I 111th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 5034 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 15, 2010 Mr. Delahunt (for himself, Mr. Coble, Mr. Chaffetz, and Mr. Quigley) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To support State based alcohol regulation, to clarify evidentiary rules for alcohol matters, to ensure the collection of all alcohol taxes, and for other purposes.

1.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 2010.

2.

Purpose

It is the purpose of this Act to— (1)recognize that alcohol is different from other consumer products and that it should be regulated effectively by the States according to the laws thereof; and (2)reaffirm and protect the primary authority of States to regulate alcoholic beverages.

3.

Support for State alcohol regulation

The Act entitled An Act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases, approved March 1, 1913 (27 U.S.C. 122 et seq.), commonly known as the Webb-Kenyon Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

3.

Support for State alcohol regulation

(a)

Declaration of Policy

It is the policy of Congress that each State or territory shall continue to have the primary authority to regulate alcoholic beverages. (b)

Construction of Congressional Silence

Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the Commerce Clause) to the regulation by a State or territory of alcoholic beverages. However, State or territorial regulations may not facially discriminate, without justification, against out-of-state producers of alcoholic beverages in favor of in-state producers. (c)

Presumption of Validity and Burden of Proof

The following shall apply in any legal action challenging, under the Commerce Clause or an Act of Congress, a State or territory law regarding the regulation of alcoholic beverages: (1)The State or territorial law shall be accorded a strong presumption of validity. (2)The party challenging the State or territorial law shall in all phases of any such legal action bear the burden of proving its invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. (3)Notwithstanding that the State or territorial law may burden interstate commerce or may be inconsistent with an Act of the Congress, the State law shall be upheld unless the party challenging the State or territorial law establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the law has no effect on the promotion of temperance, the establishment or maintenance of orderly alcoholic beverage markets, the collection of alcoholic beverage taxes, the structure of the state alcoholic beverage distribution system, or the restriction of access to alcoholic beverages by those under the legal drinking age.

.

4.

Amendment to Wilson Act

The Act entitled An Act to limit the effect of the regulations of commerce between the several States and with foreign countries in certain cases, approved August 8, 1890 (27 U.S.C. 121), commonly known as the Wilson Act, is amended by striking to the same extent and all that follows through Territory,.