THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The CHAIRMAN. Both gentlemen have 2 1/2 minutes remaining. The manager of the bill has the right to close.
[Page: H6867] GPO's PDF
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, this particular analogy just put forth by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. HULSHOF) with gun liability is completely misplaced.
We are not saying that anybody should or should not be immune from ultimate illegal use of the alcohol, such as the drunk driver. This bill simply goes to the shipping into the State in violation of an existing State law.
Now, if those States, and we have heard from a number of Members that are speaking for the wineries, if those States have a disagreement with a particular alcoholic restrictive law of a particular State, then their remedy should be to go to those State legislators and change the State laws that relate to how liquor can be brought into and distributed within that State.
But again, to make perfectly clear, and let us remove the clouds of the gun debate and the commerce debate here, this is a bill that simply empowers attorneys general of the States to seek injunctive relief to stop shippers, large or small, from shipping into their State in violation of State laws. It does not affect the legal shipper.
I urge support of the bill.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generous grant of time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. Where in this bill do we target or state explicitly that what we are doing is going after underage purchasers of wine over the Internet o r microbrew over the Internet?
This is a very broad bill. The target is much larger than underaged drinking and access to alcohol. They are still going to go down to the concern and give the guy an extra couple of bucks who is a bad guy to go into the store and buy the stuff. They are not going to do it over the Internet a nd buy an expensive case of wine. That is not what we are after here. We are trying to close down the small wineries and breweries.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH) has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DELAHUNT) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the point has been made again and again that this particular proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with impeding the growth of E-commerce in terms of the sales of wine or any spirits or alcohols.
What it has to do is with respect to State laws. The fact and the reality is that we should be here to respect and provide an opportunity to States that find themselves with limited capacity and ability to enforce their own laws.
Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL) spoke to the issue of guns. Now, I know I have a disagreement with my friends from Georgia and Florida. But let me say, when it comes to that particular issue, I want the laws in Massachusetts relative to guns respected and honored anywhere in this Nation.
[Time: 12:45]
I do not want the shipment of firearms into Massachusetts from Georgia, Florida or California. I want to ensure that my Attorney General has the right to go to court and have the firearm laws of Massachusetts respected, initially.
Another item here, Mr. Chairman. This is from the New York Times. ``Officials Struggle to Regulate On-Line Sale of Prescription D rugs.'' I am just going to quote:
The Food and Drug Administration announced steps today to curb the illegitimate sale of prescription d rugs over the Internet. Now doctors are prescribing pills on-line to patients they have never met in States where they are not authorized to work. Pharmacies are shipping pills across State lines without the requisite license.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DELAHUNT) has expired.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to say in closing, again bringing up what I brought up at the very beginning of the debate. We can talk about a lot of different things, we can throw red herrings in front of the people in this Chamber, but in the end the dividing line of this bill is between legal alcohol sales and illegal alcoholic sales.
We have had some people who are angry because they say we are trying to destroy local wineries. Again, the only local wineries that will be destroyed will be the local wineries whose very existence depends on illegal sales, because their legal sales will not be affected. We have people that are angry because we are not limiting this to merely people under 21 years of age. Their argument seems to be that if you are 21 years old and 1 day, then illegal bootlegging to you is okay while it is not okay to minors. That is just not right.
We have had the argument that this is a made-up issue. Again, I do not know how many times we have to read the 30 plus television stations that have run stings on this thing.
Also, one thing, going back to what my good friend the gentleman from Missouri said about gun sales. That is just not relevant. I will say to the gentleman right now, I, too, oppose illegal gun sales across State lines, and I think it is very courageous that you do that, also. Now I am asking you and everybody in this House to join with me and support the banning of illegal alcoholic sales.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2031, the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act.
H.R. 2031's proponents contend that it will address the problem of illegal sales to minors over the Internet. I strongly support cracking down on underage drinking, but this bill does nothing to address this serious problem. Rather, H.R. 2031 is nothing more than an intra-industry battle between liquor wholesalers and Internet l iquor retailers. Under the guise of protecting minors from Internet a lcohol sales, this bill's true intent is to tie up Internet l iquor retailers in federal litigation.
Supporters of this legislation have failed to provide evidence of any wide-spread problem with illegal, under-age Internet a lcohol sales. In fact, in California, we have had telephone and mail-ordered wine deliveries since 1963 and our law enforcement agencies report they have not encountered problems with these deliveries. Moreover, legitimate concerns over underage Internet p urchases of alcohol have been adequately addressed by the industry's practice of visibly labeling shipping packages as containing alcohol and requiring the signature of persons over the age of 21 for receipt. Finally, state and federal enforcement mechanisms already exist to address illegal alcohol sales. H.R. 2031 will add a duplicative and unnecessary layer to already existing law.
I find it ironic that one of the chief proponents of this bill, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, actively opposed my efforts to include language in the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill to include underage drinking in the billion-dollar anti-drug media campaign administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. If the National Beer Wholesalers are so devoted to fighting underage drinking, you would think they would have joined forces with me. Instead, they fought tooth and nail against establishing an effective effort to combat illegal alcohol use by teenagers.
Not only is this bill bad policy, it's also anti-business. As small vintners in California and across the nation seek innovative ways to promote their quality product, they are naturally looking at the marketing opportunities presented by the Internet. This bill would work directly against such marketing and trade opportunities.
Direct access has been a long-standing problem for the 1,600 family-owned wineries who compete with the 10 mega-wineries that produce 90% of the wine in the United States. Wholesalers cannot supply all of the unique wines available from smaller wineries to the majority of consumers and thus, these small wineries are excluded from the national market. The Internet is a vital sales tool for the small wineries to directly promote their wines to consumers.
H.R. 2031's true design is simple: it would protect wholesalers of wine, beer and distilled spirits from Internet co mpetition. I urge my colleagues to defeat this proposal and work instead to promote interstate trade. Let's support the 1,600 small wineries in California and across the United States who are using their good business sense to expand markets and create jobs in their communities.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is considered
[Page: H6868] GPO's PDF
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act''.
SEC. 2. SHIPMENT OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR INTO STATE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.
The Act entitled ``An Act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases'', approved March 1, 1913 (commonly known as the ``Webb-Kenyon Act'') (27 U.S.C. 122) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.
``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section--
``(1) the term `attorney general' means the attorney general or other chief law enforcement officer of a State, or the designee thereof;
``(2) the term `intoxicating liquor' means any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind;
``(3) the term `person' means any individual and any partnership, corporation, company, firm, society, association, joint stock company, trust, or other entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property, but does not include a State or agency thereof; and
``(4) the term `State' means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States.
``(b) ACTION BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.--If the attorney general has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaged in, or has engaged in, any act that would constitute a violation of a State law regulating the importation or transportation of any intoxicating liquor, the attorney general may bring a civil action in accordance with this section for injunctive relief (including a preliminary or permanent injunction or other order) against the person, as the attorney general determines to be necessary to--
``(1) restrain the person from engaging, or continuing to engage, in the violation; and
``(2) enforce compliance with the State law.
``(c) FEDERAL JURISDICTION.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any action brought under this section by an attorney general against any person, except one licensed or otherwise authorized to produce, sell, or store intoxicating liquor in such State.
``(2) VENUE.--An action under this section may be brought only in accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United States Code, or in the district in which the recipient of the intoxicating liquor resides or is found.
``(d) REQUIREMENTS FOR INJUNCTIONS AND ORDERS.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--In any action brought under this section, upon a proper showing by the attorney general of the State, the court may issue a preliminary or permanent injunction or other order to restrain a violation of this section. A proper showing under this paragraph shall require clear and convincing evidence that a violation of State law as described in subsection (b) has taken place. In addition, no temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction may be granted except upon--
``(A) evidence demonstrating the probability of irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted; and
``(B) evidence supporting the probability of success on the merits.
``(2) NOTICE.--No preliminary injunction or permanent injunction or other order may be issued under paragraph (1) without notice to the adverse party and an opportunity for a hearing.
``(3) FORM AND SCOPE OF ORDER.--Any preliminary or permanent injunction or other order entered in an action brought under this section shall--
``(A) set forth the reasons for the issuance of the order;
``(B) be specific in its terms;
``(C) describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained;
``(D) be binding upon--
``(i) the parties to the action and the officers, agents, employees, and attorneys of those parties; and
``(ii) persons in active concert or participation with the parties to the action who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.
``(e) ADDITIONAL REMEDIES.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--A remedy under this section is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.
``(2) STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS.--Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in State court on the basis of an alleged violation of any State law.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.
(a) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.--The amendment made by this Act shall apply only with respect to the importation or transportation of any intoxicating liquor occurring after--
(1) October 31, 1999, or the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is earlier, if this Act is enacted before November 1, 1999; or
(2) the date of the enactment of this Act if this Act is enacted after October 31, 1999.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill shall be considered under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 2 hours.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOODLATTE
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GOODLATTE:
Page 6, line 9, strike the close quotation marks and the period at the end.
Page 6, after line 9, insert the following:
``SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
``(a) EFFECT ON INTERNET TA X FREEDOM ACT.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to modify or supersede the operation of the Internet Ta x Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note).
``(b) ENFORCEMENT OF TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT.--It is the purpose of this Act to assist the States in the enforcement of section 2 of the twenty-first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and not to impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in violation of in article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States. No State may enforce under this Act a law regulating the importation or transportation of any intoxicating liquor that unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce by out-of-State sellers by favoring local industries, thus erecting barriers to competition and constituting mere economic protectionism.
``(c) SUPPORT FOR INTERNET AN D OTHER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.--Nothing in this Act may be construed--
``(1) to permit state regulation or taxation of Internet se rvices or any other related interstate telecommunications services
``(2) to authorize any injunction against--
``(A) an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)); or
``(B) electronic communication service (a defined in section 2510(15) of title 18 of the United States Code).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with the gentleman from California (Mr. COX) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) and with the support of the gentleman from Florida who has offered the underlying legislation.
The amendment to H.R. 2031 clarifies that this bill is not meant to interfere with legitimate electronic commerce on the Internet. F irst, the amendment clarifies that the bill in no way supersedes the recently enacted Internet Ta x Freedom Act which placed a 3-year moratorium on new multiple and discriminatory Internet ta xes. I strongly supported passage of that act and do not wish to see it compromised.
Second, our amendment clarifies that this bill in no way extends the powers of States to interfere with electronic commerce. It includes language that clarifies that the authority granted to States under this bill is limited to the enforcement of State laws regarding the transportation of alcohol within its borders, not to the legal advertisement or sale of alcohol on-line.
Third, our amendment ensures that injunctive relief is available against the entity shipping alcohol in violation of applicable laws, not against communications companies used by these third parties' activities for advertising and other communication purposes.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents