Travels with Barley (25 page)

One of the first things Rehr helped the NBWA to do was to beef up its PAC, or political action committee, nicknaming it Six-PAC and greatly ratcheting up its fund-raising efforts, more than tripling what it had been spending on election cycles to more than $1.5 million per cycle. (It spent $2.2 million in the 2002 election cycle.) Most of Six-PACs money, unsurprisingly, perhaps, goes to Republicans who tend to be more business-friendly, though Rehr always makes a point that business-friendly isn't always the same as “beer-business-friendly.' He also hastened to beat a path for beer back to the mainstream, coming up with a slogan: “Family Businesses Distributing America's Beverage.' (That certainly makes a less tempting target than the anti-alcohol lobby's view of beer as Beer Tycoons Profiting from Underaged and Problem Drinkers.) Soon, the slogan was both an advertising campaign and a rallying cry emblazoned on every fax or letter the NBWA sent to Capitol Hill. In 2002, the NBWA and the Beer Institute, led by Jeff Becker, embarked on an even more ambitious campaign called “Beer Serves America.” The two groups financed copious and serious historical and economic research that tied beer to America's earliest roots and produced the figures, based upon complicated mathematical models, that put beer's GDP at a whopping $144 billion. The point that Rehr hammers over and over again is that “we
are
mainstream, we contribute deeply to America's economic fortunes, we have nothing to hide, and we will not cede the moral high ground to the neo-prohibitionists.”

Rehr has taken to enforcing the latter point by being one of the most aggressive lobbyists around—indeed, he clearly takes delight in mixing it up with those he sees in the neo-prohibitionist camp. Besides his public jousting with MADD, Rehr in the fall of 2003 preemptively blasted a National Academy of Sciences report on underage drinking, accusing the federal agency of ignoring its congressional mandate to review the effectiveness of existing prevention programs while pushing “junk science” solutions that he contended were simply more neo-prohibitionist posturing.

“What was meant to be a thorough review of programs to fight underage drinking has turned into an opportunity for panelists to dictate to Congress their views on taxation and advertising, and vilify a legal industry,” he fumed in a statement he fired off to the Senate Subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health before the report even hit the press. He and the NBWA were particularly incensed that the committee refused to include beer industry nominees on the panel, instead loading it up, in their view, with wellknown anti-alcohol advocates who then pressed for the perennial chestnuts of the anti-alcohol lobby: higher beer taxes, an anti-alcohol advertising campaign financed by beer but controlled by the government, and a curb on beer advertising.

The outcry drew an equally outraged response from George Hacker, director of the Alcohol Policies Project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest—a guy who'd been in the ring with Rehr many times before. “We're not surprised by this thuggish behavior from the NBWA,” Hacker said in a public statement on the matter. “What else would one expect from a group that may stand to lose some of its franchise on underage drinkers, who consume, according to some studies, as much as 20 percent of all the alcohol downed in the United States, most of that in the form of beer?”

When Rehr wrote Hacker a scathing letter calling the word “thuggish” an insult to NBWA members, “who are small business owners, community activists, parents, religious leaders and philanthropists,” Hacker's group did excise the term from its Web site.

But what really drives Rehr nuts—and gives some credence to the NBWA's neo-prohibitionist paranoia—is that 20 percent statistic. The figure was actually first reported in February 2002 as 25 percent based upon a study released by another NBWA nemesis, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The report made front-page headlines around the world and got huge play on CNN—and then was subject to a fierce skin-back the next day by the Associated Press and the
New York Times
and scads of other media outlets that had published it. The
Times
reported that the number, based upon the interpretation of the federal agency that had collected the original data, was closer to 11.4 percent. CASA, for its part, admitted its number was flawed but called the flaw an honest error of statistical interpretation that still didn't diminish what it considered to be an “epidemic” of teen drinking. (Indeed, when I interviewed Hacker about this flap more than a year later, he still maintained that the figure “conceivably could be as high as 20 percent,” even if CASA had been forced to restate it to 11.4 percent. He also told me that while Rehr, in person, could be “a gracious and friendly guy,” he was clearly “the Attila the Hun of the alcoholic beverage industry.”)

Rehr, for his part, believes such statistical errors are intentional and part of CASA's campaign to greatly exaggerate the teen drinking problem to scare the public into injudicious action. Statistically, according to Rehr, underage drinkers are defined as twelve- to twenty-year-olds; by number they comprise 13 percent of the population. For even a 20 percent figure to be correct, you'd have to assume that
every
twelve- to twenty-year-old drinks about 100 drinks a month. “How many twelve-to twenty-year-olds do you know who consume almost 100 alcoholic beverages a month?” Rehr complains. Beyond that, Rehr points to the NBWA's interpolation of federal statistics that show that teenage drinking in the year 2000 was actually
down
53 percent from 1982 levels; alcohol-related deaths involving teen drivers were
down
62 percent over the same period.

For all those public dustups, I wondered whether Rehr, who was to give the keynote at this NBWA conference, might be more conciliatory when he took the stage in a cavernous Marriott ballroom to address a crowd that also included a fair number of beer distributors' spouses. The answer was: absolutely not. With huge TV screens flashing oversized pictures of him and a sonorous announcer introducing him as “one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington,' Rehr bounded up to the podium and bit, pitbull-like, right in to his adversaries:

“Thanks to you and your support … we have prevented anti-business voices in Congress from doing harm to our industry and we have enlisted significant support for our positions on key issues. Thanks to the work of beer wholesalers, OSHA is currently drafting
voluntary
ergonomics guidelines to replace the Bill Clinton-era mandatory approach—regulations that would have cost you 30 cents a case. And thankfully, despite cries from some members of Congress and Big Labor, efforts to legislate new guidelines, so far, have not amounted to much… .

“I am happy to report that as of today, 224 members of the House of Representatives have heard our message and agreed to co-sponsor Pennsylvania Congressman Phil English's bill rolling back the excise tax on beer to the pre-1991 level. This has been possible because of your unwavering support and involvement—and despite efforts by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others to double the beer excise tax.

“Although our effort to make death tax repeal permanent wasn't a complete success, we continue to make progress. Last spring, the house passed the permanency bill for the second time. However, while the measure fell short in the Senate, the rules require sixty votes for passage. One thing we might want to do about that is elect four new senators who will help drive a stake through the heart of the death tax once and for all. In fact, if your senator is on this list, you need to help elect someone who will vote to permanently repeal the death tax—and you can do it on November 5.”

Later in his speech, Rehr named names:

“A majority of the members in the House and a near majority in the Senate are great friends of NBWA. There are, however, four races which need special attention this year:

“In Missouri, incumbent Senator Jean Carnahan doesn't meet with beer wholesalers. She switched her vote to be against us on the death tax and she enthusiastically supported OSHA's ergonomics regulations. Jim Talent, her opponent, was one of our best friends when he was in the U.S. House.

“South Dakota incumbent Senator Tim Johnson also switched his vote on the death tax as well and believes beer is equated with illegal drugs. His opponent, Congressman John Thune, has been with us 100 percent of the time.

“In Iowa, incumbent Senator Tom Harkin criticized NBWA by name on the floor of the Senate and was the staunchest supporter of the Clinton 30-cents-a-case ergonomics regulations. We need to replace him with Representative Greg Ganske—a physician who believes drinking beer can be part of a healthy lifestyle and who has been a solid supporter of NBWA.

“And finally, my favorite race in Minnesota. Incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone is bad on ergonomics, opposed making death tax repeal permanent, and actually introduced a bill to raise the beer tax 350 percent. We must replace him with former St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman, who, when he ran for city council over a decade and a half ago, received his first political contribution from a beer wholesaler. If every beer wholesaler in these four states and, every beer wholesaler who is not from these states, helps in any way you can, we will determine who controls the U.S. Senate.” (Rehr's wish list would come up two victories short; Carnahan was, in fact, defeated; Wellstone died tragically in a plane crash and Coleman beat replacement candidate Walter Mondale. But Johnson beat Thune in a squeaker and Harkin handily maintained his seat.)

Rehr later rallied the troops with an exhortation to defend NBWA principles:

“The beer industry is being challenged as never before… . Those who distrust the concept of personal responsibility are seeking to impose their solutions on all of society, ignoring the rights of the majority and putting your businesses in jeopardy. And they are becoming more shrill, more extreme, and more bold. We all know that many of them are not reasonable people. Reasonable people would talk to us. Reasonable people would work with us. We share the goals of reducing drunk driving, preventing illegal underage drinking, and promoting responsible consumption.

“If we cannot work together toward these common goals, we have no choice but to ratchet up our own efforts… . You operate within a system purged of the evils of pre-Prohibition days. You contribute daily to the well-being of your communities. You offer good jobs to tens of thousands of men and women.

“But we must do more… . Let's not let the neo-prohibitionists take the moral high ground. Let's not give them an opportunity to impose their will on us or the millions who responsibly consume our products. Let's not let them control the language of the debate.

“Consider this: CSPI [the Center for Science in the Public Interest] compares beer to drugs such as cocaine and smack. Listen to these quotes from their issue papers and press releases: ‘Alcohol is a drug too.' ‘Kids' favorite and most devastating drug is the alcohol in beer/ And, ‘Beer, the king of drugs.'

“Unfortunately, earlier this year the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy seemed to have taken the bait. In one of the ads in their campaign to link drugs to terrorism, they recklessly criminalized the consumption of beer. Those of you who were at the joint legislative conference in April will remember the quick action taken by our industry to kill the ad.

“
We
must define the context of this debate. We must be strong, aggressive advocates of beer as part of America's lifestyle. We will give no ground to the neo-prohibitionists.”

Rehr ended a couple minutes later to thunderous applause.

Afterward, I ran some of this speech by Frank Coleman, the chief spokesman for DISCUS, the group representing the distilled spirits industry. He laughed and said, “That's David talking to his troops—throwing red meat to the hungry.” But then Coleman got serious and added, “David's a great ally to have in any fight—and he's a formidable adversary to stand against.”

Dennis Buettner, meanwhile, wasn't drawing much applause at all.

I caught up with him several times during the four-day NBWA meeting and it was clear he was getting mostly amused or indifferent reception to his ideas for a beer cable TV network or for his efforts to turn the United States Beer Drinking Team into beer's singular consumer group. (In fact, the Bud people told me later that they'd looked at a number of schemes over the years to launch a beer TV show and never saw a commercial model they thought could work.) Nonetheless, Buettner carried on with the ebullient optimism of the natural salesman he is and, with his wife, Jen, an attractive blonde, helping out with the sales pitches, he maintained a ubiquitous profile, darting here and there to deliver his spiel.

I stayed in e-mail contact with Buettner and months and months later he told me he'd raised enough money to at least get a Beer TV pilot going. And sure enough, in the spring of 2003, when I visited Sam Calagione at Dogfish Head Craft Brewery during a visit by beer writer Michael Jackson, I ran into a guy named Gary Monterosso wearing a Beer TV T-shirt and lugging a camera. He interviewed Jackson on videotape and the program did eventually run—on a local Maryland cable TV network. But that was the debut and finale of Beer TV.

As I was putting this book to bed, Buettner admitted that Beer TV hadn't gotten off the ground (though he wasn't willing to permanently give up on the idea and had been experimenting with Beer TV webcasts). He also admitted he was somewhat disappointed that he hadn't gotten better reception from his NBWA efforts.