[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3570-3571]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                TAX TREATMENT FOR DOMESTIC DISTILLERIES

 Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I signed on as a cosponsor 
of S. 434, Senator Breaux's proposal to equalize the tax treatment for 
domestic distilleries compared to their foreign competitors.
  This is a good bill, and I hope it passes Congress. It would help cut 
unnecessary taxes for our domestic distilleries, and eliminate a 
competitive

[[Page 3571]]

advantage that our current tax rules give to foreign distilleries. I 
will certainly do what I can to help pass Senator Breaux's bill.
  Mr. President, I am submitting this statement for the Congressional 
Record to make one thing perfectly clear. In supporting this bill, I 
want the Administration, and officials at the Treasury Department and 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to understand that by doing 
so I reject the connection that some have tried to make between the All 
in bond issue and Section 5010 of the tax code, the wine and flavors 
tax credit. I know that the suggestion has been made that any revenue 
loss to the U.S. Treasury caused by changes to the All in Bond rules be 
offset by repealing Section 5010. I reject that notion because there is 
no logical link between the two issues; the ``connection'' is a 
bureaucratic fiction.
  Some who served with me on the conference committee that helped write 
the tax provisions in the 1995 Balanced Budget Act will probably 
remember my successful efforts to eliminate a provision in the Senate 
bill that would have repealed Section 5010. My position on this matter 
has not changed, and it is one issue on which I continue to keep a 
close eye because of its importance to Kentucky.

                          ____________________