[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]]
____________________