REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
(Senate - June 26, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S6440-S6473]
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 537
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-four minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. And the opposition has 44 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. So we have used 16. Actually, unless Senator Lautenberg
has anything further to say, I believe I have stated the case for the
Domenici-Lautenberg amendment No. 537. Does Senator Gramm want to offer
an amendment to the amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. I think Senator Biden is going to offer an amendment
first, and after his amendment is disposed of, then I will have an
amendment, as will several other people.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wonder if the Democratic manager would
yield me time off the bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has time on his amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. Can I get time in my own right?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by Senator Domenici and
Senator Roth.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. DOMENICI. We yielded back our time.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 539 to Amendment No. 537
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr.
Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 539 to amendment No.
537.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 43 of the amendment, strike lines 14 through 21 and
insert the following:
``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $537,677,000,000 in
new budget authority and $558,460,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,355,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,936,000,000 in
outlays;
``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $546,619,000,000 in
new budget authority and $556,314,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,455,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,485,000,000 in
outlays;
as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.
(2) Transfers into the fund.--On the first day of the
following fiscal years, the following amounts shall be
transferred from the general fund to the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund--
(A) for fiscal year 2001, $4,355,000,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2002, $4,455,000,000.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for an inquiry for
a moment?
Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers of this bill tell us how many second-
degree amendments there are to this process?
I assume we are on the second-degree amendment process; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers tell us how many second-degree
amendments they anticipate on this?
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not know.
Mr. GRAMM. I believe there will be four. Senator Biden will offer one
for himself. Once that is adopted, I will offer a second-degree
amendment. And
[[Page
S6441]]
then we have two other Senators who want to offer second-degree
amendments, so they will be seriatim.
Mr. BUMPERS. Then there are five, because I have one also. I am just
wondering if we could get some kind of sequence so we know how they are
going to be offered so we do not spend the rest of our lives waiting.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, you can be assured there will be
four ahead of you, if you would like to be fifth.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you do yours last?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I said.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the second-degree amendment I have at the
desk is very simple and straightforward. The Senator from New Mexico is
introducing a budget process amendment, and what the amendment of
Senator Gramm and myself does is, quite frankly, it merely extends the
crime law trust fund for the extension of this agreement.
I am told by the staffs of the majority and minority that in the
budget process agreement that was agreed to with the administration,
there is a line on page 90 of the concurrent resolution of the budget
fiscal year 1998. On page 90, it says, ``Retain current law on separate
crime caps at levels shown in the agreement tables.''
All we are doing here is extending the crime law trust fund. We are
not making judgments on how that will be disbursed within the trust
fund. We are just extending the trust fund to the extent of this
agreement. And, Madam President, as I offer this amendment, we are
maintaining a commitment to one of the few specific ways the
reconciliation package can, by virtue of the type of legislation it is,
maintain a commitment.
The commitment we made was to fight violent crime. And, ironically,
it is working. It is working. And so for us now to extend the violent
crime trust fund, let it expire 2 years before this budget agreement
expires, means we are going to be back at it again in the year 2000 or
before, fighting over something we now know works.
So I realize we can take a long time debating this. But the bottom
line is this: We are not suggesting, as the Senator from New Mexico
knows, how this trust fund money within the caps will be disbursed;
merely that we have the continuation of the trust fund as long as the
budget agreement to the year 2002.
Of all the priorities addressed in this budget package, I believe
that none is more important than continuing our fight against violent
crime and violence against women.
The amendment I am offering, along with Senator Gramm seeks to
maintain this commitment in one of the few specific ways this
reconciliation package can--by virtue of the type of legislation this
is--maintain this commitment. That is by extending the violent crime
control trust fund will continue through the end of this budget
resolution, fiscal year 2002.
Senator Byrd, more than anyone, deserves credit for the crime law
trust fund. Senator Byrd worked to develop an idea that was simple as
it was profound--as he called on us to use the savings from the
reductions in the Federal work force of 272,000 employees to fund one
of the Nation's most urgent priorities: fighting the scourge of violent
crime.
Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to
``put our money where our mouth was.'' Too often, this Senate has voted
to send significant aid to State and local law enforcement--but, when
it came time to write the check, we did not find nearly the dollars we
promised.
Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, and
other Senators passed the violent crime control trust fund in the
Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden crime law.
Since then, the dollars from the crime law trust fund have: Helped
add more than 60,000 community police officers to our streets; helped
shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children; focussed
law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims service providers on
providing immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends to
love them; forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing
and treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain
free on probation with no supervision and no accountability;
constructed thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and
brought unprecedented resources to defending our Southwest border--
putting us on the path to literally double the number of Federal border
agents over just a 5-year period.
The results of this effort are already taking hold: According to the
FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is down and down
significantly--leaving our nation with its lowest murder rate since
1971; the lowest violent crime total since 1990; and the lowest murder
rate for wives, ex-wives, and girlfriends at the hands of their
intimates to an 18-year low.
In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by
being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our ``money where our
mouths'' are--we have actually cut violent crime.
Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant
against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Byrd-Gramm amendment before the
Senate offers one modest step toward meeting that challenge:
By assuring that the commitment to fighting crime and violence
against women will continue for the full duration of this budget
resolution.
By assuring that the violent crime control trust fund will continue--
in its current form which provides additional Federal assistance
without adding 1 cent to the deficit--through 2002.
The Biden-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: Stand up
for cops--or don't; stand up for the fight against violence against
women--or don't; and stand up for increased border enforcement--or
don't.
Every Member of this Senate is against violence crime--we way that in
speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up with
words with the only thing that we can actually do for the cop walking
the beat, the battered woman, the victim of crime--provide the dollars
that help give them the tools to fight violent criminals, standup to
their abuser, and restore at least some small piece of the dignity
taken from them at the hands of a violent criminal.
Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not
continue the trust fund, we will not be able to continue such proven,
valuable efforts as the violence against women law. Nothing we can do
today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence
Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000.
But, mark my words, if the trust fund ends, the efforts to provide
shelter, help victims, and get tough on the abusers and barterers will
wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a
clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with
it, the historic effort undertaken by the Violence Against Women Act
that says by word, deed, and dollar that the Federal Government stands
with women and against the misguided notion that ``domestic'' violence
is a man's ``right'' and ``not really a crime.''
I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Gramm amendment.
At the appropriate time--and I am not quite sure yet when is
appropriate--I will ask for the yeas and nays on this.
But make no mistake about it, what we are voting on here is whether
or not we are going to commit now to the extension of the trust fund,
the violent crime trust fund, for the extent of this agreement. That is
all this does. That is everything it does, but that is all it does.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 537, Withdrawn
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 537) was withdrawn.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia is recognized.
[[Page
S6442]]
Amendment No. 540
(Purpose: To eliminate tax deductions for advertising and promotion
expenditures relating to alcoholic beverages and to increase funding
for programs that educate and prevent the abuse of alcohol among our
Nation's youth)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 540.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE --ALCOHOL ADVERTISING RESPONSIBILITY ACT
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Alcohol Advertising
Responsibility Act''.
SEC. 02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) alcohol is used by more Americans than any other drug;
(2) it is estimated that the costs to society from
alcoholism and alcohol abuse were approximately
$100,000,000,000 in 1990 alone.
(3) in 1995, the alcoholic beverage industry spent
$1,040,300,000 on advertising, while the National Institute
for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was funded at only
$181,445,000;
(4) more than 100,000 deaths each year in the United States
result from alcohol-related causes;
(5) 41.3 percent of all traffic facilities in 1995, or
17,274 deaths, were alcohol related;
(6) in addition to severe health consequences, alcohol
misuse is involved in approximately 30 percent of all
suicides, 50 percent of homicides, 68 percent of manslaughter
cases, 52 percent of rapes and other sexual assaults, 48
percent of robberies, 62 percent of assaults, and 49 percent
of all other violent crimes;
(7) approximately 30 percent of all accidental deaths are
attributable to alcohol abuse;
(8) alcohol advertising may influence children's
perceptions toward an inclinations to consume alcoholic
beverages;
(9) 26 percent of eighth graders, 40 percent of tenth
graders, and 51 percent of twelfth graders report having used
alcohol in the past month; and
(10) college presidents nationwide view alcohol abuse as
their paramount campus-life problem.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to repeal the existing tax subsidization for expenses
incurred to promote the consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(2) to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising to which
our Nation's youth are exposed; and
(3) to increase funding for those programs that educate and
prevent the abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
SEC. 03. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION EXPENSES RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES.
(a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1
(relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding at
the end of the following:
SEC. 280I. ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION EXPENDITURES RELATING TO
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
``(a) In General.--No deduction otherwise allowable under
this chapter shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred
to advertise or promote by any means any alcoholic beverage.
``(b) Alcoholic Beverage.--For purposes of this section,
the term `alcoholic beverage' means any item which is subject
to tax under subpart A, C, or D of part I of subchapter A of
chapter 51 (relating to taxes on distilled spirits, wines,
and beer).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part
IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 280I. Advertising and promotion expenditures relating to
alcoholic beverages.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31 of the year in which this Act is
enacted.
SEC. 04. ALCOHOL ABUSE EDUCATION AND PREVENTION AMONG YOUTH.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), there shall be
transferred, from funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the entities described in subsection (b)
amounts to the extent specified under subsection (b).
(b) Education and Prevention Programs.--
(1) Substance abuse and mental health services
administration.--The amounts specified in this subsection
shall be:
(A) In general.--With respect to the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, $120,000.000 for
fiscal year 1998, $180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, and $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to
supplement substance abuse prevention activities authorized
under section 501 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290aa).
(B) Use of funds.--Amounts provided to the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration under subparagraph
(A) shall be used directly or through grants and cooperative
agreements to carry out activities to prevent the use of
alcohol among youth, including the development and
distribution of public service announcements.
(2) Centers for disease control and prevention.--
(A) In general.--With respect to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out a
comprehensive strategy to prevent alcohol-related disease and
disability.
(A) Required uses.--In carrying out the comprehensive
strategy under subparagraph (A), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall--
(i) enhance and expand State-based and national
surveillance activities to monitor the scope of alcohol use
among the youth of the United States;
(ii) enhance comprehensive school-based health programs
that focus on alcohol use prevention strategies;
(iii) develop and distribute commercial advertising to
prevent alcohol abuse among youth; and
(iv) enhance and expand Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention
activities throughout the United States.
(3) National highway traffic safety administration.--With
respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and in addition to any funds authorized from
the Highway Trust Fund, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out programs
under sections 402, 403, and 410 of title 23, United States
Code, and to develop and implement a paid media campaign
targeting high-risk youth populations to improve the balance
of media messages related to alcohol impaired driving.
(4) Indian health service.--With respect to the Indian
Health Service, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $60,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $70,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, to supplement the programs that such Service is
authorized to carry out pursuant to titles II and III of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et seq., 241 et
seq.).
(c) Authority to Transfer Funds.--The Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on appropriations of the Senate, acting through
appropriations Acts, may transfer the amount specified under
subsection (b) in each fiscal year among the entities
referred to in such subsection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Chair indulge me momentarily?
I protect my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia will be
protected in his right to the floor.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, last Friday negotiators from the tobacco industry and
State attorneys general announced the landmark agreement addressing the
impact of tobacco use on our Nation, particularly our young people.
Although this important deal will likely face many obstacles and has a
long way to go toward implementation, it is an unprecedented first step
toward curbing tobacco use and paying for the harm caused by that use.
This process has caused our Nation to focus on an important public
health danger and is an important step in working toward a meaningful
solution.
While I applaud the action being taken to address the pernicious
health effects of tobacco, I am concerned that its evil twin, which
also has a staggering impact on our Nation, is to a large measure being
ignored.
Mr. President, the cost of alcohol abuse to our country is
staggering. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health, alcohol is used by
more Americans than any other drug. And the results are devastating.
The flood tide of alcohol causes more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism imposes
approximately $100 billion in cost each year on society. Links have
been found between alcohol abuse and cirrhosis of the liver, as well as
other harmful health conditions. Alcohol is a contributing factor in
assaults, murders and other violent crimes, including fatal drinking
and driving accidents.
At the bottom of every empty bottle is another family in crisis,
another career being destroyed, or another dream washed away.
[[Page
S6443]]
The amendment I am offering today would eliminate the tax deduction
for alcoholic beverage advertising expenditures. In addition, it would
increase funding for a number of programs that educate and prevent the
abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
What should be of the utmost of our concern in our Nation is the
impact of alcohol on our children and our grandchildren.
I am introducing this amendment on behalf of the children who died
because they were drinking and driving, and on behalf of the millions
of children who are drinking right now without the full appreciation of
what they are doing to themselves and what they could potentially do to
others.
Alcohol is the drug of choice among teenagers.
Mr. President, more specifically, and looking at this chart compiled
by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, the use of
alcohol by our Nation's youth is highlighted among different age
groups, including children between the ages of 12 and 17. Among
children between the ages of 16 and 17, 69.3 percent have at one point
in their lifetimes experimented with alcohol.
Clearly, as made evident by these alarming statistics, alcohol is the
leading problem among teenagers--not marijuana, not cocaine.
In the last month, approximately 8 percent of the Nation's eighth
graders have been drunk--have been drunk. We are talking about eighth
graders, 13 years old--13-year-olds. I never heard of such a thing when
I was in my teens, as a young man, or in my middle age. We are talking
about eighth graders, 13-year-olds.
Every State has a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals
under the age of 21. How is it then that two out of every three
teenagers who drink report that they can buy their own alcoholic
beverages?
The youth of this country, who at the delicate age of 15 should be
enriching their minds with schoolwork, improving their bodies with
exercise, and discovering the wonders of life through God and family
values, instead are experimenting and endangering themselves with
booze. Junior and senior high school students drink 35 percent of all
wine coolers and consume 1.1 billion cans of beer a year. I know,
because I pick some of them up off my lawn--I am talking about the beer
cans, not the young people.
I will repeat what is common knowledge to us all: Every State has a
law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals under the age of 21.
Alcohol is a factor in the three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-
year-olds--the three leading causes--accidents, homicides, suicide. In
approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of youth suicides, alcohol is
involved.
Links have been shown between alcohol use and teen pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases. Eighty percent of the teenagers do not
know that a can of beer has the same amount of alcohol as a shot of
whiskey or a glass of wine. By the time they are in college, 40 percent
have binged on alcohol during the previous 2 weeks.
In 1994, 8.9 percent--almost 95,000--of the clients admitted to
alcohol treatment programs that received at least part of their funding
from the State were under the age of 21, including over 1,000 under the
age of 12. And 31.9 percent of youth under the age of 18 in long-term
State-operated juvenile institutions were under the influence of
alcohol at the time of their arrest.
While our Nation's education system needs repair, it seems that our
society has been successful in teaching these kids something. The
problem is that what we have taught them is deadly.
Drinking impairs one's judgment. We all know that. Nobody will
dispute that. Alcohol mixed with teenage driving is a lethal, a lethal
combination. We read about it all the time in the Washington Post, the
Washington Times, and every newspaper in the land. In 1995, there were
1,666 alcohol-related fatalities of children between the ages of 15 and
19. The total number of alcohol-related fatalities that year was
17,274. Mr. President, for many years I have taken the opportunity,
when addressing groups of young West Virginians, to warn them about the
dangers of alcohol. I supported legislative efforts to discourage
people, particularly young people, from drinking any alcohol. For
example, 2 years ago I authored an amendment that requires States to
pass the zero-tolerance laws that will make it illegal for persons
under the age of 21 to drive a motor vehicle if they have a blood
alcohol level greater than .02 percent. This legislation not only helps
to save lives but it also sends a message to our Nation's youth that
drinking and driving is wrong, that it is a violation of the law, and
that it will be appropriately punished. Unfortunately and tragically,
we all know someone, whether it is a family member or a friend or an
acquaintance, whose life has been cut short by a drunk driver. These
are senseless losses that are devastating to the families and the
friends who are left behind.
As if the aforementioned statistics about youth alcohol use and the
results of that use are not frightening enough, young people who
consume alcohol are more likely to use other drugs.
On the chart to my left, Senators will note these statistics,
compiled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, statistics which show that 37.5 percent of young
people who have consumed alcohol have used some other illicit drug,
versus only 5 percent of young people who have never consumed alcohol;
26.7 percent of those who have consumed alcohol have tried marijuana,
versus 1.2 percent of those who have never consumed alcohol; 5 percent
of youths who have partaken of alcohol have tried cocaine, while only
0.1 of 1 percent of those who do not drink have used cocaine. So it is
not a question that is even debatable that youths who drink alcohol are
more likely to use other drugs.
Mr. President, as the aforementioned facts and figures indicate,
alcohol exacts a tremendous cost on our society. These costs are not
always clear-cut. For example, consider the costs of the lost
productivity of a person showing up at work on a Monday morning with a
hangover and inadequately performing his or her job, perhaps making a
mistake that results in injury. How many of us would like to ride in
the automobile that was made on such a Monday morning? How many of us
would like to fly on the airplane whose maintenance man or woman, whose
mechanic was on a binge the previous day? While there is no way to
accurately gauge the enormous costs that alcohol exacts upon our
society, there can be no doubt that the pleasures of alcohol
consumption exacts a considerable price on our Nation.
The purpose of the amendment that I introduce today is simple. My
proposal would simply tell all producers of alcoholic beverages that
they can no longer deduct the costs of their advertising expenditures
on those products from their Federal income tax liability. While
advertising is generally deductible as a legitimate business expense, I
believe there exists a moral, legitimate reason to create an exception
for producers of alcoholic beverages whose products exact such
considerable costs on our society. My proposal would not make illegal
any advertising of alcoholic beverages. It does not say that any
advertising of alcoholic beverages is unconstitutional. It does not
attempt to ban such advertisements, nor would it create any additional
Federal bureaucracy to regulate alcohol products. Rather, it would
simply end the American taxpayers' subsidization of alcohol advertising
by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include a disallowance
of any deduction for any amount paid or incurred to advertise or
promote by any means any alcoholic beverage. This is not a sin tax. It
is, rather, an end to the sin subsidy that has left American taxpayers
footing the bill for both alcohol advertising and the high health care
costs inflicted on society by alcohol consumption. Now there may be
those who argue that it is wrong to single out alcohol advertising
expenses. I counter that with the question: What other product, with
the possible exception of tobacco, costs society $100 billion each
year? What other product results in more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States? The statistics are indeed staggering.
Mr. President, in these complicated times, the innocence of youth,
the innocence of youth is dashed away at an early age by the irreverent
messages spewing from the television set. Profanity and violence on
television programming are interrupted only by the aggressive
commercials seeking to influence viewers in the name of profit.
[[Page
S6444]]
Our impressionable youth, pressured by the self-indulgent motives of
revenue-hungry corporations are bombarded by countless images
glorifying an unrealistic view of reality, often insincerely portraying
alcoholic beverages as an ingredient for ideal lifestyles. Our children
are besieged with the message that if you drink you will attract
beautiful women, if you drink you will be popular, if you drink you
will excel at sports. Are these the images of reality or do they leave
out something important? Do they leave out some important facts about
alcohol consumption? What about the negative and all too prevalent
results of alcohol consumption--the hangovers that result in lost
productivity, the tragic deaths, the injuries caused by a drunk behind
the wheel, the hospital visits for alcohol poisoning, the horrible
effects of cirrhosis of the liver and the families torn apart by
alcohol abuse.
The industry indicates that their advertisements do not target young
people, although this is debatable. A January Wall Street Journal
article, detailing a competitive media reporting survey commissioned by
the Journal, found that beer advertisements are often aired during
programs that are watched by large numbers of adolescents. The findings
of this survey are extremely disturbing. In one example, referenced in
the article, a beer ad ran during the airing of a popular cartoon show
on the MTV station of which 69 percent of the audience was comprised of
children under the age of 21.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Wall Street Journal article.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal]
Are Beer Ads on Beavis and Butt-Head Aimed at Kids?
(By Sally Beatty)
When a commercial for Schlitz Malt Liquor appeared last
year on MTV during ``My So-Called Life,'' a show about
teenage girls, beer maker Stroh called the airing an
aberration.
Even as the ad helped launch a Federal Trade Commission
probe into alcohol advertising to children, Stroh said it had
a longtime policy of aiming ads only at adults of legal
drinking age; MTV said the ad ran by mistake because of a
last-minute programming switch.
In fact, the commercial was hardly an isolated event.
Despite the beer industry's insistence that it doesn't target
kids, its commercials regularly wash over underage viewers. A
survey by Competitive Media Reporting for the Wall Street
Journal showed that during one arbitrarily chosen week--the
first week of September--youths under the drinking age made
up the majority of the audience for beer commercials on
several occasions.
For instance, Molson beer was advertised during a 10 p.m.
episode of ``Beavis & Butt-Head,'' the popular MTV cartoon
series about two obnoxious teens. Fully 69% of all the
episode's viewers that night were under 21--the legal
drinking age in all 50 states--according to Nielsen Media
Research's widely used ratings data. Molson, which is
marketed in the U.S. by Philip Morris's Miller Brewing, also
advertised on MTV's racy youth dating show, ``Singled Out,''
just after 7 p.m., when 52% of the audience was under 21. And
Stroh advertised Schlitz Malt Liquor during MTV's prime-time
music-video show at 8:30 p.m., when 56% of the audience was
under 21.
That same week, Adolph Coors ran two ads on the Black
Entertainment Television channel after 8 p.m., when 65% of
the audience wasn't old enough to drink. Also that week,
Anheuser-Busch ran an ad for its Budweiser brand just
after 8:30 p.m. on BET during music-video programming,
when 70% of the audience was under 21.
These commercials look like clear violations of the chief
beer industry trade group's own guidelines for TV ads. ``Beer
advertising . . . should not be placed in magazines,
newspapers, television programs, radio programs or other
media where most of the audience is reasonably expected to be
below the legal purchase age,'' states the Beer Institute's
published ``advertising and marketing guidelines.'' The
industry is pointing to these guidelines in an aggressive
lobbying effort against proposed new federal restrictions of
beer and liquor advertising.
The number of ads reaching kids is ``very troubling,'' says
Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer
protection and a top official involved with its ongoing probe
into alcohol marketing to kids on television. Her bureau
enforces laws banning unfair or deceptive ad practices,
including a statute that says it's unfair to aim ads at
people who aren't legally able to buy the products. A company
that runs afoul of such laws can face fines, orders to pull
ads and regular FTC screening of future advertising.
Ms. Bernstein won't comment on the FTC's probe. However,
she says that in any investigation, the commission would look
first at whether alcohol advertisers are ``following their
own guidelines.'' For example, ``Is it OK if [the percentage
of underage viewers] gets up to 70% once in a while? I don't
think it's OK.'' And she says the commission would ``never
act on just one episode or one mistake--we would act on the
pattern.''
Brewers and TV executives insist that it doesn't make sense
to evaluate beer ads on a single night's audience. ``Any
attempt to analyze the beer industry's media-buying practices
by examining only selected broadcast media buys during a one-
week period is misleading and simplistic,'' said Miller
Brewing in a statement responding to questions about the
survey. Miller added that more than 75 percent of the
broadcast audience reached by the programming it buys is over
21.
At Stroh, officials argue that there's a difference between
putting ads in front of kids and targeting them explicitly.
``We understand that when an ad is run it's going to be seen
by some people who are under 21 years of age, whether it's a
billboard, in a magazine or on TV,'' says Stroh general
counsel George Kuehn. ``That does not mean we target the
group that is under 21.''
Whether the beer industry advertises to kids became a hotly
debated question after the liquor industry last year
abandoned its longstanding guidelines banning TV ads. That
sparked a national uproar over exposing kids to alcohol ads--
putting the beer industry in the spotlight.
In Congress, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D., Mass.) has
introduced legislation that would ban most forms of alcohol
advertising from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., require health warnings
on print, radio and TV ads and require alcohol ads that run
in publication with a 15% or more youth readership to appear
only in black-and-white text.
There are already signs that brewers and Madison Avenue are
worried about the threat of regulation of beer ads. No. 1
brewer Anheuser-Busch revealed last month that it quietly
pulled all its beer advertising from MTV, saying it hoped to
``ensure that our intent is not misperceived in today's
climate.'' The Madison Avenue's main trade group, the
American Association of Advertising Agencies, recently
abandoned its longtime stand against restrictions on ads
for products like alcohol and cigarettes. It proposed
setting up a new self-regulation committee, warning that
the industry otherwise faces a government crackdown on ads
for beer and other adult products.
But setting reliable guidelines for such ads remains
tricky. TV executives argue that Nielsen ratings aren't
reliable measures of kid viewership--even though the ratings
are the TV industry's gold standard for gauging the cost of
ad time. Says John Popkowski, executive vice president in
charge of ad sales at MTV Networks: ``If you pick one show on
an isolated night you might find one that's an aberration
statistically,'' since cable channels' viewership is
sometimes relatively small.
On the E! Channel, for instance, Miller Brewing ran a
Foster's ad on Sept. 2, just before 7:30 p.m., during the
show ``Melrose Place.'' That night, 41% of the show's
audience was under 21, according to Nielsen. But David T.
Cassaro, senior vice president in charge of ad sales for E!
Entertainment Television, says that from July 1 to Sept. 29
between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., only about 28% of E!
Entertainment's audience was under 21. Overall, Mr. Cassaro
adds, only 19% of E! Entertainment's total audience isn't old
enough to drink.
``With networks like BET the numbers are so small that they
jump all over the place,'' adds John Goldman, a spokesman for
Adolph Coors. ``You take as much care as you can but the
programming changes often.'' Mr. Goldman says that in the
third quarter, the over-21 audience reached by BET between 7
p.m. and 8 p.m. ranged from 80% to 43%.
Mr. Goldman adds that Coors doesn't buy MTV as a matter of
company policy. ``We want to avoid any misperception that
we're aiming at an underage audience.''
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, looking at another chart to my left, this
chart demonstrates competitive media reporting estimates that the
alcoholic beverage industry spent more than $1 billion on alcohol
advertising in 1995.
In contrast, in 1995, the Federal investment in the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was a mere $189.8 million for
alcohol research. Does the industry expect us to believe that it would
spend this huge amount of money--$1.1 billion--if it were not getting
something for that money? Some may argue that this legislation would
adversely affect the advertising industry by forcing producers of
alcoholic beverages to eliminate their advertising expenditure.
Poppycock. I do not believe that this would be the case.
Alcoholic beverage producers spend large amounts of money to
advertise their products because it encourages people to consume their
product and it, therefore, increases sales. Eliminating the advertising
deduction will not eliminate the fundamental business practice. By
making these advertisements less profitable, this amendment may reduce
the overall amount of alcohol advertising in our society. However, let
there be no doubt that the alcohol ads will keep on running. You
[[Page
S6445]]
can bet your bottom dollar on that. They will. The difference, however,
will be that the American taxpayer will no longer be subsidizing this
activity and that the money will go, instead, to getting the other side
of the alcohol story out. That is what we need to start doing. We need
to start now getting the other side of the alcohol story out. It is
perhaps not the most popular thing politically to attempt to do here,
but it needs to be done.
This amendment is all the more necessary because, last year, the
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States decided to reject its
self-imposed ban on advertising hard liquor on television and radio. I
decried this decision by the Distilled Spirits Council because it is a
step backward at a time when our Nation is working to curb alcohol
abuse. Now hard liquor advertisements will be flowing over the
airwaves. This is not the direction in which our Nation should be
moving.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the elimination of the
tax deduction would result in $2.9 billion in savings over 5 years. My
amendment targets the savings from the elimination of the disallowance
to programs to prevent alcohol abuse among our Nation's young people
and to educate children about alcohol. The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration would be given increased funds to
supplement programs to prevent the use of alcohol among young people
and to fund a media campaign designed to counteract the constant
bombardment to which our children are subjected daily by alcohol
advertisements. It is important to give our children information about
the risks associated with the consumption of alcohol. We should not sit
idly by and leave unchallenged the messages of alcoholic beverage
advertisements that only good things happen to those who drink alcohol.
This amendment will also direct funding to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to carry out a comprehensive strategy to prevent
alcohol-related disease and disability. The CDC would be given
authority to enhance and expand fetal alcohol syndrome prevention
activities throughout the Nation. According to the NIAAA, fetal alcohol
syndrome is estimated to affect from one to three children out of every
1,000 live births.
To address the distressing problem of alcohol-impaired driving, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's alcohol-impaired
driving incentive grant program, previously known as section 410, would
receive additional funding. Funding is also made available to NTSA to
launch a media campaign about the perils of driving under the
influence.
The Indian Health Service will receive funding for its alcohol abuse
programs to address the issue of alcohol abuse, which has such a
devastating effect on the first Americans. I don't refer to them as
native Americans. I don't refer to them as native Americans. I am a
native American. If I am not a native American, of what country am I a
native? I refer to them as the original Americans, or the first
Americans.
The harm that alcoholic beverages cause our Nation is not a second-
rate hangover, but a serious affliction that kills more than 100,000
people each year. By adopting this amendment, we would be making a
positive effort to improve the health of our Nation, particularly of
our children, and to send a sober message to those who are capitalizing
on profits generated by recklessly advertising alcoholic beverages
through far-reaching and seductive means, such as television.
We should act in the best interests of the American people and
announce ``last call'' to those who have been receiving tax breaks for
peddling booze, take a step in the right direction and begin to repair
some of the damage brought by alcohol in this country. Let us begin by
putting a cork in the tax loophole that has left American taxpayers
picking up the tab for the alcohol industry.
Now, Mr. President, I am very well aware that a point of order will
be made, or can be made. I am well aware of that. But I think the
debate has to start at some point. I think that point is now. We hear a
great deal about tobacco and we hear a great deal about children, about
children's health. I hope those who support those programs and talk
much about them would support this effort. We are talking here about
children's health. We are talking here about something that kills
100,000 people every year. I am not seeking to ban alcohol. I am not
seeking to regulate alcohol. I am simply seeking to end the
subsidization by the taxpayers of this country of alcohol.
Think about it. Think about it on your way home tonight as you drive
out the George Washington Parkway and see someone in front of you
wobbling from one side of the road to the other. Think again. Suppose
your wife is up at Tyson's Corner getting ready to drive home with the
children and that same fellow who was in front of your car wobbling may
kill your wife and your children.
So let's start talking about it. Let's start airing the subject here.
Let's stop putting it behind the curtain, putting it under the rug,
saying it is taboo. It is not. It is not taboo. Think about our
children, our grandchildren. This is the product that kills other
people. Tobacco may kill me. Tobacco may kill the individual who smokes
it. But alcohol may not kill the person who imbibes; it may kill the
innocent--the driver in the other car.
So I hope that Senators will support my amendment. As I say, I am
sure that there is a process or a motion available, but I am accustomed
to those things. I say let the Senate work its will.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance
Committee for yielding me a few moments. I listened very carefully to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia and to his observations
about the dangers of drinking and driving, with which I completely
concur.
Of course, representing Kentucky, as my friend from West Virginia
knows, not only do we have 60,000 tobacco growers, which is, of course,
the subject of a number of amendments that may come on this bill; we
are also the home of bourbon. If this kind of whiskey is not made in
Kentucky, it cannot be called bourbon. Let me suggest that there are no
industries--and I checked with the Finance Committee staff--that have
been singled out by law and, as a result of being singled out, are not
allowed to deduct their expenses for advertising. So this would be a
first.
To begin with, as a matter of tax policy, certain kinds of legal
industries are not allowed to deduct their advertising, and others are.
There is also--while we are thinking of both cigarettes and alcohol--
another important distinction. There is no argument that misuse of
alcohol is a problem in this country. As a Senator from a tobacco-
producing State, I never make the argument that smoking cigarettes is
good for you. Obviously, it isn't. But there are many in the medical
profession who would say that the consumption of alcohol, if used
properly--properly--is actually good for you. I am not a physician, I
can't make that argument, but there is a growing argument being made by
many in the medical community that a certain amount of alcohol,
properly used, is actually good for you health, not bad for your
health.
So we have here a legal product, Mr. President, which, arguably, if
properly used, might actually be good for you, which the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, I gather, is saying when misused, of
course, is clearly a terrible thing and a disaster not only for the
person misusing it, but for others who may be affected by that, and
that because a product may be misused, the Government should step in
and say: Your advertising is not allowed.
Regardless of how you may feel about this----
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. For a correction only. My amendment does not say your
advertising will not be allowed. I am not saying that at all. The
alcohol industry may continue to advertise. I am just saying, let's
stop the subsidization of that advertising, the subsidization by the
taxpayers.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator. I think I did understand his
[[Page
S6446]]
amendment to disallow a deductibility for advertising, which would make
this the only industry of which the Finance Committee is aware where
such deductibility would be disallowed.
Aside from my home State and the product, which, if properly used,
might actually be good for you, I wonder if my friend from West
Virginia doesn't share my concern that once we go in this direction, we
might find other activities that some may find offensive being subject
to the same kinds of efforts to disallow deductibility for certain
kinds of business expenses.
I think, for example, West Virginia and Kentucky used to trade back
and forth in terms of coal production. One year West Virginia would be
first; the next year Kentucky would be the first. Alas, neither are
first anymore. Wyoming is. But there are many Americans who think, as a
result of the burning of coal, that the area is polluted and that, as a
result of that, people contract lung problems. In fact, there is an
initiative by the Clinton administration just announced this week which
the Senator from West Virginia and I both have serious reservations
about designed to cut down on air pollution--so the argument goes--so
there will be less lung disease.
I wonder, if we go down this path of trying to pick out which
industries' deductions for certain kinds of business expenses are to be
allowed or not allowed based upon our judgment about what is harmful to
the public, whether or not somebody might come in and say, ``Well, we
shouldn't allow production costs associated with the mining of coal to
be deductible because, after all, the burning of coal leads to the
pollution of the air, which then leads to lung disease, which then
leads to death.''
I just am concerned that this is a step in the wrong direction. I
understand fully the concerns of the Senator from West Virginia, and I
share them. I think the use of alcohol leads to a great deal of
tragedy.
But I hope we will not single out this legal industry producing a
product, which, if properly used, many people in the medical field feel
is actually good for you, for this kind of selective treatment on
deductibility.
Finally, let me say that I am not an expert on the budget deal. But
it is clear that there is a lot of momentum in this body to hold the
deal together, and this is clearly not part of the budget deal.
I hope that the proposal will not be approved, in all due respect to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia. I hope this would not
become part of the measure before us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say that I fully understand the
economic impact of the tobacco industry on the State of the
distinguished Senator who has just spoken. West Virginia grows good
tobacco crops as well, and the income from those tobacco crops
certainly impact upon many families in many counties of West Virginia.
We are talking about here, though, a product that results in the
maiming and in the killing of people--innocent men, women, and
children.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky mentions the carbon dioxide
emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions and possible implications
of those emissions on health. People who breathe that air may well,
indeed, suffer an adverse impact on their health. But they don't go out
and maim. They don't go out and drive an automobile, lose their proper
judgment, and end up killing innocent people. They do not go home and
abuse their spouses if they smoke cigarettes or if they breathe air
blown from them. They don't go home and abuse their children. They
don't go home and assault and batter the other members of their family.
I am talking about a product that we all know--it is not just this
Senator's opinion. We all know when we read the daily newspapers about
the effects of drinking and driving. We all read the newspapers in the
spring following the graduation exercises at high schools, and we read,
with horror, the stories of a few young people who get into an
automobile and wrap that automobile around a telephone pole and they
are all killed or maimed--maimed for life.
That is what we are talking about. I am not talking about singling
out an industry. I am talking about an industry that creates a product
that is hurtful--not just hurtful to the person who uses it, but
endangers, as I said already, the lives of others. We all know that.
But I do appreciate the fact that the Senator is from Kentucky, and I
respect him for that, and I respect his viewpoint and count him and his
fellow Kentuckians as good neighbors.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. How much time would the Senator from Montana like?
Mr. BURNS. Probably no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Delaware.
Mr. President, no one on this floor makes his case with such passion
as my friend from West Virginia. We have a couple of things in common
that we will not go into here. But I also know from where he comes. And
when you start talking about this issue of singling out something, then
we have to look at probably the real facts.
First, there is the presumption in this amendment that somehow the
advertising is evil or bad, or that it wreaks health problems on the
American people. There is no question in anybody's mind across this
land that the abuse of alcohol is one of our greatest problems--no
doubt. Yet, there is no scientific evidence that would even suggest the
casual relationship between advertising and abuse.
In order to get to the root of the problem of alcoholism and all of
the problems that it brings, study after study after study has been
made in the relationship of advertising. In fact, during the 1980's,
when the advertising for alcohol products was increasing, actual
consumption per capita actually was decreasing. So not only does
advertising not impact abuse, it doesn't even impact the overall
consumption.
Singling out a product is not, I don't think, what fair tax law is
about.
So let's be upfront about it, because I am familiar with the
broadcast industry. It has economic impacts on small business. It has
economic impacts. And once we start singling out products, do we start
talking about red meat, eggs, or sugar? Where do we draw the line? The
impact it might have on the national pastime? We could say, ``OK, we
don't need it in the broadcasting industry. We can all pay for pay-per-
view''--the impact on an industry within itself. And the list goes on
and on trying to explain to our constituents why different things
happen and cost more, because there is a decrease in advertising
support in free television. That also brings us our weather, our farm
reports, our news, our emergency conditions. All of these things that
are supported by free over-the-air broadcasts will be impacted if this
amendment is successful.
The industry has taken steps to limit or try to curb the abuse that
alcohol has on a person or individual. There is no doubt about it. And
in some areas some would say it is even working.
I know that all of us want a tax cut. All of us want a balanced
budget. But to single out and start limiting an ad tax or deductibility
for legal products is not the right approach. It is not the right
approach--not on a legal product.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this. It is unwarranted. I think it
is unwise. And I am not real sure, it might have some constitutional
overtones because advertising is still freedom of speech. It cannot be
treated differently than any other form.
The Senator from West Virginia makes a point. It is the abuse of the
product. The advertising has very little to do with the abuse of the
product.
Thank you, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator talks about red meat, eggs, and
sugar. The Honorable Senator is my friend. Who ever heard of anybody
eating red meat, eggs, and sugar, and getting out in the car and having
that car plunge into a tree, weave all across the road, and kill and
maim other people? Red meat doesn't cause an individual to drive drunk
and get in the car and
[[Page
S6447]]
drive all over the highway. Eggs and sugar don't do that in their form
as eggs and sugar, in their natural form.
The Senator also, I think, made reference to the Federal Trade
Commission in 1985, which found ``no reliable basis to conclude that
alcohol advertising significantly affects consumption, let alone
abuse.'' Well, let's see what the conclusions are from the effects of
the mass media on the use and abuse of alcohol.
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Research Monograph-28, 1995:
[The] preponderance of the evidence indicates that alcohol
advertising stimulates higher consumption of alcohol by both
adults and adolescents . . . It appears to be a contributing
factor that increases drinking to a modest degree rather than
being a major determinant. (Dr. Charles Adkins, Department of
Communications, Michigan State University.)
Now I shall quote Dr. Sally Casswell, Alcohol and Public Health
Research Unit, School of Medicine, University of Aukland:
[T]here is sufficient evidence to say that alcohol
advertising is likely to be a contributing factor to overall
consumption and other alcohol-related problems in the long
term.
Now quoting Dr. Joel Grube, Prevention Research Center:
[A]lcohol advertising can influence children, particularly
their beliefs about alcohol and, indirectly, their intentions
to drink as adults.
Finally, let me quote Dr. Esther Thorson, School of Journalism,
University of Missouri:
If research were designed to take account of what the
advertiser is trying to do and if it examined the
relationship between the specific structure of the message
and the individual or group for whom that message is
targeted, investigators probably would find ``whopping
effects''.
Mr. President, I appreciate the views that have been expressed by my
friend from Montana and, as I have already indicated, by my friend from
Kentucky. I appreciate their views, and I respect their views.
Mr. President, I don't think there should be any doubts in the minds
of any Senator or any person who is viewing this Chamber via that
electronic eye that the drinking of alcohol affects the judgment of
people, and that there are many other costs that are not tangible, that
cannot be translated into dollars and cents-- the cost of lost
productivity, the cost of broken homes, the cost of children abused.
And I could go on.
I have made my case, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has the remaining
time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I
make the point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to
the provisions of the reconciliation measure and I therefore raise a
point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the
Budget Act.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask
for the yeas and nays on my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an hour equally divided on the
motion.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
Vote on Motion to Waive the Budget Act
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts],
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 12, nays 86, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]
YEAS--12
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
DeWine
Glenn
Hatch
Helms
Kennedy
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Thurmond
Wellstone
NAYS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchi
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
(Senate - June 26, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S6440-S6473]
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 537
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-four minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. And the opposition has 44 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. So we have used 16. Actually, unless Senator Lautenberg
has anything further to say, I believe I have stated the case for the
Domenici-Lautenberg amendment No. 537. Does Senator Gramm want to offer
an amendment to the amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. I think Senator Biden is going to offer an amendment
first, and after his amendment is disposed of, then I will have an
amendment, as will several other people.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wonder if the Democratic manager would
yield me time off the bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has time on his amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. Can I get time in my own right?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by Senator Domenici and
Senator Roth.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. DOMENICI. We yielded back our time.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 539 to Amendment No. 537
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr.
Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 539 to amendment No.
537.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 43 of the amendment, strike lines 14 through 21 and
insert the following:
``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $537,677,000,000 in
new budget authority and $558,460,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,355,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,936,000,000 in
outlays;
``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $546,619,000,000 in
new budget authority and $556,314,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,455,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,485,000,000 in
outlays;
as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.
(2) Transfers into the fund.--On the first day of the
following fiscal years, the following amounts shall be
transferred from the general fund to the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund--
(A) for fiscal year 2001, $4,355,000,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2002, $4,455,000,000.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for an inquiry for
a moment?
Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers of this bill tell us how many second-
degree amendments there are to this process?
I assume we are on the second-degree amendment process; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers tell us how many second-degree
amendments they anticipate on this?
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not know.
Mr. GRAMM. I believe there will be four. Senator Biden will offer one
for himself. Once that is adopted, I will offer a second-degree
amendment. And
[[Page
S6441]]
then we have two other Senators who want to offer second-degree
amendments, so they will be seriatim.
Mr. BUMPERS. Then there are five, because I have one also. I am just
wondering if we could get some kind of sequence so we know how they are
going to be offered so we do not spend the rest of our lives waiting.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, you can be assured there will be
four ahead of you, if you would like to be fifth.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you do yours last?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I said.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the second-degree amendment I have at the
desk is very simple and straightforward. The Senator from New Mexico is
introducing a budget process amendment, and what the amendment of
Senator Gramm and myself does is, quite frankly, it merely extends the
crime law trust fund for the extension of this agreement.
I am told by the staffs of the majority and minority that in the
budget process agreement that was agreed to with the administration,
there is a line on page 90 of the concurrent resolution of the budget
fiscal year 1998. On page 90, it says, ``Retain current law on separate
crime caps at levels shown in the agreement tables.''
All we are doing here is extending the crime law trust fund. We are
not making judgments on how that will be disbursed within the trust
fund. We are just extending the trust fund to the extent of this
agreement. And, Madam President, as I offer this amendment, we are
maintaining a commitment to one of the few specific ways the
reconciliation package can, by virtue of the type of legislation it is,
maintain a commitment.
The commitment we made was to fight violent crime. And, ironically,
it is working. It is working. And so for us now to extend the violent
crime trust fund, let it expire 2 years before this budget agreement
expires, means we are going to be back at it again in the year 2000 or
before, fighting over something we now know works.
So I realize we can take a long time debating this. But the bottom
line is this: We are not suggesting, as the Senator from New Mexico
knows, how this trust fund money within the caps will be disbursed;
merely that we have the continuation of the trust fund as long as the
budget agreement to the year 2002.
Of all the priorities addressed in this budget package, I believe
that none is more important than continuing our fight against violent
crime and violence against women.
The amendment I am offering, along with Senator Gramm seeks to
maintain this commitment in one of the few specific ways this
reconciliation package can--by virtue of the type of legislation this
is--maintain this commitment. That is by extending the violent crime
control trust fund will continue through the end of this budget
resolution, fiscal year 2002.
Senator Byrd, more than anyone, deserves credit for the crime law
trust fund. Senator Byrd worked to develop an idea that was simple as
it was profound--as he called on us to use the savings from the
reductions in the Federal work force of 272,000 employees to fund one
of the Nation's most urgent priorities: fighting the scourge of violent
crime.
Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to
``put our money where our mouth was.'' Too often, this Senate has voted
to send significant aid to State and local law enforcement--but, when
it came time to write the check, we did not find nearly the dollars we
promised.
Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, and
other Senators passed the violent crime control trust fund in the
Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden crime law.
Since then, the dollars from the crime law trust fund have: Helped
add more than 60,000 community police officers to our streets; helped
shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children; focussed
law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims service providers on
providing immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends to
love them; forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing
and treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain
free on probation with no supervision and no accountability;
constructed thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and
brought unprecedented resources to defending our Southwest border--
putting us on the path to literally double the number of Federal border
agents over just a 5-year period.
The results of this effort are already taking hold: According to the
FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is down and down
significantly--leaving our nation with its lowest murder rate since
1971; the lowest violent crime total since 1990; and the lowest murder
rate for wives, ex-wives, and girlfriends at the hands of their
intimates to an 18-year low.
In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by
being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our ``money where our
mouths'' are--we have actually cut violent crime.
Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant
against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Byrd-Gramm amendment before the
Senate offers one modest step toward meeting that challenge:
By assuring that the commitment to fighting crime and violence
against women will continue for the full duration of this budget
resolution.
By assuring that the violent crime control trust fund will continue--
in its current form which provides additional Federal assistance
without adding 1 cent to the deficit--through 2002.
The Biden-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: Stand up
for cops--or don't; stand up for the fight against violence against
women--or don't; and stand up for increased border enforcement--or
don't.
Every Member of this Senate is against violence crime--we way that in
speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up with
words with the only thing that we can actually do for the cop walking
the beat, the battered woman, the victim of crime--provide the dollars
that help give them the tools to fight violent criminals, standup to
their abuser, and restore at least some small piece of the dignity
taken from them at the hands of a violent criminal.
Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not
continue the trust fund, we will not be able to continue such proven,
valuable efforts as the violence against women law. Nothing we can do
today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence
Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000.
But, mark my words, if the trust fund ends, the efforts to provide
shelter, help victims, and get tough on the abusers and barterers will
wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a
clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with
it, the historic effort undertaken by the Violence Against Women Act
that says by word, deed, and dollar that the Federal Government stands
with women and against the misguided notion that ``domestic'' violence
is a man's ``right'' and ``not really a crime.''
I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Gramm amendment.
At the appropriate time--and I am not quite sure yet when is
appropriate--I will ask for the yeas and nays on this.
But make no mistake about it, what we are voting on here is whether
or not we are going to commit now to the extension of the trust fund,
the violent crime trust fund, for the extent of this agreement. That is
all this does. That is everything it does, but that is all it does.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 537, Withdrawn
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 537) was withdrawn.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia is recognized.
[[Page
S6442]]
Amendment No. 540
(Purpose: To eliminate tax deductions for advertising and promotion
expenditures relating to alcoholic beverages and to increase funding
for programs that educate and prevent the abuse of alcohol among our
Nation's youth)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 540.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE --ALCOHOL ADVERTISING RESPONSIBILITY ACT
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Alcohol Advertising
Responsibility Act''.
SEC. 02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) alcohol is used by more Americans than any other drug;
(2) it is estimated that the costs to society from
alcoholism and alcohol abuse were approximately
$100,000,000,000 in 1990 alone.
(3) in 1995, the alcoholic beverage industry spent
$1,040,300,000 on advertising, while the National Institute
for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was funded at only
$181,445,000;
(4) more than 100,000 deaths each year in the United States
result from alcohol-related causes;
(5) 41.3 percent of all traffic facilities in 1995, or
17,274 deaths, were alcohol related;
(6) in addition to severe health consequences, alcohol
misuse is involved in approximately 30 percent of all
suicides, 50 percent of homicides, 68 percent of manslaughter
cases, 52 percent of rapes and other sexual assaults, 48
percent of robberies, 62 percent of assaults, and 49 percent
of all other violent crimes;
(7) approximately 30 percent of all accidental deaths are
attributable to alcohol abuse;
(8) alcohol advertising may influence children's
perceptions toward an inclinations to consume alcoholic
beverages;
(9) 26 percent of eighth graders, 40 percent of tenth
graders, and 51 percent of twelfth graders report having used
alcohol in the past month; and
(10) college presidents nationwide view alcohol abuse as
their paramount campus-life problem.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to repeal the existing tax subsidization for expenses
incurred to promote the consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(2) to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising to which
our Nation's youth are exposed; and
(3) to increase funding for those programs that educate and
prevent the abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
SEC. 03. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION EXPENSES RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES.
(a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1
(relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding at
the end of the following:
SEC. 280I. ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION EXPENDITURES RELATING TO
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
``(a) In General.--No deduction otherwise allowable under
this chapter shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred
to advertise or promote by any means any alcoholic beverage.
``(b) Alcoholic Beverage.--For purposes of this section,
the term `alcoholic beverage' means any item which is subject
to tax under subpart A, C, or D of part I of subchapter A of
chapter 51 (relating to taxes on distilled spirits, wines,
and beer).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part
IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 280I. Advertising and promotion expenditures relating to
alcoholic beverages.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31 of the year in which this Act is
enacted.
SEC. 04. ALCOHOL ABUSE EDUCATION AND PREVENTION AMONG YOUTH.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), there shall be
transferred, from funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the entities described in subsection (b)
amounts to the extent specified under subsection (b).
(b) Education and Prevention Programs.--
(1) Substance abuse and mental health services
administration.--The amounts specified in this subsection
shall be:
(A) In general.--With respect to the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, $120,000.000 for
fiscal year 1998, $180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, and $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to
supplement substance abuse prevention activities authorized
under section 501 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290aa).
(B) Use of funds.--Amounts provided to the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration under subparagraph
(A) shall be used directly or through grants and cooperative
agreements to carry out activities to prevent the use of
alcohol among youth, including the development and
distribution of public service announcements.
(2) Centers for disease control and prevention.--
(A) In general.--With respect to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out a
comprehensive strategy to prevent alcohol-related disease and
disability.
(A) Required uses.--In carrying out the comprehensive
strategy under subparagraph (A), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall--
(i) enhance and expand State-based and national
surveillance activities to monitor the scope of alcohol use
among the youth of the United States;
(ii) enhance comprehensive school-based health programs
that focus on alcohol use prevention strategies;
(iii) develop and distribute commercial advertising to
prevent alcohol abuse among youth; and
(iv) enhance and expand Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention
activities throughout the United States.
(3) National highway traffic safety administration.--With
respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and in addition to any funds authorized from
the Highway Trust Fund, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out programs
under sections 402, 403, and 410 of title 23, United States
Code, and to develop and implement a paid media campaign
targeting high-risk youth populations to improve the balance
of media messages related to alcohol impaired driving.
(4) Indian health service.--With respect to the Indian
Health Service, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $60,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $70,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, to supplement the programs that such Service is
authorized to carry out pursuant to titles II and III of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et seq., 241 et
seq.).
(c) Authority to Transfer Funds.--The Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on appropriations of the Senate, acting through
appropriations Acts, may transfer the amount specified under
subsection (b) in each fiscal year among the entities
referred to in such subsection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Chair indulge me momentarily?
I protect my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia will be
protected in his right to the floor.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, last Friday negotiators from the tobacco industry and
State attorneys general announced the landmark agreement addressing the
impact of tobacco use on our Nation, particularly our young people.
Although this important deal will likely face many obstacles and has a
long way to go toward implementation, it is an unprecedented first step
toward curbing tobacco use and paying for the harm caused by that use.
This process has caused our Nation to focus on an important public
health danger and is an important step in working toward a meaningful
solution.
While I applaud the action being taken to address the pernicious
health effects of tobacco, I am concerned that its evil twin, which
also has a staggering impact on our Nation, is to a large measure being
ignored.
Mr. President, the cost of alcohol abuse to our country is
staggering. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health, alcohol is used by
more Americans than any other drug. And the results are devastating.
The flood tide of alcohol causes more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism imposes
approximately $100 billion in cost each year on society. Links have
been found between alcohol abuse and cirrhosis of the liver, as well as
other harmful health conditions. Alcohol is a contributing factor in
assaults, murders and other violent crimes, including fatal drinking
and driving accidents.
At the bottom of every empty bottle is another family in crisis,
another career being destroyed, or another dream washed away.
[[Page
S6443]]
The amendment I am offering today would eliminate the tax deduction
for alcoholic beverage advertising expenditures. In addition, it would
increase funding for a number of programs that educate and prevent the
abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
What should be of the utmost of our concern in our Nation is the
impact of alcohol on our children and our grandchildren.
I am introducing this amendment on behalf of the children who died
because they were drinking and driving, and on behalf of the millions
of children who are drinking right now without the full appreciation of
what they are doing to themselves and what they could potentially do to
others.
Alcohol is the drug of choice among teenagers.
Mr. President, more specifically, and looking at this chart compiled
by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, the use of
alcohol by our Nation's youth is highlighted among different age
groups, including children between the ages of 12 and 17. Among
children between the ages of 16 and 17, 69.3 percent have at one point
in their lifetimes experimented with alcohol.
Clearly, as made evident by these alarming statistics, alcohol is the
leading problem among teenagers--not marijuana, not cocaine.
In the last month, approximately 8 percent of the Nation's eighth
graders have been drunk--have been drunk. We are talking about eighth
graders, 13 years old--13-year-olds. I never heard of such a thing when
I was in my teens, as a young man, or in my middle age. We are talking
about eighth graders, 13-year-olds.
Every State has a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals
under the age of 21. How is it then that two out of every three
teenagers who drink report that they can buy their own alcoholic
beverages?
The youth of this country, who at the delicate age of 15 should be
enriching their minds with schoolwork, improving their bodies with
exercise, and discovering the wonders of life through God and family
values, instead are experimenting and endangering themselves with
booze. Junior and senior high school students drink 35 percent of all
wine coolers and consume 1.1 billion cans of beer a year. I know,
because I pick some of them up off my lawn--I am talking about the beer
cans, not the young people.
I will repeat what is common knowledge to us all: Every State has a
law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals under the age of 21.
Alcohol is a factor in the three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-
year-olds--the three leading causes--accidents, homicides, suicide. In
approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of youth suicides, alcohol is
involved.
Links have been shown between alcohol use and teen pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases. Eighty percent of the teenagers do not
know that a can of beer has the same amount of alcohol as a shot of
whiskey or a glass of wine. By the time they are in college, 40 percent
have binged on alcohol during the previous 2 weeks.
In 1994, 8.9 percent--almost 95,000--of the clients admitted to
alcohol treatment programs that received at least part of their funding
from the State were under the age of 21, including over 1,000 under the
age of 12. And 31.9 percent of youth under the age of 18 in long-term
State-operated juvenile institutions were under the influence of
alcohol at the time of their arrest.
While our Nation's education system needs repair, it seems that our
society has been successful in teaching these kids something. The
problem is that what we have taught them is deadly.
Drinking impairs one's judgment. We all know that. Nobody will
dispute that. Alcohol mixed with teenage driving is a lethal, a lethal
combination. We read about it all the time in the Washington Post, the
Washington Times, and every newspaper in the land. In 1995, there were
1,666 alcohol-related fatalities of children between the ages of 15 and
19. The total number of alcohol-related fatalities that year was
17,274. Mr. President, for many years I have taken the opportunity,
when addressing groups of young West Virginians, to warn them about the
dangers of alcohol. I supported legislative efforts to discourage
people, particularly young people, from drinking any alcohol. For
example, 2 years ago I authored an amendment that requires States to
pass the zero-tolerance laws that will make it illegal for persons
under the age of 21 to drive a motor vehicle if they have a blood
alcohol level greater than .02 percent. This legislation not only helps
to save lives but it also sends a message to our Nation's youth that
drinking and driving is wrong, that it is a violation of the law, and
that it will be appropriately punished. Unfortunately and tragically,
we all know someone, whether it is a family member or a friend or an
acquaintance, whose life has been cut short by a drunk driver. These
are senseless losses that are devastating to the families and the
friends who are left behind.
As if the aforementioned statistics about youth alcohol use and the
results of that use are not frightening enough, young people who
consume alcohol are more likely to use other drugs.
On the chart to my left, Senators will note these statistics,
compiled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, statistics which show that 37.5 percent of young
people who have consumed alcohol have used some other illicit drug,
versus only 5 percent of young people who have never consumed alcohol;
26.7 percent of those who have consumed alcohol have tried marijuana,
versus 1.2 percent of those who have never consumed alcohol; 5 percent
of youths who have partaken of alcohol have tried cocaine, while only
0.1 of 1 percent of those who do not drink have used cocaine. So it is
not a question that is even debatable that youths who drink alcohol are
more likely to use other drugs.
Mr. President, as the aforementioned facts and figures indicate,
alcohol exacts a tremendous cost on our society. These costs are not
always clear-cut. For example, consider the costs of the lost
productivity of a person showing up at work on a Monday morning with a
hangover and inadequately performing his or her job, perhaps making a
mistake that results in injury. How many of us would like to ride in
the automobile that was made on such a Monday morning? How many of us
would like to fly on the airplane whose maintenance man or woman, whose
mechanic was on a binge the previous day? While there is no way to
accurately gauge the enormous costs that alcohol exacts upon our
society, there can be no doubt that the pleasures of alcohol
consumption exacts a considerable price on our Nation.
The purpose of the amendment that I introduce today is simple. My
proposal would simply tell all producers of alcoholic beverages that
they can no longer deduct the costs of their advertising expenditures
on those products from their Federal income tax liability. While
advertising is generally deductible as a legitimate business expense, I
believe there exists a moral, legitimate reason to create an exception
for producers of alcoholic beverages whose products exact such
considerable costs on our society. My proposal would not make illegal
any advertising of alcoholic beverages. It does not say that any
advertising of alcoholic beverages is unconstitutional. It does not
attempt to ban such advertisements, nor would it create any additional
Federal bureaucracy to regulate alcohol products. Rather, it would
simply end the American taxpayers' subsidization of alcohol advertising
by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include a disallowance
of any deduction for any amount paid or incurred to advertise or
promote by any means any alcoholic beverage. This is not a sin tax. It
is, rather, an end to the sin subsidy that has left American taxpayers
footing the bill for both alcohol advertising and the high health care
costs inflicted on society by alcohol consumption. Now there may be
those who argue that it is wrong to single out alcohol advertising
expenses. I counter that with the question: What other product, with
the possible exception of tobacco, costs society $100 billion each
year? What other product results in more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States? The statistics are indeed staggering.
Mr. President, in these complicated times, the innocence of youth,
the innocence of youth is dashed away at an early age by the irreverent
messages spewing from the television set. Profanity and violence on
television programming are interrupted only by the aggressive
commercials seeking to influence viewers in the name of profit.
[[Page
S6444]]
Our impressionable youth, pressured by the self-indulgent motives of
revenue-hungry corporations are bombarded by countless images
glorifying an unrealistic view of reality, often insincerely portraying
alcoholic beverages as an ingredient for ideal lifestyles. Our children
are besieged with the message that if you drink you will attract
beautiful women, if you drink you will be popular, if you drink you
will excel at sports. Are these the images of reality or do they leave
out something important? Do they leave out some important facts about
alcohol consumption? What about the negative and all too prevalent
results of alcohol consumption--the hangovers that result in lost
productivity, the tragic deaths, the injuries caused by a drunk behind
the wheel, the hospital visits for alcohol poisoning, the horrible
effects of cirrhosis of the liver and the families torn apart by
alcohol abuse.
The industry indicates that their advertisements do not target young
people, although this is debatable. A January Wall Street Journal
article, detailing a competitive media reporting survey commissioned by
the Journal, found that beer advertisements are often aired during
programs that are watched by large numbers of adolescents. The findings
of this survey are extremely disturbing. In one example, referenced in
the article, a beer ad ran during the airing of a popular cartoon show
on the MTV station of which 69 percent of the audience was comprised of
children under the age of 21.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Wall Street Journal article.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal]
Are Beer Ads on Beavis and Butt-Head Aimed at Kids?
(By Sally Beatty)
When a commercial for Schlitz Malt Liquor appeared last
year on MTV during ``My So-Called Life,'' a show about
teenage girls, beer maker Stroh called the airing an
aberration.
Even as the ad helped launch a Federal Trade Commission
probe into alcohol advertising to children, Stroh said it had
a longtime policy of aiming ads only at adults of legal
drinking age; MTV said the ad ran by mistake because of a
last-minute programming switch.
In fact, the commercial was hardly an isolated event.
Despite the beer industry's insistence that it doesn't target
kids, its commercials regularly wash over underage viewers. A
survey by Competitive Media Reporting for the Wall Street
Journal showed that during one arbitrarily chosen week--the
first week of September--youths under the drinking age made
up the majority of the audience for beer commercials on
several occasions.
For instance, Molson beer was advertised during a 10 p.m.
episode of ``Beavis & Butt-Head,'' the popular MTV cartoon
series about two obnoxious teens. Fully 69% of all the
episode's viewers that night were under 21--the legal
drinking age in all 50 states--according to Nielsen Media
Research's widely used ratings data. Molson, which is
marketed in the U.S. by Philip Morris's Miller Brewing, also
advertised on MTV's racy youth dating show, ``Singled Out,''
just after 7 p.m., when 52% of the audience was under 21. And
Stroh advertised Schlitz Malt Liquor during MTV's prime-time
music-video show at 8:30 p.m., when 56% of the audience was
under 21.
That same week, Adolph Coors ran two ads on the Black
Entertainment Television channel after 8 p.m., when 65% of
the audience wasn't old enough to drink. Also that week,
Anheuser-Busch ran an ad for its Budweiser brand just
after 8:30 p.m. on BET during music-video programming,
when 70% of the audience was under 21.
These commercials look like clear violations of the chief
beer industry trade group's own guidelines for TV ads. ``Beer
advertising . . . should not be placed in magazines,
newspapers, television programs, radio programs or other
media where most of the audience is reasonably expected to be
below the legal purchase age,'' states the Beer Institute's
published ``advertising and marketing guidelines.'' The
industry is pointing to these guidelines in an aggressive
lobbying effort against proposed new federal restrictions of
beer and liquor advertising.
The number of ads reaching kids is ``very troubling,'' says
Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer
protection and a top official involved with its ongoing probe
into alcohol marketing to kids on television. Her bureau
enforces laws banning unfair or deceptive ad practices,
including a statute that says it's unfair to aim ads at
people who aren't legally able to buy the products. A company
that runs afoul of such laws can face fines, orders to pull
ads and regular FTC screening of future advertising.
Ms. Bernstein won't comment on the FTC's probe. However,
she says that in any investigation, the commission would look
first at whether alcohol advertisers are ``following their
own guidelines.'' For example, ``Is it OK if [the percentage
of underage viewers] gets up to 70% once in a while? I don't
think it's OK.'' And she says the commission would ``never
act on just one episode or one mistake--we would act on the
pattern.''
Brewers and TV executives insist that it doesn't make sense
to evaluate beer ads on a single night's audience. ``Any
attempt to analyze the beer industry's media-buying practices
by examining only selected broadcast media buys during a one-
week period is misleading and simplistic,'' said Miller
Brewing in a statement responding to questions about the
survey. Miller added that more than 75 percent of the
broadcast audience reached by the programming it buys is over
21.
At Stroh, officials argue that there's a difference between
putting ads in front of kids and targeting them explicitly.
``We understand that when an ad is run it's going to be seen
by some people who are under 21 years of age, whether it's a
billboard, in a magazine or on TV,'' says Stroh general
counsel George Kuehn. ``That does not mean we target the
group that is under 21.''
Whether the beer industry advertises to kids became a hotly
debated question after the liquor industry last year
abandoned its longstanding guidelines banning TV ads. That
sparked a national uproar over exposing kids to alcohol ads--
putting the beer industry in the spotlight.
In Congress, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D., Mass.) has
introduced legislation that would ban most forms of alcohol
advertising from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., require health warnings
on print, radio and TV ads and require alcohol ads that run
in publication with a 15% or more youth readership to appear
only in black-and-white text.
There are already signs that brewers and Madison Avenue are
worried about the threat of regulation of beer ads. No. 1
brewer Anheuser-Busch revealed last month that it quietly
pulled all its beer advertising from MTV, saying it hoped to
``ensure that our intent is not misperceived in today's
climate.'' The Madison Avenue's main trade group, the
American Association of Advertising Agencies, recently
abandoned its longtime stand against restrictions on ads
for products like alcohol and cigarettes. It proposed
setting up a new self-regulation committee, warning that
the industry otherwise faces a government crackdown on ads
for beer and other adult products.
But setting reliable guidelines for such ads remains
tricky. TV executives argue that Nielsen ratings aren't
reliable measures of kid viewership--even though the ratings
are the TV industry's gold standard for gauging the cost of
ad time. Says John Popkowski, executive vice president in
charge of ad sales at MTV Networks: ``If you pick one show on
an isolated night you might find one that's an aberration
statistically,'' since cable channels' viewership is
sometimes relatively small.
On the E! Channel, for instance, Miller Brewing ran a
Foster's ad on Sept. 2, just before 7:30 p.m., during the
show ``Melrose Place.'' That night, 41% of the show's
audience was under 21, according to Nielsen. But David T.
Cassaro, senior vice president in charge of ad sales for E!
Entertainment Television, says that from July 1 to Sept. 29
between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., only about 28% of E!
Entertainment's audience was under 21. Overall, Mr. Cassaro
adds, only 19% of E! Entertainment's total audience isn't old
enough to drink.
``With networks like BET the numbers are so small that they
jump all over the place,'' adds John Goldman, a spokesman for
Adolph Coors. ``You take as much care as you can but the
programming changes often.'' Mr. Goldman says that in the
third quarter, the over-21 audience reached by BET between 7
p.m. and 8 p.m. ranged from 80% to 43%.
Mr. Goldman adds that Coors doesn't buy MTV as a matter of
company policy. ``We want to avoid any misperception that
we're aiming at an underage audience.''
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, looking at another chart to my left, this
chart demonstrates competitive media reporting estimates that the
alcoholic beverage industry spent more than $1 billion on alcohol
advertising in 1995.
In contrast, in 1995, the Federal investment in the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was a mere $189.8 million for
alcohol research. Does the industry expect us to believe that it would
spend this huge amount of money--$1.1 billion--if it were not getting
something for that money? Some may argue that this legislation would
adversely affect the advertising industry by forcing producers of
alcoholic beverages to eliminate their advertising expenditure.
Poppycock. I do not believe that this would be the case.
Alcoholic beverage producers spend large amounts of money to
advertise their products because it encourages people to consume their
product and it, therefore, increases sales. Eliminating the advertising
deduction will not eliminate the fundamental business practice. By
making these advertisements less profitable, this amendment may reduce
the overall amount of alcohol advertising in our society. However, let
there be no doubt that the alcohol ads will keep on running. You
[[Page
S6445]]
can bet your bottom dollar on that. They will. The difference, however,
will be that the American taxpayer will no longer be subsidizing this
activity and that the money will go, instead, to getting the other side
of the alcohol story out. That is what we need to start doing. We need
to start now getting the other side of the alcohol story out. It is
perhaps not the most popular thing politically to attempt to do here,
but it needs to be done.
This amendment is all the more necessary because, last year, the
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States decided to reject its
self-imposed ban on advertising hard liquor on television and radio. I
decried this decision by the Distilled Spirits Council because it is a
step backward at a time when our Nation is working to curb alcohol
abuse. Now hard liquor advertisements will be flowing over the
airwaves. This is not the direction in which our Nation should be
moving.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the elimination of the
tax deduction would result in $2.9 billion in savings over 5 years. My
amendment targets the savings from the elimination of the disallowance
to programs to prevent alcohol abuse among our Nation's young people
and to educate children about alcohol. The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration would be given increased funds to
supplement programs to prevent the use of alcohol among young people
and to fund a media campaign designed to counteract the constant
bombardment to which our children are subjected daily by alcohol
advertisements. It is important to give our children information about
the risks associated with the consumption of alcohol. We should not sit
idly by and leave unchallenged the messages of alcoholic beverage
advertisements that only good things happen to those who drink alcohol.
This amendment will also direct funding to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to carry out a comprehensive strategy to prevent
alcohol-related disease and disability. The CDC would be given
authority to enhance and expand fetal alcohol syndrome prevention
activities throughout the Nation. According to the NIAAA, fetal alcohol
syndrome is estimated to affect from one to three children out of every
1,000 live births.
To address the distressing problem of alcohol-impaired driving, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's alcohol-impaired
driving incentive grant program, previously known as section 410, would
receive additional funding. Funding is also made available to NTSA to
launch a media campaign about the perils of driving under the
influence.
The Indian Health Service will receive funding for its alcohol abuse
programs to address the issue of alcohol abuse, which has such a
devastating effect on the first Americans. I don't refer to them as
native Americans. I don't refer to them as native Americans. I am a
native American. If I am not a native American, of what country am I a
native? I refer to them as the original Americans, or the first
Americans.
The harm that alcoholic beverages cause our Nation is not a second-
rate hangover, but a serious affliction that kills more than 100,000
people each year. By adopting this amendment, we would be making a
positive effort to improve the health of our Nation, particularly of
our children, and to send a sober message to those who are capitalizing
on profits generated by recklessly advertising alcoholic beverages
through far-reaching and seductive means, such as television.
We should act in the best interests of the American people and
announce ``last call'' to those who have been receiving tax breaks for
peddling booze, take a step in the right direction and begin to repair
some of the damage brought by alcohol in this country. Let us begin by
putting a cork in the tax loophole that has left American taxpayers
picking up the tab for the alcohol industry.
Now, Mr. President, I am very well aware that a point of order will
be made, or can be made. I am well aware of that. But I think the
debate has to start at some point. I think that point is now. We hear a
great deal about tobacco and we hear a great deal about children, about
children's health. I hope those who support those programs and talk
much about them would support this effort. We are talking here about
children's health. We are talking here about something that kills
100,000 people every year. I am not seeking to ban alcohol. I am not
seeking to regulate alcohol. I am simply seeking to end the
subsidization by the taxpayers of this country of alcohol.
Think about it. Think about it on your way home tonight as you drive
out the George Washington Parkway and see someone in front of you
wobbling from one side of the road to the other. Think again. Suppose
your wife is up at Tyson's Corner getting ready to drive home with the
children and that same fellow who was in front of your car wobbling may
kill your wife and your children.
So let's start talking about it. Let's start airing the subject here.
Let's stop putting it behind the curtain, putting it under the rug,
saying it is taboo. It is not. It is not taboo. Think about our
children, our grandchildren. This is the product that kills other
people. Tobacco may kill me. Tobacco may kill the individual who smokes
it. But alcohol may not kill the person who imbibes; it may kill the
innocent--the driver in the other car.
So I hope that Senators will support my amendment. As I say, I am
sure that there is a process or a motion available, but I am accustomed
to those things. I say let the Senate work its will.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance
Committee for yielding me a few moments. I listened very carefully to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia and to his observations
about the dangers of drinking and driving, with which I completely
concur.
Of course, representing Kentucky, as my friend from West Virginia
knows, not only do we have 60,000 tobacco growers, which is, of course,
the subject of a number of amendments that may come on this bill; we
are also the home of bourbon. If this kind of whiskey is not made in
Kentucky, it cannot be called bourbon. Let me suggest that there are no
industries--and I checked with the Finance Committee staff--that have
been singled out by law and, as a result of being singled out, are not
allowed to deduct their expenses for advertising. So this would be a
first.
To begin with, as a matter of tax policy, certain kinds of legal
industries are not allowed to deduct their advertising, and others are.
There is also--while we are thinking of both cigarettes and alcohol--
another important distinction. There is no argument that misuse of
alcohol is a problem in this country. As a Senator from a tobacco-
producing State, I never make the argument that smoking cigarettes is
good for you. Obviously, it isn't. But there are many in the medical
profession who would say that the consumption of alcohol, if used
properly--properly--is actually good for you. I am not a physician, I
can't make that argument, but there is a growing argument being made by
many in the medical community that a certain amount of alcohol,
properly used, is actually good for you health, not bad for your
health.
So we have here a legal product, Mr. President, which, arguably, if
properly used, might actually be good for you, which the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, I gather, is saying when misused, of
course, is clearly a terrible thing and a disaster not only for the
person misusing it, but for others who may be affected by that, and
that because a product may be misused, the Government should step in
and say: Your advertising is not allowed.
Regardless of how you may feel about this----
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. For a correction only. My amendment does not say your
advertising will not be allowed. I am not saying that at all. The
alcohol industry may continue to advertise. I am just saying, let's
stop the subsidization of that advertising, the subsidization by the
taxpayers.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator. I think I did understand his
[[Page
S6446]]
amendment to disallow a deductibility for advertising, which would make
this the only industry of which the Finance Committee is aware where
such deductibility would be disallowed.
Aside from my home State and the product, which, if properly used,
might actually be good for you, I wonder if my friend from West
Virginia doesn't share my concern that once we go in this direction, we
might find other activities that some may find offensive being subject
to the same kinds of efforts to disallow deductibility for certain
kinds of business expenses.
I think, for example, West Virginia and Kentucky used to trade back
and forth in terms of coal production. One year West Virginia would be
first; the next year Kentucky would be the first. Alas, neither are
first anymore. Wyoming is. But there are many Americans who think, as a
result of the burning of coal, that the area is polluted and that, as a
result of that, people contract lung problems. In fact, there is an
initiative by the Clinton administration just announced this week which
the Senator from West Virginia and I both have serious reservations
about designed to cut down on air pollution--so the argument goes--so
there will be less lung disease.
I wonder, if we go down this path of trying to pick out which
industries' deductions for certain kinds of business expenses are to be
allowed or not allowed based upon our judgment about what is harmful to
the public, whether or not somebody might come in and say, ``Well, we
shouldn't allow production costs associated with the mining of coal to
be deductible because, after all, the burning of coal leads to the
pollution of the air, which then leads to lung disease, which then
leads to death.''
I just am concerned that this is a step in the wrong direction. I
understand fully the concerns of the Senator from West Virginia, and I
share them. I think the use of alcohol leads to a great deal of
tragedy.
But I hope we will not single out this legal industry producing a
product, which, if properly used, many people in the medical field feel
is actually good for you, for this kind of selective treatment on
deductibility.
Finally, let me say that I am not an expert on the budget deal. But
it is clear that there is a lot of momentum in this body to hold the
deal together, and this is clearly not part of the budget deal.
I hope that the proposal will not be approved, in all due respect to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia. I hope this would not
become part of the measure before us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say that I fully understand the
economic impact of the tobacco industry on the State of the
distinguished Senator who has just spoken. West Virginia grows good
tobacco crops as well, and the income from those tobacco crops
certainly impact upon many families in many counties of West Virginia.
We are talking about here, though, a product that results in the
maiming and in the killing of people--innocent men, women, and
children.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky mentions the carbon dioxide
emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions and possible implications
of those emissions on health. People who breathe that air may well,
indeed, suffer an adverse impact on their health. But they don't go out
and maim. They don't go out and drive an automobile, lose their proper
judgment, and end up killing innocent people. They do not go home and
abuse their spouses if they smoke cigarettes or if they breathe air
blown from them. They don't go home and abuse their children. They
don't go home and assault and batter the other members of their family.
I am talking about a product that we all know--it is not just this
Senator's opinion. We all know when we read the daily newspapers about
the effects of drinking and driving. We all read the newspapers in the
spring following the graduation exercises at high schools, and we read,
with horror, the stories of a few young people who get into an
automobile and wrap that automobile around a telephone pole and they
are all killed or maimed--maimed for life.
That is what we are talking about. I am not talking about singling
out an industry. I am talking about an industry that creates a product
that is hurtful--not just hurtful to the person who uses it, but
endangers, as I said already, the lives of others. We all know that.
But I do appreciate the fact that the Senator is from Kentucky, and I
respect him for that, and I respect his viewpoint and count him and his
fellow Kentuckians as good neighbors.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. How much time would the Senator from Montana like?
Mr. BURNS. Probably no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Delaware.
Mr. President, no one on this floor makes his case with such passion
as my friend from West Virginia. We have a couple of things in common
that we will not go into here. But I also know from where he comes. And
when you start talking about this issue of singling out something, then
we have to look at probably the real facts.
First, there is the presumption in this amendment that somehow the
advertising is evil or bad, or that it wreaks health problems on the
American people. There is no question in anybody's mind across this
land that the abuse of alcohol is one of our greatest problems--no
doubt. Yet, there is no scientific evidence that would even suggest the
casual relationship between advertising and abuse.
In order to get to the root of the problem of alcoholism and all of
the problems that it brings, study after study after study has been
made in the relationship of advertising. In fact, during the 1980's,
when the advertising for alcohol products was increasing, actual
consumption per capita actually was decreasing. So not only does
advertising not impact abuse, it doesn't even impact the overall
consumption.
Singling out a product is not, I don't think, what fair tax law is
about.
So let's be upfront about it, because I am familiar with the
broadcast industry. It has economic impacts on small business. It has
economic impacts. And once we start singling out products, do we start
talking about red meat, eggs, or sugar? Where do we draw the line? The
impact it might have on the national pastime? We could say, ``OK, we
don't need it in the broadcasting industry. We can all pay for pay-per-
view''--the impact on an industry within itself. And the list goes on
and on trying to explain to our constituents why different things
happen and cost more, because there is a decrease in advertising
support in free television. That also brings us our weather, our farm
reports, our news, our emergency conditions. All of these things that
are supported by free over-the-air broadcasts will be impacted if this
amendment is successful.
The industry has taken steps to limit or try to curb the abuse that
alcohol has on a person or individual. There is no doubt about it. And
in some areas some would say it is even working.
I know that all of us want a tax cut. All of us want a balanced
budget. But to single out and start limiting an ad tax or deductibility
for legal products is not the right approach. It is not the right
approach--not on a legal product.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this. It is unwarranted. I think it
is unwise. And I am not real sure, it might have some constitutional
overtones because advertising is still freedom of speech. It cannot be
treated differently than any other form.
The Senator from West Virginia makes a point. It is the abuse of the
product. The advertising has very little to do with the abuse of the
product.
Thank you, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator talks about red meat, eggs, and
sugar. The Honorable Senator is my friend. Who ever heard of anybody
eating red meat, eggs, and sugar, and getting out in the car and having
that car plunge into a tree, weave all across the road, and kill and
maim other people? Red meat doesn't cause an individual to drive drunk
and get in the car and
[[Page
S6447]]
drive all over the highway. Eggs and sugar don't do that in their form
as eggs and sugar, in their natural form.
The Senator also, I think, made reference to the Federal Trade
Commission in 1985, which found ``no reliable basis to conclude that
alcohol advertising significantly affects consumption, let alone
abuse.'' Well, let's see what the conclusions are from the effects of
the mass media on the use and abuse of alcohol.
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Research Monograph-28, 1995:
[The] preponderance of the evidence indicates that alcohol
advertising stimulates higher consumption of alcohol by both
adults and adolescents . . . It appears to be a contributing
factor that increases drinking to a modest degree rather than
being a major determinant. (Dr. Charles Adkins, Department of
Communications, Michigan State University.)
Now I shall quote Dr. Sally Casswell, Alcohol and Public Health
Research Unit, School of Medicine, University of Aukland:
[T]here is sufficient evidence to say that alcohol
advertising is likely to be a contributing factor to overall
consumption and other alcohol-related problems in the long
term.
Now quoting Dr. Joel Grube, Prevention Research Center:
[A]lcohol advertising can influence children, particularly
their beliefs about alcohol and, indirectly, their intentions
to drink as adults.
Finally, let me quote Dr. Esther Thorson, School of Journalism,
University of Missouri:
If research were designed to take account of what the
advertiser is trying to do and if it examined the
relationship between the specific structure of the message
and the individual or group for whom that message is
targeted, investigators probably would find ``whopping
effects''.
Mr. President, I appreciate the views that have been expressed by my
friend from Montana and, as I have already indicated, by my friend from
Kentucky. I appreciate their views, and I respect their views.
Mr. President, I don't think there should be any doubts in the minds
of any Senator or any person who is viewing this Chamber via that
electronic eye that the drinking of alcohol affects the judgment of
people, and that there are many other costs that are not tangible, that
cannot be translated into dollars and cents-- the cost of lost
productivity, the cost of broken homes, the cost of children abused.
And I could go on.
I have made my case, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has the remaining
time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I
make the point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to
the provisions of the reconciliation measure and I therefore raise a
point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the
Budget Act.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask
for the yeas and nays on my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an hour equally divided on the
motion.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
Vote on Motion to Waive the Budget Act
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts],
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 12, nays 86, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]
YEAS--12
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
DeWine
Glenn
Hatch
Helms
Kennedy
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Thurmond
Wellstone
NAYS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
(Senate - June 26, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S6440-S6473]
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 537
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-four minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. And the opposition has 44 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. So we have used 16. Actually, unless Senator Lautenberg
has anything further to say, I believe I have stated the case for the
Domenici-Lautenberg amendment No. 537. Does Senator Gramm want to offer
an amendment to the amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. I think Senator Biden is going to offer an amendment
first, and after his amendment is disposed of, then I will have an
amendment, as will several other people.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wonder if the Democratic manager would
yield me time off the bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has time on his amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. Can I get time in my own right?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by Senator Domenici and
Senator Roth.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. DOMENICI. We yielded back our time.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 539 to Amendment No. 537
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr.
Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 539 to amendment No.
537.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 43 of the amendment, strike lines 14 through 21 and
insert the following:
``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $537,677,000,000 in
new budget authority and $558,460,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,355,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,936,000,000 in
outlays;
``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $546,619,000,000 in
new budget authority and $556,314,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,455,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,485,000,000 in
outlays;
as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.
(2) Transfers into the fund.--On the first day of the
following fiscal years, the following amounts shall be
transferred from the general fund to the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund--
(A) for fiscal year 2001, $4,355,000,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2002, $4,455,000,000.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for an inquiry for
a moment?
Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers of this bill tell us how many second-
degree amendments there are to this process?
I assume we are on the second-degree amendment process; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers tell us how many second-degree
amendments they anticipate on this?
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not know.
Mr. GRAMM. I believe there will be four. Senator Biden will offer one
for himself. Once that is adopted, I will offer a second-degree
amendment. And
[[Page
S6441]]
then we have two other Senators who want to offer second-degree
amendments, so they will be seriatim.
Mr. BUMPERS. Then there are five, because I have one also. I am just
wondering if we could get some kind of sequence so we know how they are
going to be offered so we do not spend the rest of our lives waiting.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, you can be assured there will be
four ahead of you, if you would like to be fifth.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you do yours last?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I said.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the second-degree amendment I have at the
desk is very simple and straightforward. The Senator from New Mexico is
introducing a budget process amendment, and what the amendment of
Senator Gramm and myself does is, quite frankly, it merely extends the
crime law trust fund for the extension of this agreement.
I am told by the staffs of the majority and minority that in the
budget process agreement that was agreed to with the administration,
there is a line on page 90 of the concurrent resolution of the budget
fiscal year 1998. On page 90, it says, ``Retain current law on separate
crime caps at levels shown in the agreement tables.''
All we are doing here is extending the crime law trust fund. We are
not making judgments on how that will be disbursed within the trust
fund. We are just extending the trust fund to the extent of this
agreement. And, Madam President, as I offer this amendment, we are
maintaining a commitment to one of the few specific ways the
reconciliation package can, by virtue of the type of legislation it is,
maintain a commitment.
The commitment we made was to fight violent crime. And, ironically,
it is working. It is working. And so for us now to extend the violent
crime trust fund, let it expire 2 years before this budget agreement
expires, means we are going to be back at it again in the year 2000 or
before, fighting over something we now know works.
So I realize we can take a long time debating this. But the bottom
line is this: We are not suggesting, as the Senator from New Mexico
knows, how this trust fund money within the caps will be disbursed;
merely that we have the continuation of the trust fund as long as the
budget agreement to the year 2002.
Of all the priorities addressed in this budget package, I believe
that none is more important than continuing our fight against violent
crime and violence against women.
The amendment I am offering, along with Senator Gramm seeks to
maintain this commitment in one of the few specific ways this
reconciliation package can--by virtue of the type of legislation this
is--maintain this commitment. That is by extending the violent crime
control trust fund will continue through the end of this budget
resolution, fiscal year 2002.
Senator Byrd, more than anyone, deserves credit for the crime law
trust fund. Senator Byrd worked to develop an idea that was simple as
it was profound--as he called on us to use the savings from the
reductions in the Federal work force of 272,000 employees to fund one
of the Nation's most urgent priorities: fighting the scourge of violent
crime.
Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to
``put our money where our mouth was.'' Too often, this Senate has voted
to send significant aid to State and local law enforcement--but, when
it came time to write the check, we did not find nearly the dollars we
promised.
Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, and
other Senators passed the violent crime control trust fund in the
Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden crime law.
Since then, the dollars from the crime law trust fund have: Helped
add more than 60,000 community police officers to our streets; helped
shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children; focussed
law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims service providers on
providing immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends to
love them; forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing
and treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain
free on probation with no supervision and no accountability;
constructed thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and
brought unprecedented resources to defending our Southwest border--
putting us on the path to literally double the number of Federal border
agents over just a 5-year period.
The results of this effort are already taking hold: According to the
FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is down and down
significantly--leaving our nation with its lowest murder rate since
1971; the lowest violent crime total since 1990; and the lowest murder
rate for wives, ex-wives, and girlfriends at the hands of their
intimates to an 18-year low.
In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by
being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our ``money where our
mouths'' are--we have actually cut violent crime.
Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant
against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Byrd-Gramm amendment before the
Senate offers one modest step toward meeting that challenge:
By assuring that the commitment to fighting crime and violence
against women will continue for the full duration of this budget
resolution.
By assuring that the violent crime control trust fund will continue--
in its current form which provides additional Federal assistance
without adding 1 cent to the deficit--through 2002.
The Biden-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: Stand up
for cops--or don't; stand up for the fight against violence against
women--or don't; and stand up for increased border enforcement--or
don't.
Every Member of this Senate is against violence crime--we way that in
speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up with
words with the only thing that we can actually do for the cop walking
the beat, the battered woman, the victim of crime--provide the dollars
that help give them the tools to fight violent criminals, standup to
their abuser, and restore at least some small piece of the dignity
taken from them at the hands of a violent criminal.
Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not
continue the trust fund, we will not be able to continue such proven,
valuable efforts as the violence against women law. Nothing we can do
today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence
Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000.
But, mark my words, if the trust fund ends, the efforts to provide
shelter, help victims, and get tough on the abusers and barterers will
wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a
clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with
it, the historic effort undertaken by the Violence Against Women Act
that says by word, deed, and dollar that the Federal Government stands
with women and against the misguided notion that ``domestic'' violence
is a man's ``right'' and ``not really a crime.''
I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Gramm amendment.
At the appropriate time--and I am not quite sure yet when is
appropriate--I will ask for the yeas and nays on this.
But make no mistake about it, what we are voting on here is whether
or not we are going to commit now to the extension of the trust fund,
the violent crime trust fund, for the extent of this agreement. That is
all this does. That is everything it does, but that is all it does.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 537, Withdrawn
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 537) was withdrawn.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia is recognized.
[[Page
S6442]]
Amendment No. 540
(Purpose: To eliminate tax deductions for advertising and promotion
expenditures relating to alcoholic beverages and to increase funding
for programs that educate and prevent the abuse of alcohol among our
Nation's youth)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 540.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE --ALCOHOL ADVERTISING RESPONSIBILITY ACT
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Alcohol Advertising
Responsibility Act''.
SEC. 02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) alcohol is used by more Americans than any other drug;
(2) it is estimated that the costs to society from
alcoholism and alcohol abuse were approximately
$100,000,000,000 in 1990 alone.
(3) in 1995, the alcoholic beverage industry spent
$1,040,300,000 on advertising, while the National Institute
for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was funded at only
$181,445,000;
(4) more than 100,000 deaths each year in the United States
result from alcohol-related causes;
(5) 41.3 percent of all traffic facilities in 1995, or
17,274 deaths, were alcohol related;
(6) in addition to severe health consequences, alcohol
misuse is involved in approximately 30 percent of all
suicides, 50 percent of homicides, 68 percent of manslaughter
cases, 52 percent of rapes and other sexual assaults, 48
percent of robberies, 62 percent of assaults, and 49 percent
of all other violent crimes;
(7) approximately 30 percent of all accidental deaths are
attributable to alcohol abuse;
(8) alcohol advertising may influence children's
perceptions toward an inclinations to consume alcoholic
beverages;
(9) 26 percent of eighth graders, 40 percent of tenth
graders, and 51 percent of twelfth graders report having used
alcohol in the past month; and
(10) college presidents nationwide view alcohol abuse as
their paramount campus-life problem.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to repeal the existing tax subsidization for expenses
incurred to promote the consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(2) to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising to which
our Nation's youth are exposed; and
(3) to increase funding for those programs that educate and
prevent the abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
SEC. 03. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION EXPENSES RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES.
(a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1
(relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding at
the end of the following:
SEC. 280I. ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION EXPENDITURES RELATING TO
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
``(a) In General.--No deduction otherwise allowable under
this chapter shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred
to advertise or promote by any means any alcoholic beverage.
``(b) Alcoholic Beverage.--For purposes of this section,
the term `alcoholic beverage' means any item which is subject
to tax under subpart A, C, or D of part I of subchapter A of
chapter 51 (relating to taxes on distilled spirits, wines,
and beer).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part
IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 280I. Advertising and promotion expenditures relating to
alcoholic beverages.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31 of the year in which this Act is
enacted.
SEC. 04. ALCOHOL ABUSE EDUCATION AND PREVENTION AMONG YOUTH.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), there shall be
transferred, from funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the entities described in subsection (b)
amounts to the extent specified under subsection (b).
(b) Education and Prevention Programs.--
(1) Substance abuse and mental health services
administration.--The amounts specified in this subsection
shall be:
(A) In general.--With respect to the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, $120,000.000 for
fiscal year 1998, $180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, and $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to
supplement substance abuse prevention activities authorized
under section 501 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290aa).
(B) Use of funds.--Amounts provided to the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration under subparagraph
(A) shall be used directly or through grants and cooperative
agreements to carry out activities to prevent the use of
alcohol among youth, including the development and
distribution of public service announcements.
(2) Centers for disease control and prevention.--
(A) In general.--With respect to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out a
comprehensive strategy to prevent alcohol-related disease and
disability.
(A) Required uses.--In carrying out the comprehensive
strategy under subparagraph (A), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall--
(i) enhance and expand State-based and national
surveillance activities to monitor the scope of alcohol use
among the youth of the United States;
(ii) enhance comprehensive school-based health programs
that focus on alcohol use prevention strategies;
(iii) develop and distribute commercial advertising to
prevent alcohol abuse among youth; and
(iv) enhance and expand Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention
activities throughout the United States.
(3) National highway traffic safety administration.--With
respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and in addition to any funds authorized from
the Highway Trust Fund, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out programs
under sections 402, 403, and 410 of title 23, United States
Code, and to develop and implement a paid media campaign
targeting high-risk youth populations to improve the balance
of media messages related to alcohol impaired driving.
(4) Indian health service.--With respect to the Indian
Health Service, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $60,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $70,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, to supplement the programs that such Service is
authorized to carry out pursuant to titles II and III of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et seq., 241 et
seq.).
(c) Authority to Transfer Funds.--The Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on appropriations of the Senate, acting through
appropriations Acts, may transfer the amount specified under
subsection (b) in each fiscal year among the entities
referred to in such subsection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Chair indulge me momentarily?
I protect my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia will be
protected in his right to the floor.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, last Friday negotiators from the tobacco industry and
State attorneys general announced the landmark agreement addressing the
impact of tobacco use on our Nation, particularly our young people.
Although this important deal will likely face many obstacles and has a
long way to go toward implementation, it is an unprecedented first step
toward curbing tobacco use and paying for the harm caused by that use.
This process has caused our Nation to focus on an important public
health danger and is an important step in working toward a meaningful
solution.
While I applaud the action being taken to address the pernicious
health effects of tobacco, I am concerned that its evil twin, which
also has a staggering impact on our Nation, is to a large measure being
ignored.
Mr. President, the cost of alcohol abuse to our country is
staggering. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health, alcohol is used by
more Americans than any other drug. And the results are devastating.
The flood tide of alcohol causes more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism imposes
approximately $100 billion in cost each year on society. Links have
been found between alcohol abuse and cirrhosis of the liver, as well as
other harmful health conditions. Alcohol is a contributing factor in
assaults, murders and other violent crimes, including fatal drinking
and driving accidents.
At the bottom of every empty bottle is another family in crisis,
another career being destroyed, or another dream washed away.
[[Page
S6443]]
The amendment I am offering today would eliminate the tax deduction
for alcoholic beverage advertising expenditures. In addition, it would
increase funding for a number of programs that educate and prevent the
abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
What should be of the utmost of our concern in our Nation is the
impact of alcohol on our children and our grandchildren.
I am introducing this amendment on behalf of the children who died
because they were drinking and driving, and on behalf of the millions
of children who are drinking right now without the full appreciation of
what they are doing to themselves and what they could potentially do to
others.
Alcohol is the drug of choice among teenagers.
Mr. President, more specifically, and looking at this chart compiled
by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, the use of
alcohol by our Nation's youth is highlighted among different age
groups, including children between the ages of 12 and 17. Among
children between the ages of 16 and 17, 69.3 percent have at one point
in their lifetimes experimented with alcohol.
Clearly, as made evident by these alarming statistics, alcohol is the
leading problem among teenagers--not marijuana, not cocaine.
In the last month, approximately 8 percent of the Nation's eighth
graders have been drunk--have been drunk. We are talking about eighth
graders, 13 years old--13-year-olds. I never heard of such a thing when
I was in my teens, as a young man, or in my middle age. We are talking
about eighth graders, 13-year-olds.
Every State has a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals
under the age of 21. How is it then that two out of every three
teenagers who drink report that they can buy their own alcoholic
beverages?
The youth of this country, who at the delicate age of 15 should be
enriching their minds with schoolwork, improving their bodies with
exercise, and discovering the wonders of life through God and family
values, instead are experimenting and endangering themselves with
booze. Junior and senior high school students drink 35 percent of all
wine coolers and consume 1.1 billion cans of beer a year. I know,
because I pick some of them up off my lawn--I am talking about the beer
cans, not the young people.
I will repeat what is common knowledge to us all: Every State has a
law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals under the age of 21.
Alcohol is a factor in the three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-
year-olds--the three leading causes--accidents, homicides, suicide. In
approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of youth suicides, alcohol is
involved.
Links have been shown between alcohol use and teen pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases. Eighty percent of the teenagers do not
know that a can of beer has the same amount of alcohol as a shot of
whiskey or a glass of wine. By the time they are in college, 40 percent
have binged on alcohol during the previous 2 weeks.
In 1994, 8.9 percent--almost 95,000--of the clients admitted to
alcohol treatment programs that received at least part of their funding
from the State were under the age of 21, including over 1,000 under the
age of 12. And 31.9 percent of youth under the age of 18 in long-term
State-operated juvenile institutions were under the influence of
alcohol at the time of their arrest.
While our Nation's education system needs repair, it seems that our
society has been successful in teaching these kids something. The
problem is that what we have taught them is deadly.
Drinking impairs one's judgment. We all know that. Nobody will
dispute that. Alcohol mixed with teenage driving is a lethal, a lethal
combination. We read about it all the time in the Washington Post, the
Washington Times, and every newspaper in the land. In 1995, there were
1,666 alcohol-related fatalities of children between the ages of 15 and
19. The total number of alcohol-related fatalities that year was
17,274. Mr. President, for many years I have taken the opportunity,
when addressing groups of young West Virginians, to warn them about the
dangers of alcohol. I supported legislative efforts to discourage
people, particularly young people, from drinking any alcohol. For
example, 2 years ago I authored an amendment that requires States to
pass the zero-tolerance laws that will make it illegal for persons
under the age of 21 to drive a motor vehicle if they have a blood
alcohol level greater than .02 percent. This legislation not only helps
to save lives but it also sends a message to our Nation's youth that
drinking and driving is wrong, that it is a violation of the law, and
that it will be appropriately punished. Unfortunately and tragically,
we all know someone, whether it is a family member or a friend or an
acquaintance, whose life has been cut short by a drunk driver. These
are senseless losses that are devastating to the families and the
friends who are left behind.
As if the aforementioned statistics about youth alcohol use and the
results of that use are not frightening enough, young people who
consume alcohol are more likely to use other drugs.
On the chart to my left, Senators will note these statistics,
compiled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, statistics which show that 37.5 percent of young
people who have consumed alcohol have used some other illicit drug,
versus only 5 percent of young people who have never consumed alcohol;
26.7 percent of those who have consumed alcohol have tried marijuana,
versus 1.2 percent of those who have never consumed alcohol; 5 percent
of youths who have partaken of alcohol have tried cocaine, while only
0.1 of 1 percent of those who do not drink have used cocaine. So it is
not a question that is even debatable that youths who drink alcohol are
more likely to use other drugs.
Mr. President, as the aforementioned facts and figures indicate,
alcohol exacts a tremendous cost on our society. These costs are not
always clear-cut. For example, consider the costs of the lost
productivity of a person showing up at work on a Monday morning with a
hangover and inadequately performing his or her job, perhaps making a
mistake that results in injury. How many of us would like to ride in
the automobile that was made on such a Monday morning? How many of us
would like to fly on the airplane whose maintenance man or woman, whose
mechanic was on a binge the previous day? While there is no way to
accurately gauge the enormous costs that alcohol exacts upon our
society, there can be no doubt that the pleasures of alcohol
consumption exacts a considerable price on our Nation.
The purpose of the amendment that I introduce today is simple. My
proposal would simply tell all producers of alcoholic beverages that
they can no longer deduct the costs of their advertising expenditures
on those products from their Federal income tax liability. While
advertising is generally deductible as a legitimate business expense, I
believe there exists a moral, legitimate reason to create an exception
for producers of alcoholic beverages whose products exact such
considerable costs on our society. My proposal would not make illegal
any advertising of alcoholic beverages. It does not say that any
advertising of alcoholic beverages is unconstitutional. It does not
attempt to ban such advertisements, nor would it create any additional
Federal bureaucracy to regulate alcohol products. Rather, it would
simply end the American taxpayers' subsidization of alcohol advertising
by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include a disallowance
of any deduction for any amount paid or incurred to advertise or
promote by any means any alcoholic beverage. This is not a sin tax. It
is, rather, an end to the sin subsidy that has left American taxpayers
footing the bill for both alcohol advertising and the high health care
costs inflicted on society by alcohol consumption. Now there may be
those who argue that it is wrong to single out alcohol advertising
expenses. I counter that with the question: What other product, with
the possible exception of tobacco, costs society $100 billion each
year? What other product results in more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States? The statistics are indeed staggering.
Mr. President, in these complicated times, the innocence of youth,
the innocence of youth is dashed away at an early age by the irreverent
messages spewing from the television set. Profanity and violence on
television programming are interrupted only by the aggressive
commercials seeking to influence viewers in the name of profit.
[[Page
S6444]]
Our impressionable youth, pressured by the self-indulgent motives of
revenue-hungry corporations are bombarded by countless images
glorifying an unrealistic view of reality, often insincerely portraying
alcoholic beverages as an ingredient for ideal lifestyles. Our children
are besieged with the message that if you drink you will attract
beautiful women, if you drink you will be popular, if you drink you
will excel at sports. Are these the images of reality or do they leave
out something important? Do they leave out some important facts about
alcohol consumption? What about the negative and all too prevalent
results of alcohol consumption--the hangovers that result in lost
productivity, the tragic deaths, the injuries caused by a drunk behind
the wheel, the hospital visits for alcohol poisoning, the horrible
effects of cirrhosis of the liver and the families torn apart by
alcohol abuse.
The industry indicates that their advertisements do not target young
people, although this is debatable. A January Wall Street Journal
article, detailing a competitive media reporting survey commissioned by
the Journal, found that beer advertisements are often aired during
programs that are watched by large numbers of adolescents. The findings
of this survey are extremely disturbing. In one example, referenced in
the article, a beer ad ran during the airing of a popular cartoon show
on the MTV station of which 69 percent of the audience was comprised of
children under the age of 21.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Wall Street Journal article.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal]
Are Beer Ads on Beavis and Butt-Head Aimed at Kids?
(By Sally Beatty)
When a commercial for Schlitz Malt Liquor appeared last
year on MTV during ``My So-Called Life,'' a show about
teenage girls, beer maker Stroh called the airing an
aberration.
Even as the ad helped launch a Federal Trade Commission
probe into alcohol advertising to children, Stroh said it had
a longtime policy of aiming ads only at adults of legal
drinking age; MTV said the ad ran by mistake because of a
last-minute programming switch.
In fact, the commercial was hardly an isolated event.
Despite the beer industry's insistence that it doesn't target
kids, its commercials regularly wash over underage viewers. A
survey by Competitive Media Reporting for the Wall Street
Journal showed that during one arbitrarily chosen week--the
first week of September--youths under the drinking age made
up the majority of the audience for beer commercials on
several occasions.
For instance, Molson beer was advertised during a 10 p.m.
episode of ``Beavis & Butt-Head,'' the popular MTV cartoon
series about two obnoxious teens. Fully 69% of all the
episode's viewers that night were under 21--the legal
drinking age in all 50 states--according to Nielsen Media
Research's widely used ratings data. Molson, which is
marketed in the U.S. by Philip Morris's Miller Brewing, also
advertised on MTV's racy youth dating show, ``Singled Out,''
just after 7 p.m., when 52% of the audience was under 21. And
Stroh advertised Schlitz Malt Liquor during MTV's prime-time
music-video show at 8:30 p.m., when 56% of the audience was
under 21.
That same week, Adolph Coors ran two ads on the Black
Entertainment Television channel after 8 p.m., when 65% of
the audience wasn't old enough to drink. Also that week,
Anheuser-Busch ran an ad for its Budweiser brand just
after 8:30 p.m. on BET during music-video programming,
when 70% of the audience was under 21.
These commercials look like clear violations of the chief
beer industry trade group's own guidelines for TV ads. ``Beer
advertising . . . should not be placed in magazines,
newspapers, television programs, radio programs or other
media where most of the audience is reasonably expected to be
below the legal purchase age,'' states the Beer Institute's
published ``advertising and marketing guidelines.'' The
industry is pointing to these guidelines in an aggressive
lobbying effort against proposed new federal restrictions of
beer and liquor advertising.
The number of ads reaching kids is ``very troubling,'' says
Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer
protection and a top official involved with its ongoing probe
into alcohol marketing to kids on television. Her bureau
enforces laws banning unfair or deceptive ad practices,
including a statute that says it's unfair to aim ads at
people who aren't legally able to buy the products. A company
that runs afoul of such laws can face fines, orders to pull
ads and regular FTC screening of future advertising.
Ms. Bernstein won't comment on the FTC's probe. However,
she says that in any investigation, the commission would look
first at whether alcohol advertisers are ``following their
own guidelines.'' For example, ``Is it OK if [the percentage
of underage viewers] gets up to 70% once in a while? I don't
think it's OK.'' And she says the commission would ``never
act on just one episode or one mistake--we would act on the
pattern.''
Brewers and TV executives insist that it doesn't make sense
to evaluate beer ads on a single night's audience. ``Any
attempt to analyze the beer industry's media-buying practices
by examining only selected broadcast media buys during a one-
week period is misleading and simplistic,'' said Miller
Brewing in a statement responding to questions about the
survey. Miller added that more than 75 percent of the
broadcast audience reached by the programming it buys is over
21.
At Stroh, officials argue that there's a difference between
putting ads in front of kids and targeting them explicitly.
``We understand that when an ad is run it's going to be seen
by some people who are under 21 years of age, whether it's a
billboard, in a magazine or on TV,'' says Stroh general
counsel George Kuehn. ``That does not mean we target the
group that is under 21.''
Whether the beer industry advertises to kids became a hotly
debated question after the liquor industry last year
abandoned its longstanding guidelines banning TV ads. That
sparked a national uproar over exposing kids to alcohol ads--
putting the beer industry in the spotlight.
In Congress, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D., Mass.) has
introduced legislation that would ban most forms of alcohol
advertising from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., require health warnings
on print, radio and TV ads and require alcohol ads that run
in publication with a 15% or more youth readership to appear
only in black-and-white text.
There are already signs that brewers and Madison Avenue are
worried about the threat of regulation of beer ads. No. 1
brewer Anheuser-Busch revealed last month that it quietly
pulled all its beer advertising from MTV, saying it hoped to
``ensure that our intent is not misperceived in today's
climate.'' The Madison Avenue's main trade group, the
American Association of Advertising Agencies, recently
abandoned its longtime stand against restrictions on ads
for products like alcohol and cigarettes. It proposed
setting up a new self-regulation committee, warning that
the industry otherwise faces a government crackdown on ads
for beer and other adult products.
But setting reliable guidelines for such ads remains
tricky. TV executives argue that Nielsen ratings aren't
reliable measures of kid viewership--even though the ratings
are the TV industry's gold standard for gauging the cost of
ad time. Says John Popkowski, executive vice president in
charge of ad sales at MTV Networks: ``If you pick one show on
an isolated night you might find one that's an aberration
statistically,'' since cable channels' viewership is
sometimes relatively small.
On the E! Channel, for instance, Miller Brewing ran a
Foster's ad on Sept. 2, just before 7:30 p.m., during the
show ``Melrose Place.'' That night, 41% of the show's
audience was under 21, according to Nielsen. But David T.
Cassaro, senior vice president in charge of ad sales for E!
Entertainment Television, says that from July 1 to Sept. 29
between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., only about 28% of E!
Entertainment's audience was under 21. Overall, Mr. Cassaro
adds, only 19% of E! Entertainment's total audience isn't old
enough to drink.
``With networks like BET the numbers are so small that they
jump all over the place,'' adds John Goldman, a spokesman for
Adolph Coors. ``You take as much care as you can but the
programming changes often.'' Mr. Goldman says that in the
third quarter, the over-21 audience reached by BET between 7
p.m. and 8 p.m. ranged from 80% to 43%.
Mr. Goldman adds that Coors doesn't buy MTV as a matter of
company policy. ``We want to avoid any misperception that
we're aiming at an underage audience.''
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, looking at another chart to my left, this
chart demonstrates competitive media reporting estimates that the
alcoholic beverage industry spent more than $1 billion on alcohol
advertising in 1995.
In contrast, in 1995, the Federal investment in the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was a mere $189.8 million for
alcohol research. Does the industry expect us to believe that it would
spend this huge amount of money--$1.1 billion--if it were not getting
something for that money? Some may argue that this legislation would
adversely affect the advertising industry by forcing producers of
alcoholic beverages to eliminate their advertising expenditure.
Poppycock. I do not believe that this would be the case.
Alcoholic beverage producers spend large amounts of money to
advertise their products because it encourages people to consume their
product and it, therefore, increases sales. Eliminating the advertising
deduction will not eliminate the fundamental business practice. By
making these advertisements less profitable, this amendment may reduce
the overall amount of alcohol advertising in our society. However, let
there be no doubt that the alcohol ads will keep on running. You
[[Page
S6445]]
can bet your bottom dollar on that. They will. The difference, however,
will be that the American taxpayer will no longer be subsidizing this
activity and that the money will go, instead, to getting the other side
of the alcohol story out. That is what we need to start doing. We need
to start now getting the other side of the alcohol story out. It is
perhaps not the most popular thing politically to attempt to do here,
but it needs to be done.
This amendment is all the more necessary because, last year, the
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States decided to reject its
self-imposed ban on advertising hard liquor on television and radio. I
decried this decision by the Distilled Spirits Council because it is a
step backward at a time when our Nation is working to curb alcohol
abuse. Now hard liquor advertisements will be flowing over the
airwaves. This is not the direction in which our Nation should be
moving.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the elimination of the
tax deduction would result in $2.9 billion in savings over 5 years. My
amendment targets the savings from the elimination of the disallowance
to programs to prevent alcohol abuse among our Nation's young people
and to educate children about alcohol. The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration would be given increased funds to
supplement programs to prevent the use of alcohol among young people
and to fund a media campaign designed to counteract the constant
bombardment to which our children are subjected daily by alcohol
advertisements. It is important to give our children information about
the risks associated with the consumption of alcohol. We should not sit
idly by and leave unchallenged the messages of alcoholic beverage
advertisements that only good things happen to those who drink alcohol.
This amendment will also direct funding to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to carry out a comprehensive strategy to prevent
alcohol-related disease and disability. The CDC would be given
authority to enhance and expand fetal alcohol syndrome prevention
activities throughout the Nation. According to the NIAAA, fetal alcohol
syndrome is estimated to affect from one to three children out of every
1,000 live births.
To address the distressing problem of alcohol-impaired driving, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's alcohol-impaired
driving incentive grant program, previously known as section 410, would
receive additional funding. Funding is also made available to NTSA to
launch a media campaign about the perils of driving under the
influence.
The Indian Health Service will receive funding for its alcohol abuse
programs to address the issue of alcohol abuse, which has such a
devastating effect on the first Americans. I don't refer to them as
native Americans. I don't refer to them as native Americans. I am a
native American. If I am not a native American, of what country am I a
native? I refer to them as the original Americans, or the first
Americans.
The harm that alcoholic beverages cause our Nation is not a second-
rate hangover, but a serious affliction that kills more than 100,000
people each year. By adopting this amendment, we would be making a
positive effort to improve the health of our Nation, particularly of
our children, and to send a sober message to those who are capitalizing
on profits generated by recklessly advertising alcoholic beverages
through far-reaching and seductive means, such as television.
We should act in the best interests of the American people and
announce ``last call'' to those who have been receiving tax breaks for
peddling booze, take a step in the right direction and begin to repair
some of the damage brought by alcohol in this country. Let us begin by
putting a cork in the tax loophole that has left American taxpayers
picking up the tab for the alcohol industry.
Now, Mr. President, I am very well aware that a point of order will
be made, or can be made. I am well aware of that. But I think the
debate has to start at some point. I think that point is now. We hear a
great deal about tobacco and we hear a great deal about children, about
children's health. I hope those who support those programs and talk
much about them would support this effort. We are talking here about
children's health. We are talking here about something that kills
100,000 people every year. I am not seeking to ban alcohol. I am not
seeking to regulate alcohol. I am simply seeking to end the
subsidization by the taxpayers of this country of alcohol.
Think about it. Think about it on your way home tonight as you drive
out the George Washington Parkway and see someone in front of you
wobbling from one side of the road to the other. Think again. Suppose
your wife is up at Tyson's Corner getting ready to drive home with the
children and that same fellow who was in front of your car wobbling may
kill your wife and your children.
So let's start talking about it. Let's start airing the subject here.
Let's stop putting it behind the curtain, putting it under the rug,
saying it is taboo. It is not. It is not taboo. Think about our
children, our grandchildren. This is the product that kills other
people. Tobacco may kill me. Tobacco may kill the individual who smokes
it. But alcohol may not kill the person who imbibes; it may kill the
innocent--the driver in the other car.
So I hope that Senators will support my amendment. As I say, I am
sure that there is a process or a motion available, but I am accustomed
to those things. I say let the Senate work its will.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance
Committee for yielding me a few moments. I listened very carefully to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia and to his observations
about the dangers of drinking and driving, with which I completely
concur.
Of course, representing Kentucky, as my friend from West Virginia
knows, not only do we have 60,000 tobacco growers, which is, of course,
the subject of a number of amendments that may come on this bill; we
are also the home of bourbon. If this kind of whiskey is not made in
Kentucky, it cannot be called bourbon. Let me suggest that there are no
industries--and I checked with the Finance Committee staff--that have
been singled out by law and, as a result of being singled out, are not
allowed to deduct their expenses for advertising. So this would be a
first.
To begin with, as a matter of tax policy, certain kinds of legal
industries are not allowed to deduct their advertising, and others are.
There is also--while we are thinking of both cigarettes and alcohol--
another important distinction. There is no argument that misuse of
alcohol is a problem in this country. As a Senator from a tobacco-
producing State, I never make the argument that smoking cigarettes is
good for you. Obviously, it isn't. But there are many in the medical
profession who would say that the consumption of alcohol, if used
properly--properly--is actually good for you. I am not a physician, I
can't make that argument, but there is a growing argument being made by
many in the medical community that a certain amount of alcohol,
properly used, is actually good for you health, not bad for your
health.
So we have here a legal product, Mr. President, which, arguably, if
properly used, might actually be good for you, which the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, I gather, is saying when misused, of
course, is clearly a terrible thing and a disaster not only for the
person misusing it, but for others who may be affected by that, and
that because a product may be misused, the Government should step in
and say: Your advertising is not allowed.
Regardless of how you may feel about this----
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. For a correction only. My amendment does not say your
advertising will not be allowed. I am not saying that at all. The
alcohol industry may continue to advertise. I am just saying, let's
stop the subsidization of that advertising, the subsidization by the
taxpayers.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator. I think I did understand his
[[Page
S6446]]
amendment to disallow a deductibility for advertising, which would make
this the only industry of which the Finance Committee is aware where
such deductibility would be disallowed.
Aside from my home State and the product, which, if properly used,
might actually be good for you, I wonder if my friend from West
Virginia doesn't share my concern that once we go in this direction, we
might find other activities that some may find offensive being subject
to the same kinds of efforts to disallow deductibility for certain
kinds of business expenses.
I think, for example, West Virginia and Kentucky used to trade back
and forth in terms of coal production. One year West Virginia would be
first; the next year Kentucky would be the first. Alas, neither are
first anymore. Wyoming is. But there are many Americans who think, as a
result of the burning of coal, that the area is polluted and that, as a
result of that, people contract lung problems. In fact, there is an
initiative by the Clinton administration just announced this week which
the Senator from West Virginia and I both have serious reservations
about designed to cut down on air pollution--so the argument goes--so
there will be less lung disease.
I wonder, if we go down this path of trying to pick out which
industries' deductions for certain kinds of business expenses are to be
allowed or not allowed based upon our judgment about what is harmful to
the public, whether or not somebody might come in and say, ``Well, we
shouldn't allow production costs associated with the mining of coal to
be deductible because, after all, the burning of coal leads to the
pollution of the air, which then leads to lung disease, which then
leads to death.''
I just am concerned that this is a step in the wrong direction. I
understand fully the concerns of the Senator from West Virginia, and I
share them. I think the use of alcohol leads to a great deal of
tragedy.
But I hope we will not single out this legal industry producing a
product, which, if properly used, many people in the medical field feel
is actually good for you, for this kind of selective treatment on
deductibility.
Finally, let me say that I am not an expert on the budget deal. But
it is clear that there is a lot of momentum in this body to hold the
deal together, and this is clearly not part of the budget deal.
I hope that the proposal will not be approved, in all due respect to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia. I hope this would not
become part of the measure before us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say that I fully understand the
economic impact of the tobacco industry on the State of the
distinguished Senator who has just spoken. West Virginia grows good
tobacco crops as well, and the income from those tobacco crops
certainly impact upon many families in many counties of West Virginia.
We are talking about here, though, a product that results in the
maiming and in the killing of people--innocent men, women, and
children.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky mentions the carbon dioxide
emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions and possible implications
of those emissions on health. People who breathe that air may well,
indeed, suffer an adverse impact on their health. But they don't go out
and maim. They don't go out and drive an automobile, lose their proper
judgment, and end up killing innocent people. They do not go home and
abuse their spouses if they smoke cigarettes or if they breathe air
blown from them. They don't go home and abuse their children. They
don't go home and assault and batter the other members of their family.
I am talking about a product that we all know--it is not just this
Senator's opinion. We all know when we read the daily newspapers about
the effects of drinking and driving. We all read the newspapers in the
spring following the graduation exercises at high schools, and we read,
with horror, the stories of a few young people who get into an
automobile and wrap that automobile around a telephone pole and they
are all killed or maimed--maimed for life.
That is what we are talking about. I am not talking about singling
out an industry. I am talking about an industry that creates a product
that is hurtful--not just hurtful to the person who uses it, but
endangers, as I said already, the lives of others. We all know that.
But I do appreciate the fact that the Senator is from Kentucky, and I
respect him for that, and I respect his viewpoint and count him and his
fellow Kentuckians as good neighbors.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. How much time would the Senator from Montana like?
Mr. BURNS. Probably no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Delaware.
Mr. President, no one on this floor makes his case with such passion
as my friend from West Virginia. We have a couple of things in common
that we will not go into here. But I also know from where he comes. And
when you start talking about this issue of singling out something, then
we have to look at probably the real facts.
First, there is the presumption in this amendment that somehow the
advertising is evil or bad, or that it wreaks health problems on the
American people. There is no question in anybody's mind across this
land that the abuse of alcohol is one of our greatest problems--no
doubt. Yet, there is no scientific evidence that would even suggest the
casual relationship between advertising and abuse.
In order to get to the root of the problem of alcoholism and all of
the problems that it brings, study after study after study has been
made in the relationship of advertising. In fact, during the 1980's,
when the advertising for alcohol products was increasing, actual
consumption per capita actually was decreasing. So not only does
advertising not impact abuse, it doesn't even impact the overall
consumption.
Singling out a product is not, I don't think, what fair tax law is
about.
So let's be upfront about it, because I am familiar with the
broadcast industry. It has economic impacts on small business. It has
economic impacts. And once we start singling out products, do we start
talking about red meat, eggs, or sugar? Where do we draw the line? The
impact it might have on the national pastime? We could say, ``OK, we
don't need it in the broadcasting industry. We can all pay for pay-per-
view''--the impact on an industry within itself. And the list goes on
and on trying to explain to our constituents why different things
happen and cost more, because there is a decrease in advertising
support in free television. That also brings us our weather, our farm
reports, our news, our emergency conditions. All of these things that
are supported by free over-the-air broadcasts will be impacted if this
amendment is successful.
The industry has taken steps to limit or try to curb the abuse that
alcohol has on a person or individual. There is no doubt about it. And
in some areas some would say it is even working.
I know that all of us want a tax cut. All of us want a balanced
budget. But to single out and start limiting an ad tax or deductibility
for legal products is not the right approach. It is not the right
approach--not on a legal product.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this. It is unwarranted. I think it
is unwise. And I am not real sure, it might have some constitutional
overtones because advertising is still freedom of speech. It cannot be
treated differently than any other form.
The Senator from West Virginia makes a point. It is the abuse of the
product. The advertising has very little to do with the abuse of the
product.
Thank you, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator talks about red meat, eggs, and
sugar. The Honorable Senator is my friend. Who ever heard of anybody
eating red meat, eggs, and sugar, and getting out in the car and having
that car plunge into a tree, weave all across the road, and kill and
maim other people? Red meat doesn't cause an individual to drive drunk
and get in the car and
[[Page
S6447]]
drive all over the highway. Eggs and sugar don't do that in their form
as eggs and sugar, in their natural form.
The Senator also, I think, made reference to the Federal Trade
Commission in 1985, which found ``no reliable basis to conclude that
alcohol advertising significantly affects consumption, let alone
abuse.'' Well, let's see what the conclusions are from the effects of
the mass media on the use and abuse of alcohol.
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Research Monograph-28, 1995:
[The] preponderance of the evidence indicates that alcohol
advertising stimulates higher consumption of alcohol by both
adults and adolescents . . . It appears to be a contributing
factor that increases drinking to a modest degree rather than
being a major determinant. (Dr. Charles Adkins, Department of
Communications, Michigan State University.)
Now I shall quote Dr. Sally Casswell, Alcohol and Public Health
Research Unit, School of Medicine, University of Aukland:
[T]here is sufficient evidence to say that alcohol
advertising is likely to be a contributing factor to overall
consumption and other alcohol-related problems in the long
term.
Now quoting Dr. Joel Grube, Prevention Research Center:
[A]lcohol advertising can influence children, particularly
their beliefs about alcohol and, indirectly, their intentions
to drink as adults.
Finally, let me quote Dr. Esther Thorson, School of Journalism,
University of Missouri:
If research were designed to take account of what the
advertiser is trying to do and if it examined the
relationship between the specific structure of the message
and the individual or group for whom that message is
targeted, investigators probably would find ``whopping
effects''.
Mr. President, I appreciate the views that have been expressed by my
friend from Montana and, as I have already indicated, by my friend from
Kentucky. I appreciate their views, and I respect their views.
Mr. President, I don't think there should be any doubts in the minds
of any Senator or any person who is viewing this Chamber via that
electronic eye that the drinking of alcohol affects the judgment of
people, and that there are many other costs that are not tangible, that
cannot be translated into dollars and cents-- the cost of lost
productivity, the cost of broken homes, the cost of children abused.
And I could go on.
I have made my case, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has the remaining
time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I
make the point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to
the provisions of the reconciliation measure and I therefore raise a
point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the
Budget Act.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask
for the yeas and nays on my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an hour equally divided on the
motion.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
Vote on Motion to Waive the Budget Act
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts],
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 12, nays 86, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]
YEAS--12
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
DeWine
Glenn
Hatch
Helms
Kennedy
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Thurmond
Wellstone
NAYS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchi
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
(Senate - June 26, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S6440-S6473]
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 537
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-four minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. And the opposition has 44 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. So we have used 16. Actually, unless Senator Lautenberg
has anything further to say, I believe I have stated the case for the
Domenici-Lautenberg amendment No. 537. Does Senator Gramm want to offer
an amendment to the amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. I think Senator Biden is going to offer an amendment
first, and after his amendment is disposed of, then I will have an
amendment, as will several other people.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wonder if the Democratic manager would
yield me time off the bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has time on his amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. Can I get time in my own right?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by Senator Domenici and
Senator Roth.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. DOMENICI. We yielded back our time.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 539 to Amendment No. 537
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr.
Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 539 to amendment No.
537.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 43 of the amendment, strike lines 14 through 21 and
insert the following:
``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $537,677,000,000 in
new budget authority and $558,460,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,355,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,936,000,000 in
outlays;
``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
``(A) for the discretionary category: $546,619,000,000 in
new budget authority and $556,314,000,000 in outlays; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$4,455,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,485,000,000 in
outlays;
as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.
(2) Transfers into the fund.--On the first day of the
following fiscal years, the following amounts shall be
transferred from the general fund to the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund--
(A) for fiscal year 2001, $4,355,000,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 2002, $4,455,000,000.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for an inquiry for
a moment?
Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers of this bill tell us how many second-
degree amendments there are to this process?
I assume we are on the second-degree amendment process; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. Could the managers tell us how many second-degree
amendments they anticipate on this?
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not know.
Mr. GRAMM. I believe there will be four. Senator Biden will offer one
for himself. Once that is adopted, I will offer a second-degree
amendment. And
[[Page
S6441]]
then we have two other Senators who want to offer second-degree
amendments, so they will be seriatim.
Mr. BUMPERS. Then there are five, because I have one also. I am just
wondering if we could get some kind of sequence so we know how they are
going to be offered so we do not spend the rest of our lives waiting.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, you can be assured there will be
four ahead of you, if you would like to be fifth.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you do yours last?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I said.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the second-degree amendment I have at the
desk is very simple and straightforward. The Senator from New Mexico is
introducing a budget process amendment, and what the amendment of
Senator Gramm and myself does is, quite frankly, it merely extends the
crime law trust fund for the extension of this agreement.
I am told by the staffs of the majority and minority that in the
budget process agreement that was agreed to with the administration,
there is a line on page 90 of the concurrent resolution of the budget
fiscal year 1998. On page 90, it says, ``Retain current law on separate
crime caps at levels shown in the agreement tables.''
All we are doing here is extending the crime law trust fund. We are
not making judgments on how that will be disbursed within the trust
fund. We are just extending the trust fund to the extent of this
agreement. And, Madam President, as I offer this amendment, we are
maintaining a commitment to one of the few specific ways the
reconciliation package can, by virtue of the type of legislation it is,
maintain a commitment.
The commitment we made was to fight violent crime. And, ironically,
it is working. It is working. And so for us now to extend the violent
crime trust fund, let it expire 2 years before this budget agreement
expires, means we are going to be back at it again in the year 2000 or
before, fighting over something we now know works.
So I realize we can take a long time debating this. But the bottom
line is this: We are not suggesting, as the Senator from New Mexico
knows, how this trust fund money within the caps will be disbursed;
merely that we have the continuation of the trust fund as long as the
budget agreement to the year 2002.
Of all the priorities addressed in this budget package, I believe
that none is more important than continuing our fight against violent
crime and violence against women.
The amendment I am offering, along with Senator Gramm seeks to
maintain this commitment in one of the few specific ways this
reconciliation package can--by virtue of the type of legislation this
is--maintain this commitment. That is by extending the violent crime
control trust fund will continue through the end of this budget
resolution, fiscal year 2002.
Senator Byrd, more than anyone, deserves credit for the crime law
trust fund. Senator Byrd worked to develop an idea that was simple as
it was profound--as he called on us to use the savings from the
reductions in the Federal work force of 272,000 employees to fund one
of the Nation's most urgent priorities: fighting the scourge of violent
crime.
Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to
``put our money where our mouth was.'' Too often, this Senate has voted
to send significant aid to State and local law enforcement--but, when
it came time to write the check, we did not find nearly the dollars we
promised.
Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, and
other Senators passed the violent crime control trust fund in the
Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden crime law.
Since then, the dollars from the crime law trust fund have: Helped
add more than 60,000 community police officers to our streets; helped
shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children; focussed
law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims service providers on
providing immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends to
love them; forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing
and treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain
free on probation with no supervision and no accountability;
constructed thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and
brought unprecedented resources to defending our Southwest border--
putting us on the path to literally double the number of Federal border
agents over just a 5-year period.
The results of this effort are already taking hold: According to the
FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is down and down
significantly--leaving our nation with its lowest murder rate since
1971; the lowest violent crime total since 1990; and the lowest murder
rate for wives, ex-wives, and girlfriends at the hands of their
intimates to an 18-year low.
In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by
being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our ``money where our
mouths'' are--we have actually cut violent crime.
Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant
against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Byrd-Gramm amendment before the
Senate offers one modest step toward meeting that challenge:
By assuring that the commitment to fighting crime and violence
against women will continue for the full duration of this budget
resolution.
By assuring that the violent crime control trust fund will continue--
in its current form which provides additional Federal assistance
without adding 1 cent to the deficit--through 2002.
The Biden-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: Stand up
for cops--or don't; stand up for the fight against violence against
women--or don't; and stand up for increased border enforcement--or
don't.
Every Member of this Senate is against violence crime--we way that in
speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up with
words with the only thing that we can actually do for the cop walking
the beat, the battered woman, the victim of crime--provide the dollars
that help give them the tools to fight violent criminals, standup to
their abuser, and restore at least some small piece of the dignity
taken from them at the hands of a violent criminal.
Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not
continue the trust fund, we will not be able to continue such proven,
valuable efforts as the violence against women law. Nothing we can do
today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence
Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000.
But, mark my words, if the trust fund ends, the efforts to provide
shelter, help victims, and get tough on the abusers and barterers will
wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a
clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with
it, the historic effort undertaken by the Violence Against Women Act
that says by word, deed, and dollar that the Federal Government stands
with women and against the misguided notion that ``domestic'' violence
is a man's ``right'' and ``not really a crime.''
I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Gramm amendment.
At the appropriate time--and I am not quite sure yet when is
appropriate--I will ask for the yeas and nays on this.
But make no mistake about it, what we are voting on here is whether
or not we are going to commit now to the extension of the trust fund,
the violent crime trust fund, for the extent of this agreement. That is
all this does. That is everything it does, but that is all it does.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 537, Withdrawn
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 537) was withdrawn.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia is recognized.
[[Page
S6442]]
Amendment No. 540
(Purpose: To eliminate tax deductions for advertising and promotion
expenditures relating to alcoholic beverages and to increase funding
for programs that educate and prevent the abuse of alcohol among our
Nation's youth)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 540.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE --ALCOHOL ADVERTISING RESPONSIBILITY ACT
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Alcohol Advertising
Responsibility Act''.
SEC. 02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) alcohol is used by more Americans than any other drug;
(2) it is estimated that the costs to society from
alcoholism and alcohol abuse were approximately
$100,000,000,000 in 1990 alone.
(3) in 1995, the alcoholic beverage industry spent
$1,040,300,000 on advertising, while the National Institute
for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was funded at only
$181,445,000;
(4) more than 100,000 deaths each year in the United States
result from alcohol-related causes;
(5) 41.3 percent of all traffic facilities in 1995, or
17,274 deaths, were alcohol related;
(6) in addition to severe health consequences, alcohol
misuse is involved in approximately 30 percent of all
suicides, 50 percent of homicides, 68 percent of manslaughter
cases, 52 percent of rapes and other sexual assaults, 48
percent of robberies, 62 percent of assaults, and 49 percent
of all other violent crimes;
(7) approximately 30 percent of all accidental deaths are
attributable to alcohol abuse;
(8) alcohol advertising may influence children's
perceptions toward an inclinations to consume alcoholic
beverages;
(9) 26 percent of eighth graders, 40 percent of tenth
graders, and 51 percent of twelfth graders report having used
alcohol in the past month; and
(10) college presidents nationwide view alcohol abuse as
their paramount campus-life problem.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to repeal the existing tax subsidization for expenses
incurred to promote the consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(2) to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising to which
our Nation's youth are exposed; and
(3) to increase funding for those programs that educate and
prevent the abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
SEC. 03. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION EXPENSES RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES.
(a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1
(relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding at
the end of the following:
SEC. 280I. ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION EXPENDITURES RELATING TO
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
``(a) In General.--No deduction otherwise allowable under
this chapter shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred
to advertise or promote by any means any alcoholic beverage.
``(b) Alcoholic Beverage.--For purposes of this section,
the term `alcoholic beverage' means any item which is subject
to tax under subpart A, C, or D of part I of subchapter A of
chapter 51 (relating to taxes on distilled spirits, wines,
and beer).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part
IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 280I. Advertising and promotion expenditures relating to
alcoholic beverages.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31 of the year in which this Act is
enacted.
SEC. 04. ALCOHOL ABUSE EDUCATION AND PREVENTION AMONG YOUTH.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), there shall be
transferred, from funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the entities described in subsection (b)
amounts to the extent specified under subsection (b).
(b) Education and Prevention Programs.--
(1) Substance abuse and mental health services
administration.--The amounts specified in this subsection
shall be:
(A) In general.--With respect to the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, $120,000.000 for
fiscal year 1998, $180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, and $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to
supplement substance abuse prevention activities authorized
under section 501 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290aa).
(B) Use of funds.--Amounts provided to the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration under subparagraph
(A) shall be used directly or through grants and cooperative
agreements to carry out activities to prevent the use of
alcohol among youth, including the development and
distribution of public service announcements.
(2) Centers for disease control and prevention.--
(A) In general.--With respect to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out a
comprehensive strategy to prevent alcohol-related disease and
disability.
(A) Required uses.--In carrying out the comprehensive
strategy under subparagraph (A), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall--
(i) enhance and expand State-based and national
surveillance activities to monitor the scope of alcohol use
among the youth of the United States;
(ii) enhance comprehensive school-based health programs
that focus on alcohol use prevention strategies;
(iii) develop and distribute commercial advertising to
prevent alcohol abuse among youth; and
(iv) enhance and expand Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention
activities throughout the United States.
(3) National highway traffic safety administration.--With
respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and in addition to any funds authorized from
the Highway Trust Fund, $120,000.000 for fiscal year 1998,
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $180,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$210,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, to carry out programs
under sections 402, 403, and 410 of title 23, United States
Code, and to develop and implement a paid media campaign
targeting high-risk youth populations to improve the balance
of media messages related to alcohol impaired driving.
(4) Indian health service.--With respect to the Indian
Health Service, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $60,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $70,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, to supplement the programs that such Service is
authorized to carry out pursuant to titles II and III of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et seq., 241 et
seq.).
(c) Authority to Transfer Funds.--The Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on appropriations of the Senate, acting through
appropriations Acts, may transfer the amount specified under
subsection (b) in each fiscal year among the entities
referred to in such subsection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Chair indulge me momentarily?
I protect my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia will be
protected in his right to the floor.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, last Friday negotiators from the tobacco industry and
State attorneys general announced the landmark agreement addressing the
impact of tobacco use on our Nation, particularly our young people.
Although this important deal will likely face many obstacles and has a
long way to go toward implementation, it is an unprecedented first step
toward curbing tobacco use and paying for the harm caused by that use.
This process has caused our Nation to focus on an important public
health danger and is an important step in working toward a meaningful
solution.
While I applaud the action being taken to address the pernicious
health effects of tobacco, I am concerned that its evil twin, which
also has a staggering impact on our Nation, is to a large measure being
ignored.
Mr. President, the cost of alcohol abuse to our country is
staggering. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health, alcohol is used by
more Americans than any other drug. And the results are devastating.
The flood tide of alcohol causes more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism imposes
approximately $100 billion in cost each year on society. Links have
been found between alcohol abuse and cirrhosis of the liver, as well as
other harmful health conditions. Alcohol is a contributing factor in
assaults, murders and other violent crimes, including fatal drinking
and driving accidents.
At the bottom of every empty bottle is another family in crisis,
another career being destroyed, or another dream washed away.
[[Page
S6443]]
The amendment I am offering today would eliminate the tax deduction
for alcoholic beverage advertising expenditures. In addition, it would
increase funding for a number of programs that educate and prevent the
abuse of alcohol among our Nation's youth.
What should be of the utmost of our concern in our Nation is the
impact of alcohol on our children and our grandchildren.
I am introducing this amendment on behalf of the children who died
because they were drinking and driving, and on behalf of the millions
of children who are drinking right now without the full appreciation of
what they are doing to themselves and what they could potentially do to
others.
Alcohol is the drug of choice among teenagers.
Mr. President, more specifically, and looking at this chart compiled
by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, the use of
alcohol by our Nation's youth is highlighted among different age
groups, including children between the ages of 12 and 17. Among
children between the ages of 16 and 17, 69.3 percent have at one point
in their lifetimes experimented with alcohol.
Clearly, as made evident by these alarming statistics, alcohol is the
leading problem among teenagers--not marijuana, not cocaine.
In the last month, approximately 8 percent of the Nation's eighth
graders have been drunk--have been drunk. We are talking about eighth
graders, 13 years old--13-year-olds. I never heard of such a thing when
I was in my teens, as a young man, or in my middle age. We are talking
about eighth graders, 13-year-olds.
Every State has a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals
under the age of 21. How is it then that two out of every three
teenagers who drink report that they can buy their own alcoholic
beverages?
The youth of this country, who at the delicate age of 15 should be
enriching their minds with schoolwork, improving their bodies with
exercise, and discovering the wonders of life through God and family
values, instead are experimenting and endangering themselves with
booze. Junior and senior high school students drink 35 percent of all
wine coolers and consume 1.1 billion cans of beer a year. I know,
because I pick some of them up off my lawn--I am talking about the beer
cans, not the young people.
I will repeat what is common knowledge to us all: Every State has a
law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals under the age of 21.
Alcohol is a factor in the three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-
year-olds--the three leading causes--accidents, homicides, suicide. In
approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of youth suicides, alcohol is
involved.
Links have been shown between alcohol use and teen pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases. Eighty percent of the teenagers do not
know that a can of beer has the same amount of alcohol as a shot of
whiskey or a glass of wine. By the time they are in college, 40 percent
have binged on alcohol during the previous 2 weeks.
In 1994, 8.9 percent--almost 95,000--of the clients admitted to
alcohol treatment programs that received at least part of their funding
from the State were under the age of 21, including over 1,000 under the
age of 12. And 31.9 percent of youth under the age of 18 in long-term
State-operated juvenile institutions were under the influence of
alcohol at the time of their arrest.
While our Nation's education system needs repair, it seems that our
society has been successful in teaching these kids something. The
problem is that what we have taught them is deadly.
Drinking impairs one's judgment. We all know that. Nobody will
dispute that. Alcohol mixed with teenage driving is a lethal, a lethal
combination. We read about it all the time in the Washington Post, the
Washington Times, and every newspaper in the land. In 1995, there were
1,666 alcohol-related fatalities of children between the ages of 15 and
19. The total number of alcohol-related fatalities that year was
17,274. Mr. President, for many years I have taken the opportunity,
when addressing groups of young West Virginians, to warn them about the
dangers of alcohol. I supported legislative efforts to discourage
people, particularly young people, from drinking any alcohol. For
example, 2 years ago I authored an amendment that requires States to
pass the zero-tolerance laws that will make it illegal for persons
under the age of 21 to drive a motor vehicle if they have a blood
alcohol level greater than .02 percent. This legislation not only helps
to save lives but it also sends a message to our Nation's youth that
drinking and driving is wrong, that it is a violation of the law, and
that it will be appropriately punished. Unfortunately and tragically,
we all know someone, whether it is a family member or a friend or an
acquaintance, whose life has been cut short by a drunk driver. These
are senseless losses that are devastating to the families and the
friends who are left behind.
As if the aforementioned statistics about youth alcohol use and the
results of that use are not frightening enough, young people who
consume alcohol are more likely to use other drugs.
On the chart to my left, Senators will note these statistics,
compiled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, statistics which show that 37.5 percent of young
people who have consumed alcohol have used some other illicit drug,
versus only 5 percent of young people who have never consumed alcohol;
26.7 percent of those who have consumed alcohol have tried marijuana,
versus 1.2 percent of those who have never consumed alcohol; 5 percent
of youths who have partaken of alcohol have tried cocaine, while only
0.1 of 1 percent of those who do not drink have used cocaine. So it is
not a question that is even debatable that youths who drink alcohol are
more likely to use other drugs.
Mr. President, as the aforementioned facts and figures indicate,
alcohol exacts a tremendous cost on our society. These costs are not
always clear-cut. For example, consider the costs of the lost
productivity of a person showing up at work on a Monday morning with a
hangover and inadequately performing his or her job, perhaps making a
mistake that results in injury. How many of us would like to ride in
the automobile that was made on such a Monday morning? How many of us
would like to fly on the airplane whose maintenance man or woman, whose
mechanic was on a binge the previous day? While there is no way to
accurately gauge the enormous costs that alcohol exacts upon our
society, there can be no doubt that the pleasures of alcohol
consumption exacts a considerable price on our Nation.
The purpose of the amendment that I introduce today is simple. My
proposal would simply tell all producers of alcoholic beverages that
they can no longer deduct the costs of their advertising expenditures
on those products from their Federal income tax liability. While
advertising is generally deductible as a legitimate business expense, I
believe there exists a moral, legitimate reason to create an exception
for producers of alcoholic beverages whose products exact such
considerable costs on our society. My proposal would not make illegal
any advertising of alcoholic beverages. It does not say that any
advertising of alcoholic beverages is unconstitutional. It does not
attempt to ban such advertisements, nor would it create any additional
Federal bureaucracy to regulate alcohol products. Rather, it would
simply end the American taxpayers' subsidization of alcohol advertising
by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include a disallowance
of any deduction for any amount paid or incurred to advertise or
promote by any means any alcoholic beverage. This is not a sin tax. It
is, rather, an end to the sin subsidy that has left American taxpayers
footing the bill for both alcohol advertising and the high health care
costs inflicted on society by alcohol consumption. Now there may be
those who argue that it is wrong to single out alcohol advertising
expenses. I counter that with the question: What other product, with
the possible exception of tobacco, costs society $100 billion each
year? What other product results in more than 100,000 deaths each year
in the United States? The statistics are indeed staggering.
Mr. President, in these complicated times, the innocence of youth,
the innocence of youth is dashed away at an early age by the irreverent
messages spewing from the television set. Profanity and violence on
television programming are interrupted only by the aggressive
commercials seeking to influence viewers in the name of profit.
[[Page
S6444]]
Our impressionable youth, pressured by the self-indulgent motives of
revenue-hungry corporations are bombarded by countless images
glorifying an unrealistic view of reality, often insincerely portraying
alcoholic beverages as an ingredient for ideal lifestyles. Our children
are besieged with the message that if you drink you will attract
beautiful women, if you drink you will be popular, if you drink you
will excel at sports. Are these the images of reality or do they leave
out something important? Do they leave out some important facts about
alcohol consumption? What about the negative and all too prevalent
results of alcohol consumption--the hangovers that result in lost
productivity, the tragic deaths, the injuries caused by a drunk behind
the wheel, the hospital visits for alcohol poisoning, the horrible
effects of cirrhosis of the liver and the families torn apart by
alcohol abuse.
The industry indicates that their advertisements do not target young
people, although this is debatable. A January Wall Street Journal
article, detailing a competitive media reporting survey commissioned by
the Journal, found that beer advertisements are often aired during
programs that are watched by large numbers of adolescents. The findings
of this survey are extremely disturbing. In one example, referenced in
the article, a beer ad ran during the airing of a popular cartoon show
on the MTV station of which 69 percent of the audience was comprised of
children under the age of 21.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Wall Street Journal article.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal]
Are Beer Ads on Beavis and Butt-Head Aimed at Kids?
(By Sally Beatty)
When a commercial for Schlitz Malt Liquor appeared last
year on MTV during ``My So-Called Life,'' a show about
teenage girls, beer maker Stroh called the airing an
aberration.
Even as the ad helped launch a Federal Trade Commission
probe into alcohol advertising to children, Stroh said it had
a longtime policy of aiming ads only at adults of legal
drinking age; MTV said the ad ran by mistake because of a
last-minute programming switch.
In fact, the commercial was hardly an isolated event.
Despite the beer industry's insistence that it doesn't target
kids, its commercials regularly wash over underage viewers. A
survey by Competitive Media Reporting for the Wall Street
Journal showed that during one arbitrarily chosen week--the
first week of September--youths under the drinking age made
up the majority of the audience for beer commercials on
several occasions.
For instance, Molson beer was advertised during a 10 p.m.
episode of ``Beavis & Butt-Head,'' the popular MTV cartoon
series about two obnoxious teens. Fully 69% of all the
episode's viewers that night were under 21--the legal
drinking age in all 50 states--according to Nielsen Media
Research's widely used ratings data. Molson, which is
marketed in the U.S. by Philip Morris's Miller Brewing, also
advertised on MTV's racy youth dating show, ``Singled Out,''
just after 7 p.m., when 52% of the audience was under 21. And
Stroh advertised Schlitz Malt Liquor during MTV's prime-time
music-video show at 8:30 p.m., when 56% of the audience was
under 21.
That same week, Adolph Coors ran two ads on the Black
Entertainment Television channel after 8 p.m., when 65% of
the audience wasn't old enough to drink. Also that week,
Anheuser-Busch ran an ad for its Budweiser brand just
after 8:30 p.m. on BET during music-video programming,
when 70% of the audience was under 21.
These commercials look like clear violations of the chief
beer industry trade group's own guidelines for TV ads. ``Beer
advertising . . . should not be placed in magazines,
newspapers, television programs, radio programs or other
media where most of the audience is reasonably expected to be
below the legal purchase age,'' states the Beer Institute's
published ``advertising and marketing guidelines.'' The
industry is pointing to these guidelines in an aggressive
lobbying effort against proposed new federal restrictions of
beer and liquor advertising.
The number of ads reaching kids is ``very troubling,'' says
Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer
protection and a top official involved with its ongoing probe
into alcohol marketing to kids on television. Her bureau
enforces laws banning unfair or deceptive ad practices,
including a statute that says it's unfair to aim ads at
people who aren't legally able to buy the products. A company
that runs afoul of such laws can face fines, orders to pull
ads and regular FTC screening of future advertising.
Ms. Bernstein won't comment on the FTC's probe. However,
she says that in any investigation, the commission would look
first at whether alcohol advertisers are ``following their
own guidelines.'' For example, ``Is it OK if [the percentage
of underage viewers] gets up to 70% once in a while? I don't
think it's OK.'' And she says the commission would ``never
act on just one episode or one mistake--we would act on the
pattern.''
Brewers and TV executives insist that it doesn't make sense
to evaluate beer ads on a single night's audience. ``Any
attempt to analyze the beer industry's media-buying practices
by examining only selected broadcast media buys during a one-
week period is misleading and simplistic,'' said Miller
Brewing in a statement responding to questions about the
survey. Miller added that more than 75 percent of the
broadcast audience reached by the programming it buys is over
21.
At Stroh, officials argue that there's a difference between
putting ads in front of kids and targeting them explicitly.
``We understand that when an ad is run it's going to be seen
by some people who are under 21 years of age, whether it's a
billboard, in a magazine or on TV,'' says Stroh general
counsel George Kuehn. ``That does not mean we target the
group that is under 21.''
Whether the beer industry advertises to kids became a hotly
debated question after the liquor industry last year
abandoned its longstanding guidelines banning TV ads. That
sparked a national uproar over exposing kids to alcohol ads--
putting the beer industry in the spotlight.
In Congress, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D., Mass.) has
introduced legislation that would ban most forms of alcohol
advertising from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., require health warnings
on print, radio and TV ads and require alcohol ads that run
in publication with a 15% or more youth readership to appear
only in black-and-white text.
There are already signs that brewers and Madison Avenue are
worried about the threat of regulation of beer ads. No. 1
brewer Anheuser-Busch revealed last month that it quietly
pulled all its beer advertising from MTV, saying it hoped to
``ensure that our intent is not misperceived in today's
climate.'' The Madison Avenue's main trade group, the
American Association of Advertising Agencies, recently
abandoned its longtime stand against restrictions on ads
for products like alcohol and cigarettes. It proposed
setting up a new self-regulation committee, warning that
the industry otherwise faces a government crackdown on ads
for beer and other adult products.
But setting reliable guidelines for such ads remains
tricky. TV executives argue that Nielsen ratings aren't
reliable measures of kid viewership--even though the ratings
are the TV industry's gold standard for gauging the cost of
ad time. Says John Popkowski, executive vice president in
charge of ad sales at MTV Networks: ``If you pick one show on
an isolated night you might find one that's an aberration
statistically,'' since cable channels' viewership is
sometimes relatively small.
On the E! Channel, for instance, Miller Brewing ran a
Foster's ad on Sept. 2, just before 7:30 p.m., during the
show ``Melrose Place.'' That night, 41% of the show's
audience was under 21, according to Nielsen. But David T.
Cassaro, senior vice president in charge of ad sales for E!
Entertainment Television, says that from July 1 to Sept. 29
between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., only about 28% of E!
Entertainment's audience was under 21. Overall, Mr. Cassaro
adds, only 19% of E! Entertainment's total audience isn't old
enough to drink.
``With networks like BET the numbers are so small that they
jump all over the place,'' adds John Goldman, a spokesman for
Adolph Coors. ``You take as much care as you can but the
programming changes often.'' Mr. Goldman says that in the
third quarter, the over-21 audience reached by BET between 7
p.m. and 8 p.m. ranged from 80% to 43%.
Mr. Goldman adds that Coors doesn't buy MTV as a matter of
company policy. ``We want to avoid any misperception that
we're aiming at an underage audience.''
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, looking at another chart to my left, this
chart demonstrates competitive media reporting estimates that the
alcoholic beverage industry spent more than $1 billion on alcohol
advertising in 1995.
In contrast, in 1995, the Federal investment in the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was a mere $189.8 million for
alcohol research. Does the industry expect us to believe that it would
spend this huge amount of money--$1.1 billion--if it were not getting
something for that money? Some may argue that this legislation would
adversely affect the advertising industry by forcing producers of
alcoholic beverages to eliminate their advertising expenditure.
Poppycock. I do not believe that this would be the case.
Alcoholic beverage producers spend large amounts of money to
advertise their products because it encourages people to consume their
product and it, therefore, increases sales. Eliminating the advertising
deduction will not eliminate the fundamental business practice. By
making these advertisements less profitable, this amendment may reduce
the overall amount of alcohol advertising in our society. However, let
there be no doubt that the alcohol ads will keep on running. You
[[Page
S6445]]
can bet your bottom dollar on that. They will. The difference, however,
will be that the American taxpayer will no longer be subsidizing this
activity and that the money will go, instead, to getting the other side
of the alcohol story out. That is what we need to start doing. We need
to start now getting the other side of the alcohol story out. It is
perhaps not the most popular thing politically to attempt to do here,
but it needs to be done.
This amendment is all the more necessary because, last year, the
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States decided to reject its
self-imposed ban on advertising hard liquor on television and radio. I
decried this decision by the Distilled Spirits Council because it is a
step backward at a time when our Nation is working to curb alcohol
abuse. Now hard liquor advertisements will be flowing over the
airwaves. This is not the direction in which our Nation should be
moving.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the elimination of the
tax deduction would result in $2.9 billion in savings over 5 years. My
amendment targets the savings from the elimination of the disallowance
to programs to prevent alcohol abuse among our Nation's young people
and to educate children about alcohol. The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration would be given increased funds to
supplement programs to prevent the use of alcohol among young people
and to fund a media campaign designed to counteract the constant
bombardment to which our children are subjected daily by alcohol
advertisements. It is important to give our children information about
the risks associated with the consumption of alcohol. We should not sit
idly by and leave unchallenged the messages of alcoholic beverage
advertisements that only good things happen to those who drink alcohol.
This amendment will also direct funding to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to carry out a comprehensive strategy to prevent
alcohol-related disease and disability. The CDC would be given
authority to enhance and expand fetal alcohol syndrome prevention
activities throughout the Nation. According to the NIAAA, fetal alcohol
syndrome is estimated to affect from one to three children out of every
1,000 live births.
To address the distressing problem of alcohol-impaired driving, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's alcohol-impaired
driving incentive grant program, previously known as section 410, would
receive additional funding. Funding is also made available to NTSA to
launch a media campaign about the perils of driving under the
influence.
The Indian Health Service will receive funding for its alcohol abuse
programs to address the issue of alcohol abuse, which has such a
devastating effect on the first Americans. I don't refer to them as
native Americans. I don't refer to them as native Americans. I am a
native American. If I am not a native American, of what country am I a
native? I refer to them as the original Americans, or the first
Americans.
The harm that alcoholic beverages cause our Nation is not a second-
rate hangover, but a serious affliction that kills more than 100,000
people each year. By adopting this amendment, we would be making a
positive effort to improve the health of our Nation, particularly of
our children, and to send a sober message to those who are capitalizing
on profits generated by recklessly advertising alcoholic beverages
through far-reaching and seductive means, such as television.
We should act in the best interests of the American people and
announce ``last call'' to those who have been receiving tax breaks for
peddling booze, take a step in the right direction and begin to repair
some of the damage brought by alcohol in this country. Let us begin by
putting a cork in the tax loophole that has left American taxpayers
picking up the tab for the alcohol industry.
Now, Mr. President, I am very well aware that a point of order will
be made, or can be made. I am well aware of that. But I think the
debate has to start at some point. I think that point is now. We hear a
great deal about tobacco and we hear a great deal about children, about
children's health. I hope those who support those programs and talk
much about them would support this effort. We are talking here about
children's health. We are talking here about something that kills
100,000 people every year. I am not seeking to ban alcohol. I am not
seeking to regulate alcohol. I am simply seeking to end the
subsidization by the taxpayers of this country of alcohol.
Think about it. Think about it on your way home tonight as you drive
out the George Washington Parkway and see someone in front of you
wobbling from one side of the road to the other. Think again. Suppose
your wife is up at Tyson's Corner getting ready to drive home with the
children and that same fellow who was in front of your car wobbling may
kill your wife and your children.
So let's start talking about it. Let's start airing the subject here.
Let's stop putting it behind the curtain, putting it under the rug,
saying it is taboo. It is not. It is not taboo. Think about our
children, our grandchildren. This is the product that kills other
people. Tobacco may kill me. Tobacco may kill the individual who smokes
it. But alcohol may not kill the person who imbibes; it may kill the
innocent--the driver in the other car.
So I hope that Senators will support my amendment. As I say, I am
sure that there is a process or a motion available, but I am accustomed
to those things. I say let the Senate work its will.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance
Committee for yielding me a few moments. I listened very carefully to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia and to his observations
about the dangers of drinking and driving, with which I completely
concur.
Of course, representing Kentucky, as my friend from West Virginia
knows, not only do we have 60,000 tobacco growers, which is, of course,
the subject of a number of amendments that may come on this bill; we
are also the home of bourbon. If this kind of whiskey is not made in
Kentucky, it cannot be called bourbon. Let me suggest that there are no
industries--and I checked with the Finance Committee staff--that have
been singled out by law and, as a result of being singled out, are not
allowed to deduct their expenses for advertising. So this would be a
first.
To begin with, as a matter of tax policy, certain kinds of legal
industries are not allowed to deduct their advertising, and others are.
There is also--while we are thinking of both cigarettes and alcohol--
another important distinction. There is no argument that misuse of
alcohol is a problem in this country. As a Senator from a tobacco-
producing State, I never make the argument that smoking cigarettes is
good for you. Obviously, it isn't. But there are many in the medical
profession who would say that the consumption of alcohol, if used
properly--properly--is actually good for you. I am not a physician, I
can't make that argument, but there is a growing argument being made by
many in the medical community that a certain amount of alcohol,
properly used, is actually good for you health, not bad for your
health.
So we have here a legal product, Mr. President, which, arguably, if
properly used, might actually be good for you, which the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, I gather, is saying when misused, of
course, is clearly a terrible thing and a disaster not only for the
person misusing it, but for others who may be affected by that, and
that because a product may be misused, the Government should step in
and say: Your advertising is not allowed.
Regardless of how you may feel about this----
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. For a correction only. My amendment does not say your
advertising will not be allowed. I am not saying that at all. The
alcohol industry may continue to advertise. I am just saying, let's
stop the subsidization of that advertising, the subsidization by the
taxpayers.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator. I think I did understand his
[[Page
S6446]]
amendment to disallow a deductibility for advertising, which would make
this the only industry of which the Finance Committee is aware where
such deductibility would be disallowed.
Aside from my home State and the product, which, if properly used,
might actually be good for you, I wonder if my friend from West
Virginia doesn't share my concern that once we go in this direction, we
might find other activities that some may find offensive being subject
to the same kinds of efforts to disallow deductibility for certain
kinds of business expenses.
I think, for example, West Virginia and Kentucky used to trade back
and forth in terms of coal production. One year West Virginia would be
first; the next year Kentucky would be the first. Alas, neither are
first anymore. Wyoming is. But there are many Americans who think, as a
result of the burning of coal, that the area is polluted and that, as a
result of that, people contract lung problems. In fact, there is an
initiative by the Clinton administration just announced this week which
the Senator from West Virginia and I both have serious reservations
about designed to cut down on air pollution--so the argument goes--so
there will be less lung disease.
I wonder, if we go down this path of trying to pick out which
industries' deductions for certain kinds of business expenses are to be
allowed or not allowed based upon our judgment about what is harmful to
the public, whether or not somebody might come in and say, ``Well, we
shouldn't allow production costs associated with the mining of coal to
be deductible because, after all, the burning of coal leads to the
pollution of the air, which then leads to lung disease, which then
leads to death.''
I just am concerned that this is a step in the wrong direction. I
understand fully the concerns of the Senator from West Virginia, and I
share them. I think the use of alcohol leads to a great deal of
tragedy.
But I hope we will not single out this legal industry producing a
product, which, if properly used, many people in the medical field feel
is actually good for you, for this kind of selective treatment on
deductibility.
Finally, let me say that I am not an expert on the budget deal. But
it is clear that there is a lot of momentum in this body to hold the
deal together, and this is clearly not part of the budget deal.
I hope that the proposal will not be approved, in all due respect to
my good friend and colleague from West Virginia. I hope this would not
become part of the measure before us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say that I fully understand the
economic impact of the tobacco industry on the State of the
distinguished Senator who has just spoken. West Virginia grows good
tobacco crops as well, and the income from those tobacco crops
certainly impact upon many families in many counties of West Virginia.
We are talking about here, though, a product that results in the
maiming and in the killing of people--innocent men, women, and
children.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky mentions the carbon dioxide
emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions and possible implications
of those emissions on health. People who breathe that air may well,
indeed, suffer an adverse impact on their health. But they don't go out
and maim. They don't go out and drive an automobile, lose their proper
judgment, and end up killing innocent people. They do not go home and
abuse their spouses if they smoke cigarettes or if they breathe air
blown from them. They don't go home and abuse their children. They
don't go home and assault and batter the other members of their family.
I am talking about a product that we all know--it is not just this
Senator's opinion. We all know when we read the daily newspapers about
the effects of drinking and driving. We all read the newspapers in the
spring following the graduation exercises at high schools, and we read,
with horror, the stories of a few young people who get into an
automobile and wrap that automobile around a telephone pole and they
are all killed or maimed--maimed for life.
That is what we are talking about. I am not talking about singling
out an industry. I am talking about an industry that creates a product
that is hurtful--not just hurtful to the person who uses it, but
endangers, as I said already, the lives of others. We all know that.
But I do appreciate the fact that the Senator is from Kentucky, and I
respect him for that, and I respect his viewpoint and count him and his
fellow Kentuckians as good neighbors.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. How much time would the Senator from Montana like?
Mr. BURNS. Probably no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Delaware.
Mr. President, no one on this floor makes his case with such passion
as my friend from West Virginia. We have a couple of things in common
that we will not go into here. But I also know from where he comes. And
when you start talking about this issue of singling out something, then
we have to look at probably the real facts.
First, there is the presumption in this amendment that somehow the
advertising is evil or bad, or that it wreaks health problems on the
American people. There is no question in anybody's mind across this
land that the abuse of alcohol is one of our greatest problems--no
doubt. Yet, there is no scientific evidence that would even suggest the
casual relationship between advertising and abuse.
In order to get to the root of the problem of alcoholism and all of
the problems that it brings, study after study after study has been
made in the relationship of advertising. In fact, during the 1980's,
when the advertising for alcohol products was increasing, actual
consumption per capita actually was decreasing. So not only does
advertising not impact abuse, it doesn't even impact the overall
consumption.
Singling out a product is not, I don't think, what fair tax law is
about.
So let's be upfront about it, because I am familiar with the
broadcast industry. It has economic impacts on small business. It has
economic impacts. And once we start singling out products, do we start
talking about red meat, eggs, or sugar? Where do we draw the line? The
impact it might have on the national pastime? We could say, ``OK, we
don't need it in the broadcasting industry. We can all pay for pay-per-
view''--the impact on an industry within itself. And the list goes on
and on trying to explain to our constituents why different things
happen and cost more, because there is a decrease in advertising
support in free television. That also brings us our weather, our farm
reports, our news, our emergency conditions. All of these things that
are supported by free over-the-air broadcasts will be impacted if this
amendment is successful.
The industry has taken steps to limit or try to curb the abuse that
alcohol has on a person or individual. There is no doubt about it. And
in some areas some would say it is even working.
I know that all of us want a tax cut. All of us want a balanced
budget. But to single out and start limiting an ad tax or deductibility
for legal products is not the right approach. It is not the right
approach--not on a legal product.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this. It is unwarranted. I think it
is unwise. And I am not real sure, it might have some constitutional
overtones because advertising is still freedom of speech. It cannot be
treated differently than any other form.
The Senator from West Virginia makes a point. It is the abuse of the
product. The advertising has very little to do with the abuse of the
product.
Thank you, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator talks about red meat, eggs, and
sugar. The Honorable Senator is my friend. Who ever heard of anybody
eating red meat, eggs, and sugar, and getting out in the car and having
that car plunge into a tree, weave all across the road, and kill and
maim other people? Red meat doesn't cause an individual to drive drunk
and get in the car and
[[Page
S6447]]
drive all over the highway. Eggs and sugar don't do that in their form
as eggs and sugar, in their natural form.
The Senator also, I think, made reference to the Federal Trade
Commission in 1985, which found ``no reliable basis to conclude that
alcohol advertising significantly affects consumption, let alone
abuse.'' Well, let's see what the conclusions are from the effects of
the mass media on the use and abuse of alcohol.
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Research Monograph-28, 1995:
[The] preponderance of the evidence indicates that alcohol
advertising stimulates higher consumption of alcohol by both
adults and adolescents . . . It appears to be a contributing
factor that increases drinking to a modest degree rather than
being a major determinant. (Dr. Charles Adkins, Department of
Communications, Michigan State University.)
Now I shall quote Dr. Sally Casswell, Alcohol and Public Health
Research Unit, School of Medicine, University of Aukland:
[T]here is sufficient evidence to say that alcohol
advertising is likely to be a contributing factor to overall
consumption and other alcohol-related problems in the long
term.
Now quoting Dr. Joel Grube, Prevention Research Center:
[A]lcohol advertising can influence children, particularly
their beliefs about alcohol and, indirectly, their intentions
to drink as adults.
Finally, let me quote Dr. Esther Thorson, School of Journalism,
University of Missouri:
If research were designed to take account of what the
advertiser is trying to do and if it examined the
relationship between the specific structure of the message
and the individual or group for whom that message is
targeted, investigators probably would find ``whopping
effects''.
Mr. President, I appreciate the views that have been expressed by my
friend from Montana and, as I have already indicated, by my friend from
Kentucky. I appreciate their views, and I respect their views.
Mr. President, I don't think there should be any doubts in the minds
of any Senator or any person who is viewing this Chamber via that
electronic eye that the drinking of alcohol affects the judgment of
people, and that there are many other costs that are not tangible, that
cannot be translated into dollars and cents-- the cost of lost
productivity, the cost of broken homes, the cost of children abused.
And I could go on.
I have made my case, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has the remaining
time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I
make the point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to
the provisions of the reconciliation measure and I therefore raise a
point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the
Budget Act.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask
for the yeas and nays on my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an hour equally divided on the
motion.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
Vote on Motion to Waive the Budget Act
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts],
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 12, nays 86, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]
YEAS--12
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
DeWine
Glenn
Hatch
Helms
Kennedy
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Thurmond
Wellstone
NAYS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
