Did Congress Declare Bourbon America's Native Spirit? The 1964 Resolution Explained
On 4 May 1964, Congress drew a line around the bourbon name: it recognised bourbon whiskey as a “distinctive product of the United States” and called for action against imports carrying that designation. It did not call bourbon “America's Native Spirit”. That phrase appears in a 2007 Senate resolution, which incorrectly credits the wording to Congress in 1964. [1][7]
What the 1964 bourbon resolution actually said
The name, rather than a ceremonial title, was the point. Senate Concurrent Resolution 19 was headed “Bourbon whiskey designated as distinctive product of U.S.” Printed at 78 Stat. 1208, with an agreement date of 4 May 1964, it addressed national origin and imported whisky. [1]
Verdict: Documented. Its preamble makes the case through familiar spirits: Scotch whisky as a distinctive product of Scotland, Canadian whisky of Canada and cognac of France. The United States already recognised those origins. Congress placed bourbon whiskey alongside them as a distinctive product of the United States, seeking recognition of the same kind for an American spirit. [1]
The operative clause expresses “the sense of Congress” that agencies should take action “to prohibit the importation into the United States of whisky designated as 'Bourbon whiskey'”. The practical aim was clear: bourbon should identify an American product, not an imported whisky bearing the same name. [1]
Neither “America's Native Spirit” nor a requirement that bourbon come from Kentucky appears in the text. Its geographical reference is the United States. Present US federal regulation follows that national boundary: it prohibits the use of “bourbon” for whisky not distilled and aged in the United States. [1][9]
A resolution, not an Act
Congress acted, but this document was not a law. The US House historian states the distinction plainly: the concurrent resolution “was not a law and did not require the President's signature”. Calling it the “1964 Bourbon Act” changes the kind of document it was. [2]
The resolution states a congressional position and calls on agencies to act. Its operative clause was not itself a binding prohibition enacted into law. The House historian describes the Senate version as ensuring that bourbon was made in the United States, comparing its trade protection with that afforded to overseas spirits such as Scotch. [1][2]
An accurate account needs three details: the date, the words “distinctive product”, and its status as a concurrent resolution. [1][2]
The labelling exception that disappeared
Verdict: Documented
An earlier House proposal would have left room for foreign whisky bearing the bourbon name. On 24 January 1963, Mr. Watts submitted H. Con. Res. 57, titled “To designate 'bourbon whiskey' as a distinctive product of the United States”. It was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. [3]
Its first whereas clause invoked the United States' commercial policy of recognising “marks of origin applicable to alcoholic beverages” imported into the country. Its proposed response, however, included a labelling exception absent from the text eventually agreed by both chambers. [3][4]
| Document | Requested treatment of imported whisky designated bourbon |
|---|---|
| H. Con. Res. 57, introduced 24 January 1963 | Prohibit imports unless the country of origin was clearly labelled as an integral part of the name. [3] |
| S. Con. Res. 19, agreed 4 May 1964 | Prohibit imports designated “Bourbon whiskey”, with no country of origin exception. [4] |
The final text stopped after “whisky designated as 'Bourbon whiskey'”. Removing the exception made its request broader than the House proposal as introduced. [3][4]
Other changes replaced “whether imported or domestic” with “whether foreign or domestic” and used the resolving formula “Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring)”. The House historian records that the House passed H. Con. Res. 57 in 1964, after which both chambers passed the Senate's version. [2][3][4]
Where “America's Native Spirit” enters the record
The phrase appears in S. Res. 294 of the 110th Congress. Mr. Bunning submitted it, and the Senate considered and agreed to it on 2 August 2007. It designated September 2007 as “National Bourbon Heritage Month”. [7]
Its first whereas clause says: “Congress declared bourbon as 'America's Native Spirit' in 1964, making it the only spirit distinctive to the United States”. Set beside the original, the wording error is clear: the 1964 resolution contains neither that title nor those words. [1][7]
The 2007 resolution also makes a recognition of its own. Its second operative clause “recognizes bourbon as 'America's Native Spirit'”. Here, the resolving body is “the Senate”, not both chambers of Congress. [7]
Story box: how two resolutions became one familiar claim
Legislative trail: Mr. Watts's House proposal of 24 January 1963 preceded the concurrent resolution agreed on 4 May 1964. These are separate documents with different final wording. [3][4]
Claim and documented record: The familiar claim combines Congress's recognition of bourbon as a “distinctive product of the United States” with the Senate's recognition of “America's Native Spirit” on 2 August 2007. The later resolution incorrectly attributes its phrase to the earlier one. [1][7]
Verdict: Documented
Evidence gap and earliest known source: The documents establish this comparison, not the phrase's earliest use anywhere. For the Senate recognition discussed here, the source is S. Res. 294, 2 August 2007.
Sources and claim mapping: 1963 proposal for the legislative beginning; 1964 text for its wording; 2007 resolution for the later recognition and attribution.
Last checked: 7 November 2026.
From American recognition to international agreements
Verdict: Documented
International recognition came through agreements with trading partners, not through the 1964 resolution alone. According to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, an industry body, the first international agreement explicitly recognising bourbon as exclusively a US product was the 1971 agreement between the United States and France protecting the names of bourbon whiskey and certain French brandies. [5]
Later arrangements carried that recognition further. The Council's account of NAFTA describes Canada and Mexico recognising Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey as distinctive US products. In return, the United States recognised Canadian Whisky, Tequila and Mezcal. These were reciprocal agreements between countries, separate from recognition in a US congressional document. [5]
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau dates completion of the US and EU Spirits Agreement to March 1994. Its account lists EU recognition of “Bourbon Whisky and Tennessee Whisky”, alongside US recognition of Scotch Whisky, Irish Whisky, Cognac, Armagnac, Calvados and Brandy de Jerez. [6]
The 2007 preamble's description of bourbon as the “only spirit distinctive to the United States” overlooks Tennessee whiskey, another American name recognised in these agreements. [5][6][7]
How the fiftieth anniversary described it
Verdict: Documented
For the fiftieth anniversary, the Senate returned to the original words. In May 2014, S. Res. 446 stated that on 4 May 1964 Congress had declared bourbon whiskey “a distinctive product of the United States”. Printed in the Congressional Record on 15 May as considered and agreed to, it recognised the declaration's fiftieth anniversary without using “native spirit”. [8]
As with other whisky myths, the story is not wholly invented: two documented recognitions have become one familiar claim. Keep them separate. Write: “In 1964, Congress recognised bourbon whiskey as a distinctive product of the United States.” Give the Senate's 2007 recognition of the nickname separately. Both moments stand without borrowing words from each other. [1][7][8]
Where to go next
- Whisky Myths Debunked: check other familiar claims against their evidence.
- Ireland or Scotland: Where Was Whisky First Recorded?: distinguish a surviving record from a claim about origins.
- Does Golf Have 18 Holes Because of a Bottle of Whisky?: follow another whisky story through its documentary record.
Sources
- US Government Publishing Office, govinfo. Statutes at Large, volume 78, page 1208, 1964. Verified wording supplied through site fact sheet TOP-A053, revision 5 November 2026. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg1208.pdf
- US House of Representatives, History, Art and Archives. Designating Bourbon Whiskey, record dated 24 January 1963. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/15032436199
- US House of Representatives, History, Art and Archives. H. Con. Res. 57, 88th Congress, 1st Session, In the House of Representatives, January 24, 1963, scanned introduced text, 1963. https://historycms.house.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=25769820363
- US Government Publishing Office, govinfo. Statutes at Large, volume 78, page 1208, 1964, comparison with the introduced House text. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg1208.pdf
- Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. NAFTA Modernization, Written Comments to the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, 1 August 2017. Industry body submission. https://www.distilledspirits.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Distilled_Spirits_Council_-_NAFTA_Modernization_Written_Comments_HWM_2017.pdf
- Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. U.S./EU Spirits Agreement, undated web account of the agreement completed in March 1994. https://www.ttb.gov/import-export/itd/u-s-eu-spirits-agreement
- US Government Publishing Office, govinfo. S. Res. 294, 110th Congress, 1st Session, Agreed to Senate, 2 August 2007. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110sres294ats/html/BILLS-110sres294ats.htm
-
US Government Publishing Office, govinfo. Congressional Record, volume 160, number 74, page S3077: S. Res. 446, 15 May 2014. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2014-05-15/html/CREC-2014-05-15-pt1-PgS3077.htm
-
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 27 CFR 5.143, standards of identity for distilled spirits. The current official text, edition and date checked must be verified before publication.
This desk research article compares the congressional texts and institutional accounts recorded in the site's verified fact sheet, without claiming fresh archival research.
Last checked: November 2026