SIGN UP FOR E-MAIL UPDATES AND ALERTS ON THE STATUS OF H.R. 1161
House Resolution 1161 is a self-serving and protectionist piece of special interest legislation that would harm small, family wineries, forever destroy the ability of specialty wine stores to serve customers without the threat of facing discriminatory state laws, encourage interstate barriers to trade, retard commerce at a time when the American economy is still reeling, kill jobs and prevent consumers from legally accessing wines they can’t find locally by leading to bans on the legal, well regulated direct shipment of wine. Learn about the legislation, who supports it, who opposes it, and how it’s being covered in the media. GET EDUCATED and Help STOP HR 1161
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
NEW-June 8, 2011: June 3rd saw four more House members sign on as Co-sponsors to H.R. 1161, bringing the total Congressional sponsors of H.R. 1161 to 81, including chief sponsor Jason Chaffetz-R (UT). Among these 81 sponsors, nine sit on the House Judiciary Committee where the bill is assigned, but where no hearings on the bill have been held or scheduled. A breakdown of current sponsors show that Florida host the most with 12 Co-sponsors. Texas and New Jersey contribute seven co-sponsors. Michigan and Ohio each contribute five sponsors. Illinois and Pennsylvania come in with four sponsors each. At this time last year, H.R. 5034, an identical bill introduced in last year’s congressional session, had 114 Co-sponsors. And like last year, no companion bill to H.R. 1161 has been introduced into the Senate. This is all very good news for opponents of this legislation and for supporters of free trade and true and original Constitutional principles.
June 1, 2011: Since our May 25 update, H.R. 1161 has seen three new co-sponsors, bring the total to 76 co-sponsors at this writing. The three new co-sponsors include Daniel Lipinski (IL), Bill Huizenga (MI), and Denny Rehberg (MT). Meanwhile opponents of H.R. 1161 continue to speak out. The conservative Heritage Foundation recently launched an editorial on their website condemning the bill and calling it, “a cynical attempt to sidestep a 2005 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Meanwhile, the venerable Wines & Vines Magazine saw its editor, Jim Gordon, both write and film a devastating rebuke of the bill and its sponsors, the wine, beer and spirit wholesalers. H.R. 1161 hasn’t gotten nearly the traction that last years nearly identical H.R. 5034 received. It’s quite possible that the efforts of opponents have demonstrated the remarkable selfishness of the legislation, its usefulness merely as a Wine Wholesaler Protection Act, and the fallacies of the arguments wholesalers have used in pushing the legislation.
May 25, 2011: The number of legislators in the House of Representatives willing to co-sponsor HR 1161 remains at 73, a number far small than the group of lawmakers that affixed their name to last year’s Wholesaler Protection Bill (HR 5034). This is good news and suggests that Washington lawmakers, in addition to noticing the worthlessness of HR 1161 other than to give wholesalers smooth road toward dominating the alcohol beverage market in the U.S., they also understand the bill’s potential to throw up a collection of 18th century-style barriers to commerce. The most recent attempt by HR 1161 proponents to convince lawmakers to support H.R. 1161 was an editorial in The Hill, by Jim Rowland, senior vice president of Government Affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America. In the editorial Rowland continue to make the straightforwardly and unselfconsciously bizarre case that radical, anti-commerce steps (passage of HR 1161) need to be taken because states have been sued by parties seeking protection form unconstitutional discrimination. Rowland appears shocked that 27 lawsuits have been been filed over the past few years challenging state alcohol laws. What he doesn’t mention is that these lawsuits, as well as the numerous suits that have been filed over the decades challenging state alcohol laws, challenge what are laws clearly meant to stifle interstate commerce. Instead, Rowland wants lawmakers to believe that state laws that discriminate against out of state wine sellers are in place to “safeguard their citizens” with regulation that balances the needs of local communities with unrestrained commerce.” Hogwash. Rowland knows this is hogwash and so do legislators.
May 3, 2011: H.R. 1161 remains today with 57 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, a total that has not moved in two weeks. However, Congress has been in recess. Meanwhile, in a new installment of Shipcompliant’s ongoing series where interested parties on both sides of the issue write opinion pieces on HR 1161, the National Beer Wholesalers Association’s Paul Pisano again tried to justify the bill by arguing that states should not be subject to lawsuits challenging their discriminatory laws. He goes on to make one of the most bizarre comments yet offered in this debate: “The current litigation status only will lead to states abandoning their powers to protect the public interest.” States have been dealing with lawsuits challenging their discriminatory laws that reduce consumer access to wine for 20 years now. And it turns out that they have more regulations in place today than ever before. States will never “abandon their powers to protect the public interest” no matter how many discriminatory laws they pass and no matter how many lawsuits they face concerning those discriminatory laws. Finally, Zester Daily, edited by former LA Times food editor, released an opinion piece today concerning H.R. 1161 that needs to be read by all those who are concerned with the possibility of losing access to the wines they want as a result of this bill.
April 27, 2011: The Specialty Wine Retailers Association today released a statement calling on Congress to stop the war against wine consumers and wine retailers that is implicit in the introduction of H.R. 1161. In denouncing the bill, SWRA Executive Director Tom Wark noted, “Why Congress would want to play a role in encouraging interstate trade barriers that will reduce commerce, hurt the job market and discourage entrepreneurs is beyond comprehension. The only interests served by H.R. 1161 are those who benefit when free trade is curtailed and protectionist barriers erected. In this case that’s the authors of the bill: American beer, wine and spirit wholesalers.”
April 26, 2011: The Wall Street Journal today took a strong stand against HR 1161 in an editorial in its pages. In the editorial, the WSJ writes: “Congress specializes in giving nice names to bad bills, and the latest is the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (Care) Act. This purports to give states and communities more authority to regulate alcohol. In fact, its purpose is to prevent out-of-state wine producers from selling directly to consumers around the country.”
The editors go on to conclude: “It’s hard to imagine Congress giving states the authority to prohibit Amazon or any other online retailer from shipping its products directly to consumers. Yet that’s exactly what they’re trying to do with wine. Sounds to us like a case of sour grapes that deserves to be stomped.”
We applaud the editors at the Wall Street Journal for calling out this legislation for what it is: special interest giveaways that will lead to higher prices and less access to wine for consumers.
April 26, 2011: HR 1161 was introduced into the House of Representatives on March 18, 2011. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and awaits a hearing. Introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). the bill has currently attracted 57 co-sponsors. The bill’s support is bi-partisan, as it the opposition to the bill. Nearly every major association representing beer, wine and spirit producers have publicly condemned the bill for its special interest nature, the adverse effect it will have on consumers, and the damage it will do to the current regulatory environment. In addition importers of alcohol as well as retailers have come out against the bill. Within the alcohol beverage industry, only wholesalers, who wrote the bill, support it.
A variety of efforts are currently underway to stop the damaging legislation including lobbying against the bill on Capital Hill, a write in campaign by consumers headed by Free the Grapes, an anti-HR1161 Facebook page (StopHR1161) organized by the Specialty Wine Retailers Association, as well as this website for keeping concerned consumers and industry members updated on the progress of the Bill.