SB 113-72: Atlasia Wine Official Clarification Act (Passed)

[Pyro]

I'm more partial to whiskey, personally, but wine has its place.

[Pyro]

Seeing as this has been quiet for the past few days, I will motion for a final vote.

[Pyro]

Is it up to Tack to decide if an amendment to this is friendly?

[Pyro]

I dont know much about wine. Is there an obvious reason for why the contest is every 6 year for whites but 9 years for red? Im working through a couple amendment ideas.

Do you have these amendment proposals prepared? I would like to move ahead with this legislation.

[Pyro]

My goals are to:

- increase frequency of the contests (6 and 9 years seem too long between)

- ensure the contests are cost neutral, probably through allowing the use of some phrase on labels in exchange for sponsorship $

- ensure fairness of regional venue selection and judges probably rotating regions and equal representation in judges

- possibly change the contest name to something not from  a will ferrell movie.

Those were my reasons for repealing it last year. I will put the amendment language together. Without reasoning i think i want to align the duration of the contests between reds and whites. Not sure if every 2, 4, or 5 years. Any preference?

These changes would be fine with me, though I would imagine the cost of these contests is negligible.

I do not have a preference on the duration. I suppose every four years is fair.

If you have this amendment proposal ready, please let me know. Otherwise, I can create an amendment to address this concerns.

We should make this an omnibus bill on alcohol in my opinion.

We should have a contest for bourbon. I would also ask we have a provision allowing for Texas Whiskey, which is a growing enterprise and highly profitable for the South, to also have special protections.

Similarly proposing this for Pacific North West whiskey as well, who produce single malt whiskies as well.

We might as well open it up to everyone and everything to ensure it is a good bill.

Not that I oppose this idea, but I believe any additional alcohol-related contests should be handled in a separate bill. This one is rather extensive as-is.

[Pyro]

We should make this an omnibus bill on alcohol in my opinion.

We should have a contest for bourbon. I would also ask we have a provision allowing for Texas Whiskey, which is a growing enterprise and highly profitable for the South, to also have special protections.

Similarly proposing this for Pacific North West whiskey as well, who produce single malt whiskies as well.

We might as well open it up to everyone and everything to ensure it is a good bill.

Not that I oppose this idea, but I believe any additional alcohol-related contests should be handled in a separate bill. This one is rather extensive as-is.

Why create different statutes? This consolidates the legal code and in my opinion, we should open it up, for simplicities sake.

This bill is specifically about wine classification and contests. To introduce an entirely new subject matter, much less amend this into an omnibus bill for all alcohol-related contests, would constitute a total restructuring that I do not see as being faithful to the original proposal. If a majority of the Senate is in favor of scrapping this in favor of a yet-to-be-written restructured omnibus, then this legislation should be tabled so a new law can be introduced. Otherwise, we should address the concerns put forward by Senator R and bring this to a final vote.

[Pyro]

This bill is specifically about wine classification and contests. To introduce an entirely new subject matter, much less amend this into an omnibus bill for all alcohol-related contests, would constitute a total restructuring that I do not see as being faithful to the original proposal. If a majority of the Senate is in favor of scrapping this in favor of a yet-to-be-written restructured omnibus, then this legislation should be tabled so a new law can be introduced. Otherwise, we should address the concerns put forward by Senator R and bring this to a final vote.

Or instead of wasting time, you just amend the bill instead of harping on this.

It's your proposal, Mr. Governor.

If you have an amendment and a senator to sponsor it, we'll happily discuss it.

[Pyro]

It appears Senator R's amendment has been adopted, and active discussion has ended.

Once more, I motion for a final vote.

[Pyro]

Ok.

My amendment is adopted.

We have an amendment on the floor. 24 hours to object.

Then if there arent any more issues we can hopefully move this along soon.

As WM's amendment was introduced after the final vote motion (and objection), wouldn't the vote to end debate take priority?

[Pyro]

Ok.

My amendment is adopted.

We have an amendment on the floor. 24 hours to object.

Then if there arent any more issues we can hopefully move this along soon.

As WM's amendment was introduced after the final vote motion (and objection), wouldn't the vote to end debate take priority?

Wouldnt you rather just wait the 24 hours instead? Otherwise thats 72 hrs on cloture, which would fail since a majority will want the amendment heard, then reallow 24 hrs for WMs Amendment, then 24 hrs for the new motion, then 96 hrs to vote. Just allowing the amendment saves you 96 hrs.

I'm not opposed to considering the amendment, it was only a question regarding the procedure.
It was my impression this was automatic going by the Senate rules.

In any case, I will withdraw the motion.

The rush to vote on legislation the Senate is not satisfied with, by and large, is concerning. It is our duty to amend legislation as is appropriate before sending it to a vote. Why rush to a final vote on something that is half-baked?

I am also concerned that Senator Pyro is consistently trying to rush to final votes while only a small minority of Senators have had a chance to speak on the bills on the floor. The vast majority of Senators, also, cannot prepare amendments they are interested in introducing instantly, making it hard to ready most amendments before the impending final vote motion is made.

There is no rush to vote on any legislation, not by myself nor anyone else. If debate and discussion appears to have ended, if amendments as proposed by members of the Senate have been considered, or if a bill has gone 4-5 days without activity, I don't think floating a vote motion is at all unreasonable.

[Pyro]

Does anyone else have proposals/additions for this bill, or are we prepared to bring this to a vote?

[Pyro]

Now that this latest amendment has been adopted, and debate and discussion appears to have ended yet again, I will echo Senator R in saying, "I think everyone's concerns have been addressed." Let's bring this bill forward and finalize this into law.

I motion for a final vote.

[Pyro]

Aye

[Pyro]

With the cloture vote decided (though not yet officially closed), I would ask Senator NYE to please put forward his proposed amendment to address his concerns with this legislation.

[Pyro]

Abstain

[Pyro]

I object I need to amend to fix an issue that was overlooked earlier

Would you mind being more specific?

[Pyro]

It appears the above amendment has been adopted.

I motion for a final vote.

[Pyro]

Abstain