vided for compensation not licensed under this Act; or in any place to which the public is invited for which a license has not been issued hereunder permitting the sale and consumption of such alcoholic beverage upon such premises except premises licensed under paragraph (12) of section 11 of this Act; or in any place to which the public is invited (for which a license under this Act has been issued) at a time when the sale of such alcoholic beverages on the premises is prohibited by this Act or by the regulations promulgated thereunder, or in any place for which a license under paragraph (12) of section 11 of this Act has been issued at a time when the consumption of such alcoholic beverages on the premises is prohibited by regulations promulgated under this Act. No such person shall be drunk or intoxicated in any public space; or in any vehicle in or upon the same or in any place to which the public is invited, or at any public gathering and no person anywhere shall be drunk or intoxicated and disturb the peace of any person.

"(b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both.

"SEC. 28. (a) A search warrant may be issued by any judge of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions or by a United States commissioner for the District of Columbia when any alcoholic beverages are manufactured for sale, kept for sale, sold, or consumed in violation of the provisions of this Act, and any such alcoholic beverages and any other property designed for use in connection with such unlawful manufacture for sale, keeping for sale, selling, or consumption may be seized thereunder, and shall be subject to such disposition as the court may make thereof, and such alcoholic beverages may be taken on the warrant from any house or other place in which it is concealed.

"(b) A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause supported by affidavit particularly describing the property and the place to be searched.

"(c) The judge or commissioner must, before issuing the warrant, examine on oath the complainant and any witness he may produce, and require their affidavits or take their depositions in writing and cause them to be subscribed by the parties making them. "(d) The affidavits or depositions must set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the application or probable cause for believing that they exist.

"(e) If the judge or commissioner is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he must issue a search warrant signed by him with his name of office to the Chief of Police or any member of the Metropolitan Police Department, stating the particular grounds or probable cause for its issue and the names of the persons whose affidavits have been taken in support thereof, and commanding him forthwith to search the place named for the property specified and to bring it before the judge or commissioner.

"(f) A search warrant may in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but by no other person, except in aid of the officer on his requiring it, he being present and acting in its execution.

"(g) The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute the warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused ad

mittance.

"(h) The judge or commissioner must insert a direction in the warrant that it be served in the daytime unless the affidavit is positive that the property is in the place to be searched in which case he must insert a

direction that it be served at any time in the day or night.

"(i) A search warrant must be executed and returned to the judge or commissioner who issued it within ten days after its date; after the expiration of this time the warrant, unless executed, is void.

"(j) When the officer takes property under the warrant, he must give a copy of the warrant together with a receipt for the property taken (specifying it in detail) to the person from whom it was taken by him, or in whose possession it was found; or, in the absence of any person, he must leave it in the place where he found the property.

"(k) The officer must forthwith return the warrant to the judge or commissioner and deliver to him a written inventory of the property taken, made publicly or in the presence of the person from whose possession it was taken and of the applicant for the warrant, if they are present, verified by the affidavit of the officer at the foot of the inventory and taken before the judge or commissioner at the time, to the following effect: 'I, R. S., the officer by whom this warrant was executed, do swear that the above inventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property taken by me on the warrant.'

"(1) The judge or commissioner must thereupon, if required, deliver a copy of the inventory to the person from whose possession the property was taken and to the applicant for the warrant.

"(m) The judge or commissioner must annex the affidavits, search warrant, return, inventory, and evidence, and at once file the same, together with a copy of the record of his proceedings, with the clerk of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.

"(n) Whoever shall knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist, or oppose any such officer or person in serving or attempting to serve or execute any such search warrant, or shall assault, beat, or wound any such officer or person, knowing him to be an officer or person so authorized, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than two years.

"(o) If the accused be discharged, the alcoholic beverages and other property seized shall be returned to the person in whose possession they were found; if he be convicted, the said alcoholic beverages and other property shall be forfeited and may be destroyed by the police department or delivered for medicinal, mechanical, or scientific uses to any department or agency of the United States Government or the District of Columbia government or any hospital or other charitable institution in the District, or sold at public auction, as the court may direct.

"(p) If any of said property so seized, other than the said alcoholic beverages and the containers thereof, shall be subject to a lien which is established by intervention or otherwise to the satisfaction of the court as being bona fide and as having been created without the lienor's having any notice that said property was to be used in connection with the illegal manufacture for sale, keeping for sale, or selling of alcoholic beverages, the court, upon the conviction of the accused, shall order a sale of said property at public auction and the officer making the sale, after deducting the expenses of keeping the property, the fee for the seizure and the cost of the sale, shall pay all such liens according to their priorities, and such lien or liens shall be transferred from the property to the proceeds of the sale thereof.

"SEC. 29. Any minor who falsely represents his age for the purpose of procuring any alcoholic beverage shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined for each of fense not more than $25 and, in default in the payment of such fine, shall be imprisoned not exceeding ten days.

"SEC. 30. (a) Whosoever violates any of the provisions of this Act for which no spe

cific penalty is provided, or any of the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not longer than one year or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

"(b) Prosecutions for violations of this Act shall be on information filed in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions by the corporation counsel or any of his assistants, except for such violations as are felonies, and prosecutions for such violations as are felonies shall be by the United States attorney in and for the District of Columbia or any of his assistants.

"SEC. 31. No holder of a retailer's license, except a retailer's license class C, class D, or class E, shall sell on credit any alcoholic beverages.

"SEC. 32. No rectified or blended spirits shall be sold unless the container in which it is sold shall bear a legible label firmly affixed thereto stating the nature and percentage of each ingredient therein (except water), the age of each such ingredient, and the alcoholic content of such spirits by volume.

"SEC. 33. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

"SEC. 34. (a) It shall be unlawful for anyone, except a public or common carrier or the holder of a manufacturer's, wholesaler's, or retailer's license issued under this Act, to transport, import, bring, or ship or cause to be transported, imported, brought, or shipped into the District from without the District any wines, spirits, or beer in a quantity in excess of one gallon during any calendar month.

"(b) No public or common carrier shall transport or bring into the District wine, spirits, or beer in a quantity in excess of one gallon during any calendar month for delivery to any one person in the District other than the holder of a manufacturer's, wholesaler's, or retailer's license issued under this Act.

"(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to bona fide possessors of old stocks who are moving into the District nor to embassies or diplomatic representatives of foreign countries, nor to wines imported for religious or sacramental purposes, nor to wine, spirits, and beer to be delivered to the holder of a manufacturer's, wholesaler's, or retailer's license issued under this Act.

"(d) The penalty for violation of this section shall consist of the forfeiture of the alcoholic beverages transported, imported, or shipped or caused to be transported, imported, brought, or shipped in violation of this section, and a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months.

"SEC. 35. (a) There shall be levied and collected by the District on all beer sold by the holder of a manufacturer's or wholesaler's license, except such beer as may have been purchased from a licensee under this Act, and except such beer as may be sold to a dealer licensed under the laws of any State or Commonwealth of the United States and not licensed under this Act, and on all beer purchased for resale by the holder of a retailer's license, except such beer as may have been purchased from a licensee under this Act, a tax of $1.50 for every barrel containing not more than thirty-one gallons and at a like rate for any other quantity or for the fractional parts thereof. the Commissioners shall by regulation prescribe otherwise, the collection and payment of such tax shall be in the manner following:

Unless

"(1) Each holder of a manufacturer's or wholesaler's license shall, on or before the

10th day of each month, furnish to the Commissioners, on a form to be prescribed by them, a statement under oath showing the quantity of beer subject to taxation hereunder sold by him during the preceding calendar month and shall, on or before the 15th day of each month, pay to the Commissioners the tax hereby imposed upon the quantity of beer subject to taxation hereunder sold by him during the preceding calendar month.

"(2) No licensee holding a retailer's license shall transport or cause to be transported into the District for resale any beer, other than the regular stock on hand in a passenger-carrying marine vessel operating in and beyond the District, or a club car or a dining car on a railroad operating in and beyond the District, for which a retailer's license, class C or D, has been issued under this Act, unless such licensee has first obtained a permit so to do from the Board. No such permit shall issue until the tax imposed by this section shall have been paid for the beer for which the permit is requested. Such permit shall specifically set forth the quantity, character, and brand or trade name of the beer to be transported and the names and addresses of the seller and of the purchaser. Such permit shall accompany such beer during its transportation in the District to the licensed premises of such retail licensee and shall be exhibited upon the demand of any police officer or duly authorized inspector of the Board. Such permit shall, immediately upon receipt of the beer by the retail licensee, be marked 'canceled' and retained by him.

"(b) The Commissioners are authorized and empowered to prescribe by regulation such other methods or devices or both for the assessment, evidencing of payment, and collection of the taxes imposed by this section in addition to or in lieu of the method

hereinbefore set forth whenever, in their judgment, such action is necessary to prevent frauds or evasions.

"(c) The taxes imposed hereby, when collected, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District.

"SEC. 36. (a) Any building, ground, premises, or place where any alcoholic beverage is manufactured, sold, kept for sale, or permitted to be consumed in violation of this Act is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and may be enjoined and abated as hereinafter provided.

"(b) An action to enjoin any nuisance defined in subsection (a) of this section may be brought in the name of the District of Columbia by the corporation counsel of the District of Columbia, or any of his assistants, in the civil branch of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions against any person conducting or maintaining such nuisance or knowingly permitting such nuisance to be conducted or maintained. The rules of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions relating to the granting of an injunction or restraining order shall be applicable with respect to actions brought under this subsection, except that the District as complaining party shall not be required to furnish bond or security. It shall not be necessary for the court to find the building, ground, premises, or place was being unlawfully used as aforesaid at the time of the hearing, but on finding that the material allegations of the complaint are true, the court shall enter an order restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, keeping for sale, or permitting to be consumed any alcoholic beverage in violation of this Act. When an injunction, either temporary or permanent, has been granted it shall be binding on the defendant throughout the District. Upon final judgment of the court ordering such nuisance to be abated, the court may order that the defendant, or

anyone claiming under him, shall not occupy or use, for a period of one year thereafter, the building, ground, premises, or place upon which the nuisance existed, but the court may, in its discretion, permit the defendant to occupy or use the said building, ground premises, or place, if the defendant shall give bond with sufficient security to be approved by the court, in the penal and liquidated sum of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, payable to the District, and conditioned that alcoholic beverages will not thereafter be manufactured, sold, kept for sale, or permitted to be consumed in or upon the building, ground, premises, or place in violation of this Act.

"(c) In the case of the violation of any injunction, temporary or permanent, rendered pursuant to the provisions of this section, proceedings for punishment for contempt may be commenced by the corporation counsel or any of his assistants, by filing with the court in the same case in which the injunction was issued a petition under oath setting out the alleged offense constituting the violation and serving a copy of said petition upon the defendant requiring him to appear and answer the same within ten days from the service thereof. The trial shall be promptly held and may be upon affidavits or either party may demand the production and oral examination of the witnesses. Any person found guilty of contempt under the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than twelve months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

"SEC. 37. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to disseminate or cause to be disseminated in the District any false advertisement by any means for the purpose of inducing or which is likely to induce directly or indirectly, the purchase of any

alcoholic beverage.

"(b) Any licensee under this Act who violates subsection (a) of this section with intent to defraud or mislead may have his license suspended or revoked after due notice and hearing by the Board, with right of review, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

"(c) No publisher, radio broadcast licensee, or agency or medium for the dissemination of advertising, other than the manufacturer, packer, distributor, or seller of the alcoholic beverage to which the false advertisement relates, shall be liable under this section by reason of dissemination by him of any false advertisement, unless he has refused on request of the Board to furnish it the name and post office address of the manufacturer, packer, distributor, seller, or advertising agency, residing in the United States, who caused him to disseminate such advertising. No advertising agency shall be liable under this section by reason of the causing by it of the dissemination of any false advertisement, unless it has refused on the request of the Board to furnish it the name and post office address of the manufacturer, packer, distributor, or seller, residing in the United States, who caused it to cause the dissemination of such advertising.

"(d) For the purposes of this section the term 'false advertisement' means an advertisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and, in determining whether any advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations.

"SEC. 38. (a) The Congress hereby finds that the manufacture, distribution, and consumption of alcoholic beverages affect the public interest, and it is necessary for the full protection of the public health, welfare, and morals that such manufacture, distribu

tion, and consumption be so regulated so that the orderly distribution of alcoholic beverages be achieved for the further purpose of encouraging temperance and moderation and for best serving the public interest, convenience, and advantage.

"(b) As used in this section—

"(1) The terms 'sell at retail', 'sales at retail', and 'retail sale' shall mean and include any transfer for a valuable consideration, made in the ordinary course of trade or in the usual prosecution of the seller's business, of title to an alcoholic beverage to the purchaser for consumption or use other than resale or further processing or manufacturing, and shall include any transfer of such alcoholic beverage where title is retained by the seller as security for the payment of such purchase price.

"(2) The terms 'sell at wholesale', 'sales at wholesale', and 'wholesale sales' shall mean and include any transfer for a valuable consideration made in the ordinary course of trade or the usual prosecution of the seller's business, of title to an alcoholic beverage to the purchaser for purposes of resale or further processing or manufacturing, and shall include any such transfer of an alcoholic beverage where title is retained by the seller as security for the payment of the purchase price.

"(3) The term 'retailer' shall mean and include every person engaged in the business of making sales of alcoholic beverages at retail within the District licensed under this Act.

"(4) The term 'wholesaler' shall mean and include every person engaged in the business of making sales of alcoholic beverages at wholesale within the District licensed under this Act.

"(c) It is hereby declared that knowingly to advertise, to offer to sell, or to sell any alcoholic beverage, either by retailers or wholesalers, with the intent, effect, or the result of deceiving any purchaser or prospective purchaser, substantially lessening competition, unreasonably restraining trade, or tending to create a monopoly is an unfair method of competition, contrary to public policy, and in contravention of the policy of this section.

"(d) Each retailer or wholesaler licensed under the Act who advertises or offers to sell any alcoholic beverage by means of an advertisement having a format or appearance reasonably tending to indicate that the beverage is being offered at a 'special' or 'unusual' price, indicating to the public that such beverage is being offered at a bargain price, regardless of the terms actually employed in such advertisement or offer, shall include in such advertisements, in immediate juxtaposition to each item offered at the specified price the quantity of the item available at that price and shall have on hand at the time of such advertisement or offer for sale a supply of the alcoholic beverage equal to the quantity so advertised or offered for sale, and there shall be no limitation on the quantity an individual customer may purchase.

"(e) Any retailer licensed under the Act who shall knowingly, in contravention of the policy of this section, advertise, offer to sell, sell, or refuse to sell at retail any alcoholic beverage, and any wholesaler licensed under the Act who shall, in contravention of the policy of this section, advertise, offer to sell, sell, or refuse to sell at wholesale any alcoholic beverage, may have his license suspended or revoked after due notice and hearing by the Board, with right of review, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. "(f) In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the courts of the District are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this section, and it shall be the duty of the corporation counsel to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain violations. Any person shall be entitled to sue for and have in

junctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction against any threatened loss or injury by reason of a violation of this section.

"(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to sales at retail or sales at wholesale (1) where the alcoholic beverage is sold in bona fide clearance sales, if advertised, marked, and sold as such; (2) where the alcoholic beverage is imperfect or damaged, or is being discontinued, and is advertised, marked, and sold as such; (3) where the alcoholic beverage is sold upon the final liquidation of any business; (4) where the alcoholic beverage is sold for charitable purposes or to relief agencies; (5) where the alcoholic beverage is sold on contract to departments of governments or governmental institutions; (6) where the price of the alcoholic beverage is made in good faith to meet lawful competition; (7) where sales are made by one wholesaler to another wholesaler or by one retailer to another retailer for the purpose of accommodations; where the alcoholic beverage is sold by an officer acting under the order or direction of any court or by any fiduciary, or by any trustee in a deed of trust or deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors.

(8)

"SEC. 39. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing any portion of section 7 of the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, approved July 1, 1902, as amended. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to divest the Federal Trade Commission or the United States Department of Justice of any jurisdiction now or hereafter vested in them as to any of the provisions of this Act."

SEC. 2. Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered 5, 1952 (66 Stat. 824), or in any other provision of law shall authorize the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to delegate, divest, or otherwise affect any authority vested in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board by the amendment made by the first section of this Act. The performance of any function vested in the Board of Commissioners or in any officer or agency under the jurisdiction or control of the Board of Commissioners by the amendment made by the first section of this Act may be delegated by the Board of Commissioners in accordance with section 3 of such reorganization plan.

SEC. 3. Nothing in the amendment made by the first section of this Act shall be construed to terminate the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, and the members of such Board shall continue in office for the term for which they were appointed.

SEC. 4. Section 18 of the Act entitled "An Act to amend the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act", approved August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 903), is hereby repealed.

SEC. 5. Subsection (e) of section 7 of the Act entitled "An Act to consolidate the Police Court of the District of Columbia and the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia, to be known as "The Municipal Court for the District of Columbia', to create "The Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia', and for other purposes", approved April 1, 1942, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 11-772), is amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (8), by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (9), and inserting in lieu thereof "; and" and by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(10) any decision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board refusing to reissue or revoking or suspending a license issued under

the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage

Control Act."

SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect on the one hundred and twentieth day after the date of its enactment or upon such earlier

date as the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall prescribe.

Mr. MULTER (interrupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I renew my unanimous-consent request, that the bill be considered as read and printed at this point in the RECORD and open for amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

With the following committee amendment:

Page 24, line 17, strike out "or sell" and substitute in lieu thereof "for sale".

to.

The committee amendment was agreed

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DINGELL

Mr. Chairman, let us come back to this price-fixing question which was talked about a minute ago. The distinguished gentleman asked me a minute ago where there was anything in the bill with reference to this question.

On page 65, subsection (c), there is the following:

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer advertise, to offer to sell, or to sell any alIt is hereby declared that knowingly to

an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DINGELL: On page 68, line 2, strike out the quotation

marks.

Page 68, after line 2 insert the following: "SEC. 40 (a) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the Commissioners or the Board to establish, maintain, or enforce any wholesale or retail prices on alcoholic beverages in the District.

"(b) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize any licensee or combination of licensees to establish, maintain, or enforce any wholesale or retail price maintenance programs or policies with respect to the sale of alcoholic beverages in the District."

coholic beverage, either by retailers or wholesalers, with the intent, effect, or the result of deceiving any purchaser or prospective purchaser, substantially lessening competition, unreasonably restraining trade, or tending to create a monopoly is an unfair method of competition, contrary to public policy, and in contravention of the policy of this section.

That was exactly what the Washington Post editorial was talking about, because that would then be left up to the judgment of the ABC Board as to whether or not discounting and price cutting would lessen competition.

Mr. Chairman, there is the language

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will in the bill for those who want to know the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MULTER. I do not think the language is necessary. But it is directly in line with every expression which I have made on the floor today and which I made in the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I see no objection to adding the additional language. It makes crystal clear exactly what the gentleman from Michigan and I said during the course of the general debate. Mr. DINGELL. I thank my friend, the gentleman MULTER].

from New York [Mr.

Let me say that I was prepared fully and completely to rely upon his honor and upon his skill and knowledge in this matter, but in order to make sure that no court would erroneously interpret or fail to understand clearly the intent of the gentleman from New York and myself, this language is offered. The amendment makes it abundantly plain that price fixing, resale price maintenance, or similar endeavor and the enforcement thereof with regard to the sale of these beverages in the District of Columbia are not authorized by this statute. And, as a matter of fact, that it expressly prohibits such activity.

May I say to my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. MULTER], that this amendment meets any objection which the bill if this amendment is adopted. I had to the bill. I am happy to support

about whether or not this bill would prohibit discounting and price fixing.

Mr. MULTER. This again proves how little the newspapers know about the bill, how little they followed the testimony and how little they know about the bill in general. This is language we put in at the suggestion of the Attorney General to meet the objections he made last year. It is exactly the same language and it deals with unfair competition and nothing more.

Mr. SPRINGER. I do not believe that is true, and I do not believe the Attorney General thinks it is either.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the attention of the gentleman from New York, if I may have it.

Unfortunately, I could not be on the House floor for most of the debate thus far. Since the report does not, as most reports do, state the purpose for this legislation, could the gentleman give me in capsule form the reasons for the legislation?

Mr. MULTER. During my original presentation in support of the bill I indicated this was the first review and revision of this statute since it was enacted in 1934. Throughout the years the ABC Board and the Commissioners have found defects in the statute. Instead of trying to take this and correct it piecemeal, we have tried to do the whole job at one time and make it a modern bill that will meet the situation as it exists today and not as it existed in 1934 when the law was first enacted. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. GROSS. Does it not go far beMr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yond the cure of defects in the present move to strike out the last word. law?

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].

Does it not establish new policies

with respect to handling liquor in the District of Columbia?

Mr. MULTER. I do not believe it does. Mr. GROSS. I note on page 4 of the report this subhead "false advertising and sales below cost." What does the bill do with respect to sales below cost?

Mr. MULTER. It permits anyone to sell at any price he pleases, even though it is below cost, provided when advertising the product he will have available for the customer the product he advertises at the price he advertises. That is all we require.

Mr. GROSS. So it does permit the sale of liquor at below cost?

Mr. MULTER. At any price he wants to establish.

publican or Democratic, the liquor industry moves in. It was shown that one of these appointments was formerly a salesman for the liquor industry in the salesman for the liquor industry in the District of Columbia. This is politics at the very lowest level. I am not going to make any accusations against the District Commissioners for what has happened, but I do want to say the District Commissioners do have that responsibility and to allow the ABC Board to be bility and to allow the ABC Board to be withdrawn from supervision of the body which is responsible to Congress, I think is morally wrong.

Mr. SPRINGER. With all the people that come into the city, if there is a need for this legislation there certainly ought to be a community expression. Who has testified for the bill? The only people that testified for this bill were the liquor dealers. There was one small portion of the bill recommended by others. But taking it altogether, the people who have done all the lobbying have been the District liquor dealers. There has not been one single party who testified for the community that was not against this bill. Is the gentleman going to say that the Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, I move to Attorney General is wrong about this strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, let me say that the ABC Board, under the terms of this pro

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SPRINGER. There is a difference between the gentleman from New York and myself on that point, and that is the point of the language which the Washington Post pointed out in its editorial. There is a difference of opinion. There is a difference between the Post. the gentleman from New York and myself.

May I say to the gentleman from Iowa that the real heart of this bill, and it is what the liquor dealers want to do, is to get the ABC out from under the District Commissioners. That effort has been made repeatedly. I cited the three editorials on the ABC Board. That was the reason that the Commissioners, immediately when these articles appeared, appointed the blue ribbon committee to make an investigation to find out what was going on down at the ABC. They got the report. Every time the ABC has gotten into trouble the Commissioners have moved in and cleared the situation up. May I say that under Republican and Democratic administrations the District Commissioners have been of high order. The people down there have been honest, they have been on the job, and they have tried to do a good job. You cannot say that of the ABC Board. It is more or less down to the political level, and these are the people who have to be supervised by someone because of the pressures exerted on the ABC for relaxation of regulations, and no prosecution of complaints, such as I quoted from one

of these articles. Again I say, the heart

of the bill is to get the ABC Board out from under the District Commissioners. Then the liquor industry will have a free run and that is certainly what the editorial said.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SISK. I would like to direct a question to the gentleman from Illinois.

Who appoints the members of the ABC Board? Who are the ABC Board members responsible to for their office under the terms of this bill?

Mr. SPRINGER. The District Commissioners appoint the members of the ABC Board. There are a lot of politics in this. When appointment on the ABC comes up for consideration, whether Re

trict Commissioners, subject to the District Commissioners in exactly the same way as the ABC Board in any of the States is responsible to the Governor to the extent that he makes the appointments, and they can be removed in the same way for cause. So any argument that this bill removes any responsibility from the District Commissioners is simfrom the District Commissioners is simply erroneous. ply erroneous. I beg to differ with my good friend from Illinois. I know he does not desire to leave the wrong impression. I appreciate his position and I know his position is sincere.

As long

as the District Commissioners have the responsibility which they would have responsibility which they would have under the terms of this legislation to appoint the members of the ABC Board, appoint the members of the ABC Board, then to that extent you cannot say there is not that responsibility. If these ABC members are, let us say, less than proper members are, let us say, less than proper in their conduct, as he implies they might be, then it becomes a responsibility to remove them, and it is a responsibility on the Commissioners. I believe along I believe along with the gentleman that the District Commissioners have done a good job both under Democratic as well as Republican administrations but, after all, you cannot disassociate from the District Commissioners the responsibility of the ABC Board.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SISK. I yield to the gentleman

from Illinois.

Mr. SPRINGER. The important provision of this bill takes away from the Commissioners the right to write the regulations. That is the important regulations to the ABC Board. That is thing. It transfers the power to write regulations to the ABC Board. That is what is wrong with this bill, and that is what I am against.

Mr. SISK. I might say to my friend this is the very reason I am strongly in support of this provision in the bill. The support of this provision in the bill. The District Commissioners in this city I think are overloaded. I think that a group such as the ABC Board should be held responsible to write the regulations. That is what I propose to do under the

terms of this legislation. I think the people in the District and the Commispeople in the District and the Commissioners have a right to hold them responsible to do their job. In the absence of doing a proper kind of job, certainly they can be removed. Secondly, I know my friend from Illinois will agree that these regulations can be appealed. We set up provision for appeal from their decisions.

thing? I read into the RECORD today that Mr. Katzenbach, who is a very honorable person, in my estimation, has consistently opposed this bill. The gentleman from New York has tried in every way he could to get away from what Mr. Katzenbach said.

Mr. SISK. It is our job to make policy, not Mr. Katzenbach, Bobby Kennedy, or anybody else. My reason for supporting this bill is that I firmly believe there is a need to bring up to date the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act in the District.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a greater issue involved here than the control of liquor sales-the issue of home rule. I would like to make my vote dependent upon the answer to this question, and I would like to put this question to the chairman: Will this piece of legislation mean greater or less home rule for the District of Columbia?

Mr. MULTER. This, in my opinion, means more home rule for the District of Columbia. This is going to give the Board the right to run this Board and operate this Board and make the regulations within the four corners of the statute in the interest of the District of Columbia and not in the interest of the liquor industry. It will be in the interest of the people, the consumers, the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, and that is whom they are going to serve. For the first time if this bill is enacted, we will be writing into the statute that the District Commissioners will have the right to remove members of the Board for inefficiency, neglect of duty, and malfeasance in office. That provision is not contained in the existing statute, but we write it in to make sure that these men will do a good job.

May I say further, Mr. Chairman, out of due respect to the men who are serving on the Board that when the committee rises and we get back into the House, I will ask permission to put into the RECORD as part of my remarks the biographies of each of the men presently serving on the Board. They are all men of integrity, honor, and distinction. Not

one of them has ever been connected

with any segment of the liquor industry in the District of Columbia or anywhere

else.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Then, as I understand it, the ABC Board members will be appointed by the Commissioners?

Mr. MULTER. They will continue to be appointed by the Commissioners as the present law provides.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Who will have the removal authority?

Mr. MULTER. The District Commissioners will have the removal authority. Mr. MATSUNAGA. I thank the gentleman.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DEROUNIAN

bill. It is preposterous for the Congress of the United States faced with a 12month session this year, faced with problems of taxes, and with problems of national security and unemployment and with problems of resource development and with civil rights legislation and with

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. DEROUNIAN: On page 48, line 5, strike out "shall" and insert "is authorized to".

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is merely to make it conform to the existing code which allows discretionary authority for the Board to waive the application of the special numbering process during the holiday season of gift-wrapped merchan

dise. That is all it does.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I say to the House, I am certainly not for the bill and I certainly do not want this amendment. I respect my distinguished colleague from New York, and I do love him and he knows that. But there is a serious objection to this and I trust my colleague will listen closely so that he may be sure that I have not misunderstood his

fore us, to be wasting an hour or 2 hours here today to decide whether the people of the District of Columbia are to have numbers on their liquor bottles or to determine what amount is going to be charged for liquor in the District of Columbia.

I think the people of this area are intelligent and educated. They are American citizens, and I think the very least the Congress could do is give them the right to set up a city council or a city government of some kind to determine things like dog licenses and liquor licenses and to settle problems which do not involve the national interest.

In this connection I want to commend

of the amendment. It would eliminate the numbering now required on all bottles. We have had this proposal up for a hearing before and the liquor industry has tried to get this requirement stricken out.

The chief of police came before our subcommittee and testified that on two occasions he had been able to solve serious crimes in the city of Washington because he was able to trace certain people through these identification numbers on the individual bottles. So this did substantially help in two or three instances to solve some rather serious crimes. As I said, this has been up before us in the committee. The subcommittee considered it and we considered it in the full committee as well. It was voted down. I do not believe we would

want to make a change of this kind in the law, and if the bill under consider

ation becomes law, we certainly do not

want this amendment in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. DEROUNIAN]. The amendment was rejected.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I am going to vote for this bill or not. My feelings about the legislation were expressed by one of my colleagues the other evening back in the back row at the end of a hard day. We were about to vote on a complicated amendment that apparently no one understood. The chairman said, "As many as are for the amendment will rise and remain stand

ing until counted." Then he said, "As many as are opposed to the amendment will rise and remain standing until counted." And my friend said in a kind of loud voice, "And as many as do not care much one way or the other will rise and remain standing until counted." That is about the way I feel about this

and some of them providing for the District at least to have a nonvoting delegate in the Congress. These hearings

will start on November 18, and I would urge every Member of this House who has seen the debate here today and who feels that we should have some measure of home rule here to come before the

committee to testify and to let your views be known. We worked out last year a modified bipartisan home rule bill with several sponsors on both sides of the aisle that preserves all the prerogatives of Congress in this field and which would preserve to the District of Columbia Committee the right to review legislation passed by the local governing body. I think this is good legislation, and I commend it to the attention of my colleagues. When we have, if you look at the statistics, only perhaps 500 hours in

this Chamber a year to settle all the

major affairs of this country and when we waste 30 or 40 or 50 of these hours on legislation of this kind, I think we do the people of this country a disservice. Congress is under criticism. We need more efficient procedures. We need better to economize our time, and one way to start is to give the inhabitants of the District of Columbia some measure of home rule.

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

from California [Mr. COHELAN]. Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DELANEY, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8920) to revise the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered. There was no objection. The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed third time. and read a third time, and was read the

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

I am, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk will re

Mr. SPRINGER. The SPEAKER. port the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. SPRINGER moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8920 to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.

The question was taken.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ob

ject to the vote on the ground that a

quorum is not present and make the

point of order that a quorum is not

present.

Illinois makes the point of order that a The SPEAKER. The gentleman from

quorum is not present, and evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at the Clerk will call the roll. Arms will notify absent Members, and

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 258, nays 98, not voting 77, as follows:

Andrews, Ala.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Ashley
Ashmore

[Roll No. 192]

Auchincloss
Ayres
Baker

Blatnik

Baldwin

Broomfield