SPECIAL INTEREST: FIGHTING SPIRITS

Sometimes it's those little issues that can spark the most spirited
lobbying.

Just ask Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) and Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.).
After they heard Clinton drug czar Barry R. McCaffrey bemoaning his lack of
authority to include warnings about alcohol abuse in his office's anti-drug
ads, they agreed to help.

No sooner had they offered legislation that would give him the authority for
such ads than the liquor lobby descended. "Your support for this amendment
would make the drug czar's position untenable and reduce his ability to wage
the war on drugs," David K. Rehr, senior vice president of the National Beer
Wholesalers Association, told Roybal-Allard in a memo.

An aide to former representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), Rehr has led the fight
against the legislation, arguing that McCaffrey's "limited" funds should be
devoted to entirely to anti-drug ads. "This is being led by people who are
attempting to tie beer as close as they can to drugs," he said. "It ain't
all the same."

Wolf countered that studies by McCaffrey's office show that alcohol is a
"gateway drug" that often is a first step toward illicit drugs. "I'm not
anti-beer," said the Northern Virginia lawmaker, who admits surprise at the
fierce opposition his amendment has drawn. A coalition of health groups,
including the American Medical Association and the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, is backing the Roybal-Allard-Wolf amendment. It is opposed
by the Wine Institute and the Distilled Spirits Council, but Rehr's
biggest--and most surprising--allies are the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, a private group that supports the czar's programs, and McCaffrey's
own office, which circulated a paper on Capitol Hill warning of the high
costs of launching an anti-alcohol campaign.

McCaffrey spokesman Bob Weiner said McCaffrey now supports the amendment,
provided it gives him permissive authority for such ads and does not mandate
them. Rehr said he was taken aback by the czar's change and promised to
fight the legislation if it clears the House Appropriations Committee next
month. "It's the wrong language on the wrong bill at the wrong time," he
said.