orders, as if this section had not been 
     enacted, and orders issued in any such proceedings shall 
     continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, 
     set aside, or revoked by a duly authorized official, by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
       (C) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to prohibit the discontinuance or modification of 
     any such proceeding under the same terms and conditions and 
     to the same extent that such proceeding could have been 
     discontinued or modified if this section had not been 
     enacted.
       (3) Suits not affected.--This section shall not affect 
     suits commenced before the effective date of this section, 
     and in all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals 
     taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the 
     same effect as if this section had not been enacted.
       (4) Nonabatement of actions.--No suit, action, or other 
     proceeding commenced by or against the Department of the 
     Treasury, or by or against any individual in the official 
     capacity of such individual as an officer of the Department 
     of the Treasury, shall abate by reason of the enactment of 
     this section.
       (5) Administrative actions relating to promulgation of 
     regulations.--Any administrative action relating to the 
     preparation or promulgation of a regulation by the Department 
     of the Treasury relating to a function transferred under this 
     section may be continued by the Department of Health and

[[Page S1730]]

     Human Services with the same effect as if this section had 
     not been enacted.
       (h) Transition.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     may utilize--
       (1) the services of such officers, employees, and other 
     personnel of the Department of the Treasury with respect to 
     functions transferred to the Department of Health and Human 
     Services by this section; and
       (2) funds appropriated to such functions;

     for such period of time as may reasonably be needed to 
     facilitate the orderly implementation of this section.
       (i) References.--A reference in any other Federal law, 
     Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of 
     authority, or any document of or relating to--
       (1) the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to functions 
     transferred under subsection (b), shall be deemed to refer to 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
       (2) the Department of the Treasury with regard to functions 
     transferred under subsection (b), shall be deemed to refer to 
     the Department of Health and Human Services.
       (j) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Recommended legislation.--After consultation with the 
     appropriate committees of Congress and the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall prepare and submit to the Congress 
     recommended legislation containing technical and conforming 
     amendments to reflect the changes made by this section.
       (2) Submission to the congress.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the effective date of this section, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall submit the recommended 
     legislation referred to under paragraph (1).
                                  ____


                                 S. 432

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Alcohol Abuse Prevention and 
     Treatment Trust Fund Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ALCOHOL ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT TRUST FUND.

       (a) General Rule.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to establishment of 
     trust funds) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 9511. ALCOHOL ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT TRUST 
                   FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Trust Fund' (in this 
     section referred to as `Trust Fund'), consisting of such 
     amounts as may be appropriated or credited to the Trust Fund 
     as provided in this section or section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby 
     appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the 
     additional taxes received in the Treasury under chapter 51 by 
     reason of the amendments made by section 3 of the Alcohol 
     Abuse Prevention and Treatment Trust Fund Act of 1999 and the 
     additional taxes received in the Treasury by reason of 
     section 3(d) of such Act.
       ``(c) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the Trust 
     Fund shall be available, as provided in appropriation Acts, 
     for appropriation to the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse 
     and Alcoholism and to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration for programs for the prevention and 
     treatment of alcoholism and for research on the causes, 
     consequences, prevention, and treatment of the health 
     problems related to alcohol use, including high blood 
     pressure, stroke, heart disease, cancer (including breast 
     cancer), and birth defects.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 9511. Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Trust Fund.''

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN EXCISE TAXES ON WINE TO ALCOHOLIC 
                   EQUIVALENT OF TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Wines containing not more than 14 percent alcohol.--
     Paragraph (1) of section 5041(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to rates of tax on wines) is amended by 
     striking ``$1.07'' and inserting ``$2.97''.
       (2) Wines containing more than 14 (but not more than 21) 
     percent alcohol.--Paragraph (2) of section 5041(b) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``$1.57'' and inserting 
     ``$4.86''.
       (3) Wines containing more than 21 (but not more than 24) 
     percent alcohol.--Paragraph (3) of section 5041(b) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``$3.15'' and inserting 
     ``$6.08''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
       (c) Floor Stocks Taxes.--
       (1) Imposition of tax.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of any tax-increased article--
       (i) on which tax was determined under part I of subchapter 
     A of chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or 
     section 7652 of such Code before October 1, 1999, and
       (ii) which is held on such date for sale by any person,
     there shall be imposed a tax at the applicable rate on each 
     such article.
       (B) Applicable rate.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     applicable rate is--
       (i) $1.90 per wine gallon in the case of wine described in 
     paragraph (1) of section 5041(b) of such Code,
       (ii) $3.29 per wine gallon in the case of wine described in 
     paragraph (2) of section 5041(b) of such Code, and
       (iii) $2.93 per wine gallon in the case of wine described 
     in paragraph (3) of section 5041(b) of such Code.

     In the case of a fraction of a gallon, the tax imposed by 
     subparagraph (A) shall be the same fraction of the amount of 
     such tax imposed on a whole gallon.
       (C) Tax-increased article.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``tax-increased article'' means wine 
     described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 5041(b) of 
     such Code.
       (2) Exception for certain small wholesale or retail 
     dealers.--No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) on tax-
     increased articles held on October 1, 1999, by any dealer 
     if--
       (A) the aggregate liquid volume of tax-increased articles 
     held by such dealer on such date does not exceed 500 wine 
     gallons, and
       (B) such dealer submits to the Secretary (at the time and 
     in the manner required by the Secretary) such information as 
     the Secretary shall require for purposes of this 
     subparagraph.
       (3) Liability for tax and method of payment.--
       (A) Liability for tax.--A person holding any tax-increased 
     article on October 1, 1999, to which the tax imposed by 
     paragraph (1) applies shall be liable for such tax.
       (B) Method of payment.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1) 
     shall be paid in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe 
     by regulations.
       (C) Time for payment.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1) 
     shall be paid on or before March 31, 2000.
       (4) Controlled groups.--
       (A) Corporations.--In the case of a controlled group of 
     corporations, the 500 wine gallon amount specified in 
     paragraph (2) shall be apportioned among the dealers who are 
     component members of such group in such manner as the 
     Secretary shall by regulations prescribe. For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, the term ``controlled group of 
     corporations'' has the meaning given to such term by 
     subsection (a) of section 1563 of such Code; except that for 
     such purposes the phrase ``more than 50 percent'' shall be 
     substituted for the phrase ``at least 80 percent'' each place 
     it appears in such subsection.
       (B) Nonincorporated dealers under common control.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, principles similar 
     to the principles of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a group 
     of dealers under common control where 1 or more of such 
     dealers is not a corporation.
       (5) Other laws applicable.--All provisions of law, 
     including penalties, applicable to the tax imposed by section 
     5041 of such Code with respect to any tax-increased article 
     shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the 
     provisions of this section, apply to the floor stocks taxes 
     imposed by paragraph (1) to the same extent as if such taxes 
     were imposed by such section 5041.
       (6) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) In general.--Terms used in this paragraph which are 
     also used in subchapter A of chapter 51 of such Code shall 
     have the respective meanings such terms have in such 
     subchapter.
       (B) Person.--The term ``person'' includes any State or 
     political subdivision thereof, or any agency or 
     instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof.
       (C) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury or his delegate.
                                  ____


                                 S. 433

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Alcoholic Beverage Label 
     Preservation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND 
                   REPRESENTATIONS.

       (a) Finding.--Section 202 of the Alcoholic Beverage 
     Labeling Act of 1988 (27 U.S.C. 213) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The'' and 
     inserting ``(a)(1) The'';
       (2) in the last sentence, by striking ``It is therefore'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(b) It is''; and
       (3) in subsection (a) (as designated in paragraph (1)), by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Congress finds that--
       ``(A) the consumers would be confused by an additional 
     statement or representation, beyond the statement required by 
     this Act, on alcoholic beverage containers relating to the 
     health effects or consequences of alcoholic beverage 
     consumption;
       ``(B) any such additional statement or representation would 
     conflict with, dilute, impede, and undermine the clear 
     reminder of the health effects or consequences in the 
     statement required by this Act;
       ``(C) the effects of and consequences arising from drunk 
     driving, underage drinking, drinking during pregnancy, and 
     alcoholism have had a devastating effect on the health and 
     safety of United States citizens; and
       ``(D) prevention of the effects and consequences is 
     furthered by--
       ``(i) having an exclusive and clear statement on alcoholic 
     beverage containers relating to the health effects and 
     consequences of alcoholic beverage consumption; and

[[Page S1731]]

       ``(ii) prohibiting any other statement or representation 
     pertaining to the health effects or consequences of alcoholic 
     beverage consumption.''.
       (b) Prohibition.--Section 205 of the Alcoholic Beverage 
     Labeling Act of 1988 (27 U.S.C. 216) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``(a) No''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) No container of an alcoholic beverage, or any box, 
     carton, or other package, irrespective of the material from 
     which made, that contains such a container, shall bear any 
     statement or representation relating to alcoholic beverages 
     and health, other than the statement required by section 
     204.''.
                                  ____


                [From the Marin Institute, Summer 1996]

               Uncle Sam Never Said Drink for Your Health

       Most of the experts who authored the new Dietary Guidelines 
     for Americans are astounded at widespread interpretation of 
     their document as a prescription to drink alcohol.
       Several members of the guidelines advisory committee 
     question why U.S. Public Health Service Director Philip Lee 
     deleted their references to the ``drug effects'' of alcohol. 
     They hold the Wine Institute responsible for the press spin 
     interpreting the government advice as a recommendation for 
     moderate drinking.
       One committee member, who oversees one of the world's most 
     prominent academic wine study programs, feels manipulated by 
     the Wine Institute, which represents an $8 billion retail 
     business and recently proposed a bottle label bigger than the 
     warning label inviting consumers to ``learn the health 
     benefits of moderate wine consumption'' by sending for the 
     guidelines.
       ``If you read the whole alcohol guideline, you can see that 
     it does not say drink for your health,'' says Dr. Lee, who 
     partially credits his background in a family that made its 
     own wine for his personal belief that it is beneficial. ``The 
     guideline says if you drink, do so in moderation, with food. 
     It doesn't say to drink.''
       Interviews with nine of the 11 scientists, nutritionists 
     and physicians who spent a year crafting the guidelines, and 
     federal staffers and administrators who reworked them, reveal 
     what every food editor knows: Food and what accompanies it in 
     a glass, can or bottle is political.
       The guidelines are the cornerstone of federal nutrition 
     policy. the federal government uses them to plan food and 
     nutrition education programs; private industry uses them to 
     dispense nutrition information. A joint responsibility of the 
     Health and Human Services Department and U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture since 1980, the guidelines are updated every five 
     years by an appointed panel of experts. The committee is only 
     advisory to the administration, which has ultimate authority 
     to change the guidelines before publication.
       The 1995 version made history before the committee even 
     met. It was the first set of guidelines mandated by Congress 
     and the first to include oral testimony from special interest 
     groups and individuals. Unlike the 1990 guidelines advisory 
     committee, the 1995 group--expanded from nine to 11 members--
     lacked an expert on the public health effects of alcohol.
       Ironically, the majority of the committee thought their 
     most controversial advice was that Americans hold the line on 
     weight at all costs and exercise 30 minutes a day to help do 
     so. But changes in the alcohol section stole the headlines. 
     Gone were 1990 statements that said ``drinking . . . has no 
     net health benefit. . . .'' and that alcohol consumption ``is 
     not recommended.''
       Two new sentences were added to the guideline: ``Alcoholic 
     beverages have been used to enhance the enjoyment of meals by 
     many societies throughout human history,'' and ``current 
     evidence suggests that moderate drinking is associated with a 
     lower risk for coronary heart disease in some individuals.''
       The list of problems associated with heavy drinking was 
     expanded to include violence, accidents, high blood pressure, 
     stroke, heart disease, and certain cancers. Calories in a 
     serving of wine, beer and spirits were noted near the usual 
     guideline definition of moderate drinking as a maximum of one 
     drink a day for women and two a day for men. The concluding 
     statement stressed for the first time that those who drink 
     should do so ``with meals, when consumption does not put you 
     or others at risk.''
       Some of the headlines across America:
       ``A Toast to Your Health: US Government Now Says a Drink or 
     Two Can Help You''
       ``A Little Food, A Little Walk, A Little Wine''
       ``Drink for Health--But Not As Much As You'd Hoped''
       ``When It Comes to Eating Right, Don't Forget the Wine''
       ``Have a Drink, Live a Little Longer''
       ``Eat, Drink and Be Healthy''
       ``W'' magazine reported that at last the federal government 
     included alcohol as an ``appropriate `nutritional substance.' 
     ''
       John De Luca, president of the Wine Institute, gushed: ``We 
     had a campaign of tenacity, working with the contributions of 
     the scientific community.'' He said that thanks to the 
     guideline, alcohol was no longer to be seen as a part of a 
     ``sin industry,'' but as part of a healthy diet, ``back on 
     the table with meals, as it always has been.''
       De Luca told a reporter that the overall impact of the new 
     wording was so positive that the wine industry might help 
     distribute the new guidelines. When it came to paraphrasing 
     the guidelines' reference to cardiac research and alcohol, De 
     Luca's Wine Institute press releases left out the qualifying 
     ``in some individuals,'' making it sound as if moderate 
     drinking might protect all adults.
       Members of the committee that drafted the guidelines were 
     dumbfounded. They felt their changes to the alcohol guideline 
     were ``modest.'' With adult Americans deriving five to seven 
     percent of their caloric energy from alcohol, the experts 
     said they intended to ``emphasize the food use of alcoholic 
     beverages rather than the social drug use.'' But they never 
     expected to have that interpreted as recommending alcohol as 
     some kind of health elixir.
       Several committee members never saw the final version that 
     emerged after government review and federal administrative 
     editing. Some never noticed that their first sentence about 
     alcohol enhancing meals had been moved down and that their 
     two references to alcohol's ``drug effects'' had been 
     deleted. The downside framing of alcohol as a drug that 
     causes about 100,000 deaths a year had been softened to a 
     general reference to alcohol as a potentially harmful 
     substance. Most also failed to notice that their suggested 
     footnote underscoring the fattening nature of alcohol had 
     been removed.
       Barbara Schneeman is dean of the College of Agriculture and 
     Environmental Sciences at University of California at Davis, 
     which houses one of the world's most prestigious wine study 
     programs. Schneeman is the only committee member who also 
     served on the 1990 Dietary Guidelines committee.
       ``What disappointed me was publicity that said we made a 
     recommendation to drink,'' says Schneeman. ``The guidelines 
     do not contain a recommendation to drink. If anything, I felt 
     the alcohol guideline was more cautionary than before. I felt 
     we were used by the Wine Institute . . . When I saw the 
     coverage, my reaction was that the wine industry put a spin 
     on it. The guideline does not differentiate between wine, 
     beer or spirits.''.
       The committee felt that there had to be ``some 
     acknowledgment of data accumulating on low-to-moderate 
     alcohol consumption and the heart,'' Schneeman says. ``There 
     is a break point when you get into three or more glasses a 
     day where you see all the risk. Before that break point, we 
     don't fully understand what's going on--whether it's the 
     alcohol or compounds other than the alcohol'' that might be 
     protective.
       According to Schneeman, ``once you begin to think about 
     consuming alcohol for any reason other than enjoying a glass 
     of it, that puts it into another ballpark--making a health 
     claim.'' To her, ``that might not be in the best long-term 
     interest of the alcohol industry,'' because claiming health 
     benefits on a label would probably open alcohol to being 
     regulated as a drug.
       ``I have told the wine people that if I'm a clinician I may 
     look at your data and say it's very interesting, but I'm not 
     going to tell a patient to drink for health based on the 
     observational studies we have thus far.''
       Schneeman says she is surprised the committee's references 
     to ``drug effects'' were missing from the final version. As 
     an advisory board, she says, the committee's power ended when 
     they turned the proposed guidelines over to the agencies.
       Dr. Irwin Rosenberg, director of the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts 
     University, drafted the alcohol guideline and worked on it 
     with two other committee members before submitting it to the 
     entire panel. The committee self-selected working groups to 
     draft guideline topics. Everyone agreed that Dr. Rosenberg 
     was the natural writer for the alcohol section because of his 
     special training in liver disease and nutrition.
       If it had been up to Irwin Rosenberg, alcohol would have 
     been taken out of the Dietary Guidelines. And according to 
     him, the 1990 phrase that alcohol has ``no net health 
     benefit'' is still accurate, although it ``does not convey 
     accurately the state of the science.''
       ``It occurred to me to take alcohol out of the guidelines 
     altogether,'' he says, ``because it really doesn't belong, 
     one could argue, with other elements of a food-based dietary 
     guideline. Any discussion of alcohol is so enormously 
     influenced by the problem of alcohol abuse . . . that it 
     makes the whole issue of alcohol and public health such a 
     complicated thing. Alcohol carries and enormous amount of 
     baggage because of those other factors.
       ``But once a guideline is in, the inertia of taking it out 
     is huge. There was tremendous concern over how that would be 
     interpreted--that we don't care or it isn't important. So, in 
     the end, my argument for taking it out wasn't given serious 
     consideration.''
       Dr. Rosenberg says he wrote the sentence about alcohol 
     having enhanced meals throughout history to bolster the 
     committee's commitment to being more positive about enjoying 
     food than in previous guidelines, where food was referred to 
     in terms of nutrients.
       ``We didn't think we ought to be talking about what people 
     do when they're drinking in a bar at 3 p.m. That's a public 
     health/social issue. We were trying to bet at the question of 
     alcohol as a meal beverage . . . I don't blame Mr. De Luca as 
     a lobbyist for crowing and trying to take credit for what may 
     have happened here. Maybe he can make his membership happy. I 
     wanted to

[[Page S1732]]

     posit alcohol with meals because when you have it with food 
     that physiologically changes its impact [it is absorbed 
     slower]. If this happened to intersect with a campaign of the 
     wine industry to think of wine as a meal beverage, then so be 
     it.''
       Dr. Rosenberg is concerned that any discussion of studies 
     on cardiovascular risk and alcohol must stress that moderate 
     drinking might be protective for some adults and not others.
       ``What I meant by `some individuals' is that moderate 
     alcohol consumption does not appear to protect all adults 
     from risk of cardiovascular disease, and we don't know who 
     might be protected and who might not be protected. We 
     certainly didn't mean to suggest that it might protect 
     everyone.''
       In making changes to the previous alcohol guideline, the 
     committee ignored advice from former Surgeon General C. 
     Everett Koop, the American Public Health Association and 
     scores of health professionals who warned that any brief 
     reference to current research could lead to 
     oversimplification and misinterpretation as encouragement to 
     drink for health. A policy statement that can be interpreted 
     as both promoting and discouraging alcohol use can lead to 
     abuse, they said.
       Public health professionals offered their documentation, 
     including an 11-year study by Dr. Carlos Camargo of Harvard 
     University that concluded that men who had two to four drinks 
     per week had lower death rates from all causes compared to 
     men who had a drink or more per day.
       The Wine Institute submitted its lists of studies. Both 
     sides instigated letter-writing campaigns. The 1990 
     guidelines committee had received four comments on the 
     alcohol section; in 1995, more than half of the 284 comments 
     were directed at the alcohol guidelines.
       Dr. Richard Havel, vice chairman of the committee and 
     interim director of the Cardiovascular Research Institute at 
     University of California at San Francisco, says none of it 
     impacted him.
       ``I don't think a lot new has really happened in the area 
     of the health effects of alcohol,'' he says. ``Nothing that 
     has scientific validity to influence the guidelines per se. 
     We do not yet know the extent to which the reduced 
     cardiovascular risk is the result of the change in HDL [the 
     ``good'' cholesterol]. It could be lifestyle. To know for 
     certain alcohol's effect on risk of cardiovascular disease, 
     we would have to give pure ethyl alcohol to an individual for 
     years.''
       What the committee was doing with its changes was 
     ``recognizing a reality,'' says Marion Nestle, head of New 
     York University's Department of Nutrition, Food & Hotel 
     Management and a member of the committee's alcohol guideline 
     subgroup. ``Alcohol is, in fact, a part of people's lifestyle 
     and it is okay for most when done moderately . . . I don't 
     think the committee was making comments about what should be. 
     The `should be' in alcohol is very complicated.''
       It is Nestle who points out that the process of coming up 
     with federal dietary advice is ``incredibly political.'' 
     Anyone who thinks otherwise, she says, ``does not really 
     understand the situation.''
       During the past five years, the Wine Institute of San 
     Francisco has made the release of studies about wine and 
     health the centerpiece of its annual press conference in 
     Washington, DC. First the studies were about red wine 
     bolstering the ``good cholesterol.'' Television's ``60 
     Minutes'' featured the story and red wine sales soared more 
     than 40 percent. Then they disseminated research pointing to 
     both red and white wine. Now that researchers are crediting 
     ethyl alcohol regardless of its form, the Wine Institute 
     appears to be carrying the political ball on alcohol and 
     health for all segments of the alcoholic beverage business.
       Two years ago, vintners began to pressure Congress to 
     direct the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 
     (NIAAA) to study the health effects of moderate drinking. 
     They succeeded in getting a legislative rider to the bill 
     funding the NIAAA, which has thus far accepted 63 
     applications for about 10 grants to do $2 million worth of 
     research.
       In the spring of 1994, California vintner Robert Mondavi 
     went to the nation's capital and dined with Donna Shalala, 
     secretary of Health and Human Services, and other appointed 
     and elected officials. In a thank-you letter to Shalala, 
     Mondavi Winery Vice President Herb Schmidt enclosed a study 
     he discussed at the dinner. ``The fact that moderate wine 
     consumption could actually have a positive effect on the 
     problem of rising health care costs is intriguing to me,'' he 
     wrote.
       Richard Rominger, deputy secretary of the Department of 
     Agriculture, says political connections only assured the wine 
     industry of a fair hearing.
       ``I don't think I did anything more for the Wine Institute 
     than I did for any of the other commodity groups, whether it 
     be the National Cattlemen's Association or any of the 
     others,'' says Rominger.
       Rominger says that when the vintners sent him 
     correspondence regarding the alcohol guideline, he passed it 
     to the staff supporting committee work with a note ``to 
     please consider it along with the other information you're 
     getting on the subject.''
       He may have mentioned it to Dr. Lee when their paths 
     crossed, ``because we're both Californians and run into reach 
     other occasionally.'' In the end, says Rominger, ``I'm sure 
     the Wine Institute felt they could get a fair hearing from 
     Dr. Lee or me. We're both Californians and they know us. 
     That's the way it works in all kinds of government, I think. 
     People like to talk to people they know.''
       It was Dr. Lee who deleted the committee's references to 
     the ``drug effects'' of alcohol. Former chancellor of 
     University of California at San Francisco and former U.S. 
     assistant secretary of health, Dr. Lee says he struck the 
     phrase suggested by the committee because, ``if you take 
     alcohol with food, you take it out of context if you think of 
     it as a drug.''
       Dr. Lee says that he didn't think they needed an alcohol 
     expert on a panel with more generalists than technical 
     experts. Committee members were chosen by Lee and Eileen 
     Kennedy, executive director of the Department of 
     Agriculture's Center for Nutrition Policy & Promotion, after 
     staff solicited nominations in the Federal Register and from 
     major organizations such as the American Dietetics 
     Association.
       The health directors stands by the comment he made at the 
     press conference last January when the guidelines were 
     released: ``In my personal view, wine with meals in 
     moderation is beneficial. There was a significant bias in the 
     past against drinking. To move from anti-alcohol to health 
     benefits is a big change.''
       Dr. Lee says he comes to that belief because of research 
     and because his physician father was a member of Medical 
     Friends of Wine and the Lee family made wine for their own 
     use. Yet, he stresses that as a clinician he knows the 
     difference between alcohol use and abuse and ``is very aware 
     when you don't recommend alcohol.''
       John De Luca had no impact on what he changed in the 
     committee's proposed guideline, says Dr. Lee.
       ``The main person I talked to because he's an old friend is 
     John De Luca. We talked almost exclusively about research 
     needs and particularly Heart, Lung and Blood Institute-funded 
     research or the Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse. 
     NIAAA was funding research that related to alcohol beyond 
     alcoholism and he [De Luca] was interested in having language 
     in the appropriation that gave some guidance--a lot of people 
     do--to National Institutes of Health with respect to 
     research.''
       Dr. Lee adds that he has ``tremendous respect'' for De 
     Luca, who has done a ``very able'' job promoting the Wine 
     Institute. ``But that doesn't mean he influenced me at all. 
     Nor did he even offer me a bottle of wine or take me out. I 
     went to a reception where there were lots of people from 
     California--Leon Panetta, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and 
     others.''
       Both Health and Human Services Director Shalala and he were 
     surprised that the national story about the Dietary 
     Guidelines came out as the government advising that alcohol 
     is good for you, says Dr. Lee. ``I think you have to give the 
     Wine Institute either credit or whatever you want to call it 
     for doing a thorough job of informing the media and pitching 
     it the way they did'' he says.
       According to Jim Harrell, former deputy director of the 
     Office of Disease Prevention & Health Promotion, the Wine 
     Institute put ``tremendous pressure'' on the staff supporting 
     guidelines committee work.
       Interviews with staff reveal that Wine Institute officials 
     intensified pressure after apparently learning that the staff 
     had moved the committee's first sentence about alcohol 
     ``enhancing meals'' lower in the text for fear that beginning 
     on too positive a note might be misleading.
       Last April, Wine Institute representatives met with an 
     official of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 
     which regulates labeling and advertising of alcoholic 
     beverages, to talk about what new labeling might be 
     acceptable.
       Dr. Lee says it is ``unlikely'' that misinterpretation of 
     the guideline will lead to increased alcohol consumption and 
     abuse. ``It's clearly a possibility,'' he says, ``but not a 
     likely consequence because I think abuse is much more 
     complicated than that.''
       Dr. Charles Lieber isn't so certain. Director of Alcohol 
     Research and Treatment at the Bronx Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center in New York, Dr. Lieber is the alcohol expert credited 
     with structuring the 1990 alcohol guideline.
       ``My stance is the same as it was 12 years ago,'' says Dr. 
     Lieber. ``You have to be extremely careful about giving 
     advice in general to a population about alcohol. It is 
     different from a doctor giving advice to an individual 
     patient. I believe that it's important to have an alcohol 
     specialist on the committee.
       ``We didn't need to have the guideline say that people 
     enjoy drinking. Including that sentence about alcohol 
     enhancing meals wasn't very revealing or educational for the 
     public. And if I'd been on the committee, I would have been 
     upset if the administration took out the phrase, `drug 
     effects of alcohol.' ''
       Dr. Lee and everyone else involved in the guideline process 
     agree that if in five years statistics reveal alcohol abuse 
     to be on the rise, the next Dietary Guidelines committee will 
     have to revisit their drinking advice.
       Dr. Cutberto Garza, a committee member who is chairman of 
     the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of 
     Medicine, doesn't want the government to wait that long.
       ``We didn't endorse moderate drinking for health, but 
     that's the story that's out

[[Page S1733]]

     there,'' he says. ``We can flail against the way this came 
     out, but I lay the blame on the government. Prevention is 
     only one percent of the healthcare budget, but the government 
     put out the guidelines and hasn't done a thing to correct the 
     perception people have of the alcohol guideline. I look to 
     the government to be assertive about promoting what it really 
     says.''


         if you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation

       Alcoholic beverages supply calories but few or no 
     nutrients. The alcohol in these beverages has effects that 
     are harmful when consumed in excess. These effects of alcohol 
     may alter judgment and can lead to dependency and a great 
     many other serious health problems. Alcoholic beverages have 
     been used to enhance the enjoyment of meals by many societies 
     throughout human history. If adults choose to drink alcoholic 
     beverages, they should consume them only in moderation. (box 
     16)
       Current evidence suggests that moderate drinking is 
     associated with a lower risk for coronary heart disease in 
     some individuals. However, higher levels of alcohol intake 
     raise the risk for high blood pressure, stroke, heart 
     disease, certain cancers, accidents, violence, suicides, 
     birth defects, and overall mortality (deaths). Too much 
     alcohol may cause cirrhosis of the liver, inflammation of the 
     pancreas, and damage to the brain and heart. Heavy drinkers 
     also are at risk of malnutrition because alcohol contains 
     calories that may substitute for those in more nutritious 
     foods.


                          what is moderation?

       Moderation is defined as no more than one drink per day for 
     women and no more than two drinks per day for men.
       Counts as a drink--
       12 ounces of regular beer (150 calories)
       5 ounces of wine (100 calories)
       1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits (100 calories)


                         who should not drink?

       Some people should not drink alcoholic beverages at all. 
     These include:
       Children and adolescents.
       Individuals of any age who cannot restrict their drinking 
     to moderate levels. This is a special concern for recovering 
     alcoholics and people whose family members have alcohol 
     problems.
       Women who are trying to conceive or who are pregnant. Major 
     birth defects, including fetal alcohol syndrome, have been 
     attributed to heavy drinking by the mother while pregnant. 
     While there is no conclusive evidence that an occasional 
     drink is harmful to the fetus or to the pregnant woman, a 
     safe level of alcohol intake during pregnancy has not been 
     established.
       Individuals who plan to drive or take part in activities 
     that require attention or skill. Most people retain some 
     alcohol in the blood up to 2-3 hours after a single drink.
       Individuals using prescription and over-the-counter 
     medications. Alcohol may alter the effectiveness or toxicity 
     of medicines. Also, some medications may increase blood 
     alcohol levels or increase the adverse effect of alcohol on 
     the brain.


                            advice for today

       If you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation, with 
     meals, and when consumption does not put you or others at 
     risk.
                                  ____


                     A Prize for the Wine Institute

                         (By Lawrence Wallack)

       The Wine Institute has been nominated for a prize it would 
     rather not win. In a recent editorial, the San Francisco 
     Examiner nominated that trade organization for the 
     newspaper's annual Emperor Norton Prize, ``to draw public 
     attention to crack-brained schemes, dingbat proposals and 
     stupendous nuttiness in matters of public policy.''
       What Wine Institute scheme has warranted such a dubious 
     accolade? In the interest of public education, the Wine 
     Institute wants to place a label on wine bottles alerting 
     consumers to the health benefits of moderate alcohol 
     consumption.
       While I support the Wine Institute for this award and 
     praise the Examiner for its courage and insight, I still want 
     to know what made the Wine Institute's scheme possible. How 
     did the irrelevant sentence ``alcoholic beverages have been 
     used to enhance the enjoyment of meals by many societies 
     throughout human history'' make it into the final version of 
     the federal dietary guidelines, the cornerstone of national 
     nutrition policy? No parallel friendly sentence accompanies 
     any other guideline in the federal document. And while we're 
     at it, what about the final deletion of the phrase ``drug 
     effects of alcohol,'' which the guidelines advisory committee 
     used twice in its proposed document? Certainly this must be 
     private industry propaganda, not public interest education.
       Educating the public about the role of alcohol in our 
     society is an important mission and should be undertaken by 
     those without a vested interest. The alcoholic beverage 
     industry already spends several billion dollars every year 
     educating youth and adults alike about the ``benefits'' of 
     their product. Sophistication, wit, sexiness, peer 
     acceptance, fitness, and many other implied benefits are 
     communicated endlessly to the consumer. Alcohol advertising 
     is almost, but not quite, pervasive enough to make people 
     forget that alcohol is a drug, that alcohol is the number one 
     cause of potential years of life lost in this country, that 
     alcohol causes about 100,000 deaths every year.
       Public health educators are struggling against great odds 
     to level the playing field for the consumer seeking 
     information about this very significant risk factor. They 
     want an information environment where people can get a 
     realistic view of the role of alcohol in society. The Wine 
     Institute wants to tilt the field so it looks like one of San 
     Francisco's hills.
       From a public health perspective, the proposed Wine 
     Institute label would contribute to the high level of 
     misinformation about alcohol that clogs our environment. None 
     of the studies I have seen that suggest a health benefit from 
     moderate drinking recommends that anyone start drinking or 
     increase their consumption. The Dietary Guidelines for 
     Americans, in fact, states that moderate drinking is 
     associated with a lower risk for coronary heart disease ``in 
     some individuals.''
       Of course, researchers conducting these studies would be 
     the first to say that ``association'' is not ``causation.'' 
     Indeed, the usual recommendation is to seek advice from a 
     physician--a medical approach that provides patients with 
     information particular to their situation. This is especially 
     important when the change is one that can have widely 
     different effects on different individuals. Advice to a 
     population is a public health matter and is not a good means 
     for communicating the limited or special case benefits of a 
     drug, especially when that drug is addictive.
       So, the Wine Institute of San Francisco may not want the 
     Emperor Norton Prize, but if it is somehow successful in its 
     efforts to get the proposed label approved, it will certainly 
     deserve the award, and the notoriety that comes with it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 435. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the Secretary of the Treasury to waive the contemporaneous 
substantiation requirement for deduction of charitable contributions in 
certain cases; to the Committee on Finance.


                  The Equity in Charitable Giving Act

 Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
will help reform America's tax system. The bill I introduce today is 
designed to advance the important goal of encouraging charitable 
contributions. With this proposal, I add my voice to the Republican 
chorus in the Senate and House of Representatives calling for reform of 
our tax system to make it fairer and less burdensome for all Americans.
  The bill I introduce today is the Equity in Charitable Giving Act. 
This legislation, which is also cosponsored by the senior Senator from 
Wyoming, Senator Thomas, would provide relief for taxpayers who have 
had legitimate charitable contributions disallowed by the IRS because 
of a technical change Congress made to the Tax Code in 1993. In that 
year, a change was made to section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code 
dealing with the documentation required by taxpayers to claim 
charitable contributions. The new change required taxpayers to have a 
``contemporaneous written acknowledgment'' of their contributions for 
all contributions they claimed over $250 in a taxable year.
  While the purpose of this change was understandable, the rule 
espoused was too broad and it has in turn yielded some harsh results. 
Some taxpayers, unaware of the change in the law, did not receive the 
necessary acknowledgment before they filed their taxes. This oversight 
is understandable. For example, a taxpayer who filed his taxes in 
February may not have received the necessary documentation from the 
affected charities prior to filing his taxes. Under the current rule, 
any contributions over $250 would be disallowed even if he received the 
proper documentation before his taxes were due on April 15th. As a 
result of the very narrow definition of ``contemporaneous'' found in 
section 170(f)(8)(C), a number of taxpayers have had their otherwise 
lawful charitable contributions disallowed by the Internal Revenue 
Service. This punitive rule elevates form over substance and places an 
unwarranted burden on those generous taxpayers desiring to make their 
communities better places in which to live.
  The Equity in Charitable Giving Act, which I introduce today, has one 
simple purpose: to provide tax relief for those taxpayers who fell 
through the cracks when the law on charitable contributions was 
changed. While this bill would still require taxpayers to receive the 
proper documentation from the charitable organization, taxpayers would 
have a longer time to file this written acknowledgment with the 
Internal Revenue Service. In order to take advantage of this 
flexibility, taxpayers would also have to demonstrate

[[Page S1734]]

to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury that no goods or 
services were received from the tax exempt organization in return for 
their contributions. While this is only a small step in the larger 
journey of reforming America's Tax Code, it furthers the important 
objective of charitable giving by ensuring that taxpayers receive the 
proper tax treatment for their gifts.
  Mr. President, the time has come to provide meaningful tax relief and 
reform for the American people. The Republican-led Congress has taken 
important and meaningful steps in that direction over the past two 
years with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Internal Revenue 
Service Reform Act of 1998. We must continue this important endeavor by 
continuing to restructure our tax policy to respect marriage and 
families, encourage investment and savings, reward charitable giving, 
and promote job creation and entrepreneurship. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in this endeavor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for hnimself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 438. A bill to provide for the settlement of the water rights 
claims of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be jointly 
introducing with my fellow Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, a bill 
to settle the claims and define the water rights of the Chippewa Cree 
Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. This bill is the product of many 
years of work and negotiations in our state and will result in the 
federal government sanctioning the water rights agreement that has been 
adopted by the Montana State Legislature. This settlement represents a 
textbook example of how State and Tribal governments, together with 
off-Reservation local representatives, can sit down and resolve their 
differences. I am also pleased that local ranchers were involved in 
every step of discussions, and that their water rights are fully 
protected under this settlement.
  The state agreement quantifies the Tribe's on-reservation water 
rights and establishes a water administration system carefully designed 
to have minimal adverse impacts on downstream, non-tribal water users. 
In fact, our goal was to benefit downstream water users wherever 
possible. This is quite an accomplishment in an area of Montana with a 
scarce water supply. The Rocky Boy's Reservation is located in an arid 
area with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches or less. Fortunately, 
the annual runoff from the Bearpaw Mountains, with a annual snowpack of 
over 30 inches, contributes to a significant spring runoff. Effective 
use of that runoff through enlarged or new storage facilities on the 
Reservation is a critical part of the settlement package which this 
bill represents. Accordingly, $25 million in the budget of the Bureau 
of Reclamation is earmarked for specified on-reservation water 
development projects. To meet both the future water and economic needs 
of the Reservation, the bill contains an allocation of 10,000 acre-feet 
of storage water to the Tribe in Tiber Reservoir, a federal storage 
facility. To resolve future disputes, this settlement established a 
board composed of Tribal and off-Reservation representatives.
  In addition, the bill authorizes the initial steps of a more detailed 
process of securing long-term drinking water supplies for the Chippewa 
Cree Tribe, a process that is vital to the survival of the Tribe. 
Specifically, the bill authorizes the following: (1) $15 million in 
seed money toward the cost of a future project to import more drinking 
water to the Reservation. (2) $1 million for a feasibility study by the 
Secretary of the Interior to identify water resources available to meet 
the Tribe's drinkiater needs. (3) $3 million to evaluate water 
resources over a broader area of North Central Montana that contains 
two other Indian Reservations with water rights that have not yet been 
established.
  In closing, I believe that the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's 
Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act is a historic 
agreement. It is a tribute to the Governor of Montana, Marc Racicot; 
the Water Rights Compact Commission; the Chippewa Cree Tribe chairman, 
Bert Cocoran; the Tribal negotiating team; Interior Secretary's 
Counselor, David Hayes; the Federal negotiating team; and the water 
users on the Big Sandy and Beaver Creeks in the Montana Milk River 
valley. This is truly a local solution that takes into account the 
needs and sovereign rights of each party. Just as the mentioned parties 
have worked closely together to get us to the submission of this bill 
today, I intend to work closely with all members of Congress to insure 
passage of this important bill.
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my 
colleague from the State of Montana on the introduction of the Chippewa 
Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights 
Settlement Act. The legislation ratifies the Compact approved by the 
State and the Tribe in 1997. Senator Burns and I jointly introduced 
this legislation in the 105th Congress and had the 2nd Session of that 
Congress lasted a few more weeks, I believe the bill would have been 
approved by the Senate. The introduction of this bill is the 
culmination of 16 years of extensive technical studies and six years of 
rather intensive negotiations in our state involving the Chippewa Cree 
Tribe, the Montana state government, off-Reservation county and 
municipal governments in north-central Montana, local ranchers, and the 
United States Departments of Justice and Interior.
  The 122,000-acre Rocky Boy's Reservation sits west of Havre, Montana 
on several tributaries of the Milk River on what was formerly the Fort 
Assiniboine Military Reserve. Unfortunately, the portion of the land 
reserved for the Chippewa Cree is rough and arid. Without irrigation, 
much of the land is not suitable for farming. Recent studies have 
demonstrated that the Reservation could not sustain the membership of 
the Chippewa Cree Tribe as a permanent homeland without an infusion of 
additional water. The development of a viable reservation economy calls 
for more water for drinking purposes, as well as for agriculture and 
other municipal uses. In 1982, acting in its fiduciary capacity as 
trustee for the Tribe, the United States filed a claim for the water 
rights of the Chippewa Cree in the State of Montana general stream 
adjudication. Were it not for the negotiated settlement represented by 
this legislation, divisive and costly litigation would be pending 
between the State, the Tribe, the United States and non-Indian ranchers 
for many years to come. Fortunately, in 1979, the Montana legislature 
articulated a policy in favor of negotiation and established the 
Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission to negotiate 
``compacts for the equitable division and apportionment of waters 
between the state and its people and several Indian tribes claiming 
reserved water rights within the state.''
  From the initial meeting in 1992, to the conclusion of an agreed on 
water rights Compact in 1997, the State, the Federal Government and the 
Tribe acted in good faith and worked together to explore options. This 
culminated in passage of a resolution by the Chippewa Cree Tribal 
Council to ratify the Compact on January 9, 1997. Following 
overwhelming approval by the Montana Legislature and appropriation of 
funds for implementation, Governor Marc Racicot signed the Compact into 
state law on April 14, 1997. Subsequent negotiation, in which staff 
from my office assisted the State and Tribe, resulted in approval by 
the United States Departments of the Interior and Justice and drafting 
of this bill by the three parties.
  The litigation filed in state water court in 1982 is stayed pending 
the outcome of this bill. Once passed, the United States, the Tribe and 
the State of Montana will petition the Montana Water Court to enter a 
decree reflecting the water rights of the Tribe.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very positive legislation and 
work with Senator Burns and Montana's Congressman Hill, who has 
simultaneously introduced this bill in the House, to secure passage of 
the Settlement Act this year.
  Mr. President, I look forward to expeditious passage of this historic 
settlement.

[[Page S1735]]



                          ____________________