Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I did mention the nine amendments. That is clearly the import of what I wanted to do.

Mr. HATCH. I do not know that I was clear. That is why I am trying to be clear now.

Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator acknowledge----

Mr. HATCH. Let me rephrase the unanimous consent request. There are nine reserved amendments, five by the distinguished ranking member and four by the minority leader. The Senator should be allowed to call up this amendment utilizing one of those nine amendments, if she wants to. I do not want to expand the amendment list. I ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to do that, utilizing one of the nine that aren't presently utilized.

Mr. HATCH. That is what I meant to say.

Mr. HATCH. I do not know whether I was clear or not on my unanimous consent request, but she should be entitled to do it if she can use one of those nine amendments which have been reserved for things like this. We shouldn't have this if it is an additional amendment to all the ones we have on the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I support the Byrd amendment, but I do not think that is an unreasonable request. I ask my colleagues on this side to allow it, as long as there is not a lot of intervening debate.

Mr. HATCH. If it has not been, the only way we can bring it up without objection would be to get one of the--I think there are nine reserved amendments that could be utilized for this purpose. If you can do that, if I have interpreted this correctly, you would like your amendment right after the Byrd amendment so there will be a contrast.

Mr. HATCH. I ask the distinguished sponsor of the amendment, is this one of the amendments that has been approved by both sides under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. HATCH. Could I ask the distinguished Senator what her amendment is?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if nothing else can be said about this issue, it is absolutely imperative that states have the means to prevent unlawful access to alcohol by our children. If a 13-year-old is capable of ordering beer and having it delivered by merely ``borrowing'' a credit card and making a few clicks with her mouse, there is something wrong with the level of control that is being exercised over these sales and something must be done to address the problem. I am a strong supporter of electronic commerce. But the sale of alcohol cannot be equated with the sale of a sweater or shirt. We need to foster growth in electronic commerce, but we also need to make sure that alcohol control laws are respected. The growth of many of our nation's wineries is tied to their ability to achieve name recognition and generate sales nationwide--tasks the Internet is uniquely suited to accomplish. I do not want to preclude them from using the Internet; I want to ensure that they use it responsibly and in accordance with state laws. If there is a problem with the system, we need to fix the system, not break the laws. The 21st amendment gives states the right to regulate the importation of alcohol into their states. However, efforts to enforce laws relating to the importation of alcohol have run into significant legal hurdles in both state and Federal courts. The scope of the 21st amendment is essentially a Federal question that must be decided by the Federal courts--and ultimately the Supreme Court. For that reason, among others, I believe a Federal court forum is appropriate for state enforcement efforts. Most states do not permit direct shipping of alcohol to consumers. Therefore most Internet sales of alcohol are currently prohibited. If a state wants to set up a system to allow for the direct shipment of alcohol to consumers, such as New Hampshire and Louisiana have already done, then that is their right under the 21st amendment. But the decision to permit direct shipping, and under what conditions, is up to the states, not the purveyors of alcohol. S. 577, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act was introduced by myself and Senator DeWine on March 10, 1999. Senators Byrd and Conrad have now cosponsored and Senator Kohl is to be added as a sponsor. It is my understanding that Senator Byrd will offer the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act as an amendment to S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability Act of 1999. To my knowledge, only three Senators have gone on record opposing the bill--Feinstein, Durbin, Rockefeller--and 57 Senators have given the bill tentative approval. The bill is supported by a host of interests including, inter alia, Utah interests (Governor Leavitt, Attorney General Graham, Utah's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Utah Hospitality Association, numerous Utah Congressional Representatives and Senator Bennett), SADD, the National Licensed Beverage Association, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers, Geerlings and Wade (leading direct marketer of fine wines to 27 States and more than 81 percent of the wine consuming public) Americans for Responsible Alcohol Access, the National Association of Beverage Retailers, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators. I had intended to offer this amendment. Senator Feinstein asked that I withhold--and I was agreeable to working with her. I still wish to work with her. But, given Senator Byrd's decision to offer the amendment at this time I feel compelled to vote my conscience. I have been working with Senator Feinstein and others to try to come to an agreement on legislation which will balance the legitimate commercial interests involved with the rights of the states under the 21st amendment. However, I haven't seen any proposed amendments at this time which help alleviate the problems inherent in direct shipping while at the same time protecting the wineries' commercial interests. I still want to work with the vineyards and those who have concerns. I hope we can keep working together. Summary of Byrd Amendment (S. 577, the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act'') (1) Permits the chief law enforcement officer of a state to seek an injunction in federal court to prevent the violation of any of its laws regulating the importation or transportation of alcohol; (2) Allows for venue for the suit where the defendant resides and where the violations occur; (3) No injunctions issued without prior notice to the opposing party; (4) Requires that injunctions be specific as to the parties, the conduct and the rationale underlying the issuance of the injunction; (5) Allows for quick consideration of the application for an injunction; conserves court resources by avoiding redundant proceedings; (6) Mandates a bench trial. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that there be given time to debate by opponents on Monday, if they are unable to be here at this time, to amendments that are called up today, and we give them the time to debate the equivalent used today--in the case of Senator Feinstein, she is here so she can reply regarding Senator Byrd's amendment--but that Senator Byrd's amendment proceed, and immediately following the Byrd amendment, that Senators Frist and Ashcroft be permitted to call up their amendment, hopefully speaking for only 5 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. May I have a ruling on my unanimous consent request to get this order?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will try to protect Senators on our side who may not be here. I presume the distinguished Senator from Vermont will do the same for Senators on this side when we know they are in opposition or opposing a particular amendment. I amend my unanimous consent request to request that, immediately following Senator Byrd's presentation of his amendment, Senators Frist and Ashcroft be permitted to call up their amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. HATCH. That is fine with me.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as he needs to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HATCH. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that? My gosh, they do not have any controls at all on gun shows. This puts controls on it. It actually does what those on your side of the floor wanted to do yesterday, and our side of the floor did not do. Now we are correcting that. But right now there is no limit at all. We put limits on. We do exactly what the President was bad-mouthing Republicans for not doing today.

Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to give you some of ours for this, but, look, that just is not quite accurate.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, actually now in intrastate sales they do not have to do anything. There is no gun check at all. There is no instant check at all; there is no requisite check at all. What we do is solve that problem and we do it better than what the Democrat amendment was yesterday. And when we do it--I just want to correct the record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time do the two sides have left?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Hatch-Craig amendment we offered earlier this afternoon requires every nonlicensed individual who desires to sell a firearm at a gun show to have a background check. They can get a background check through a licensed Federal firearms dealer or through a special registrant, but he must get a background check. The language in the amendment clearly states that a nonlicensed seller ``shall only make'' a sale at a gun show after getting a background check through the instant check system. ``Shall'' means ``shall.'' It does not mean ``maybe,'' ``sometimes,'' or ``if you want to''; it means ``shall.'' The distinguished Senator from New Jersey says we are a nation of laws.

Mr. HATCH. I will on your time because I only have a limited amount of time and I want to get through these points.