warrarsial-it should not be rought in with H.R. 10714. If it is mrørtanr, er ne nare a separate and let us gire at a chance to get rosta into it. Ban not, objecting to the language. I do not know what it means. Vr. X DY. That is the reason for my questions about it.

M. DEWEY. We also go along with a suggestion made by one of the T," pove o change the word meals to "food". The point was made 1 ago that no matter which word you use a substantial or

gunable portion comes from the sale of food, and if you only sell Sot nere is a lot of peanuts to be consumed.

W:. Chairman, 'hank you for this opportunity to appear on behalf

in legislation which we have seen tallv interested in for many, many years. This is the first chance we have had to testify on it. We aboreriate it.

Mr. IXWDY. As I understand it, the suggested amendment you had *28 rochange fire business days to 30 business dars.

Mr. Dawes. Yes, 30 days. It is a mechanical problem. We would beperhnically in violation in some cases.

Mr. WDY, I understand.
Mr. Bryan, what objection would there be to that?

Mr. BryAX. Mr. Chairman, this is as new to me as the amendment I anlaitted was new to Mr. Dawes. I just do not know what the reaction of the District Government is to it. I have not any thoughts on it myself. I would prefer that we consult with the ABC Board and por what thoughts they have.

Mr. DWWDY. If you use five business days—there apparently could be varying lengths of time, where a holiday intervenes.

Mr. Briax. It may be fire days are too short and 30 days is too long. I just do not know.

Mr. LOWDY. In other words, have a definite number of days not say business days—so there would be no question about it.

Mr. DsWFS. Mr. Chairman, May 1-hotels are open 24 hours a day, every day.

Mr. Dowdy. There again you get into this question

Mr. Dawes. We are not adamant on 30, but we feel that five might be a little short.

Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DOWDY. There again you get into this question-

The next witness I have is Miss Evelyn Penney of the United Licenwees Beverage Association.

STATEMENT OF MISS EVELYN PENNEY, UNITED LICENSEES

BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION Miss PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, the United Licensees Beverage Association, Incorporated, of Washington, D.C., appreciates this opportunity to submit a statement of endorsement of House of Representatives Bill 10744, amending certain sections of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.

I am Miss Evelyn Penney, president of the Washington Local Association, and a holder of a retailers' Class C License. I speak on behalf of the fifty Washington members of the Association; and on behalf of our national president, Mr. Garland Pinkston, a holder of a Class C license in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Dowdy. Class C license is that a restaurant?

Miss PENNEY. Yes. Forty-five Washington members are holders of Class C licenses four are holders of retailers’ Class D licensesMr. Dowdy. What is Class D ? Miss PENNEY. Beer and Wine. Mr. Dowdy. Is it a restaurant, too? Miss PENNEY. Yes. It could be a delicatessan. Mr. Dowdy. And a Class B is what? Miss PENNEY. That was a D, and one is a holder of a Class C. Mr. Dowdy. What is a B license?

Mr. O'DONNELL. C and D are both restaurants. A B would be a grocery store that could sell beer for off premises consumption.

Miss PENNEY. Our organization would like especially to endorse three recommended changes in the present Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. One change relates to food service; another to the regulatory powers of the District Commissioners; and the third to service in hotels.

The present Act limits the holders of retail licenses to those persons whose chief source of revenue is received from the sale of food. The license holder who tries to operate within the law finds himself in great difficulty because his customers' demand for alcoholic beverage often exceeds the demand for meals.

We endorse the proposed amendment to Section 2 of the Act which would allow a licensee to operate if a "reasonable source” —instead of “chief source”—of his revenue is derived from the sale of food. We feel that the relaxation of this requirement will permit greater compliance with the law and will promote more efficient business operations.

The United Licensees Beverage Association of Washington also would like to express its approval of the proposed amendment to Section 3 of the Control Act. We feel that the government, the community, and the licensees are better served by extending the powers of the District Commissioners to include prescribing the hours and days on which alcoholic beverages may be sold.

We feel that the Commissioners are best prepared to investigate the problems faced by the licensees and to propose the kinds of solutions most appropriate to the Washington community. Their familiarity with the community's problems may help to assure the type of regulations which protect both the public interest and the license holders, and which may help to curtail islegal operations.

Hotel owners, we feel, should enjoy the same privileges in the service of alcoholic beverages as restaurant owners. It is for this reason that we endorse the proposed amendment of Section 4. The enactment of this amendment will help eliminate confusion. No longer will owners have to explain that a customer must be seated at a table before he can be served. Also the proposed changes will permit hotels to accommodate a greater number of customers during rush hours for lunch and dinner, eliminate an obsolete law existing here in the Nation's Capitol, and bring the Alcoholic Beverage Control laws here in conformity with other leading cities nearby.

The United License Beverage Association commends Congressman

consideration of the proposed amendments. We thank you for this opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, Miss Penney.

Miss PENNEY. I would like to submit a letter endorsing these proposals from the District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Dowdy. It will be made a part of the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C., September 7, 1965. Reference H.R. 10744. Hon. John L. MOMILLAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The D.C. Chamber of Commerce, a business organization, composed of Men and Women engaged in business in the District of Columbia, is most interested in the above Bill before you at this time for consideration.

The Chamber is interested in and ask your consideration on the following changes:

The present Act limits the holders of retail licenses to those persons whose chief source of revenue is received from the sale of food. The license holder who tries to operate wtihin the law finds himself in great difficulty because his customers' demand for alcoholic beverages often exceeds the demand for meals.

We endorse the proposed amendment to Section 2 of the Act which would allow a licensee to operate of a "substantial source"-instead of chief source"of his revenue is derived from the sale of food. We feel that the relaxation of this requirement will permit greater compliance with the law and will promote more efficient business operations.

We endorse the proposed amendment to section three of the control act. We feel that all will be better served by extending the power of the D.C. Commissioners to include the hours and days on which alcoholic beverages may be sold. We feel that the City Commissioners are in a better position to investigate the problems faced by the licensees and to offer the kind of solution most appropriate to our community.

We feel that it would be for the best of all concerned if the closing hours were extended from midnight on Saturday to two A.M., an extension of two hours would mean so much to the small business man engaged in this type of business. Washington, unlike other cities, does the greatest amount of this type of business on week-ends, mostly on Saturdays.

We feel that Hotel Owners should enjoy the same privileges in the serving of alcoholic beverages as restaurant owners. It is for this reason that we endorse this section of the Bill. This will also permit hotels to accommodate a greater number of customers during "rush hours" and make it not necessary that it be explained why a customer must be seated before being served. Respectfully submitted.

J. S. STANBACK, Jr., President. Mr. Dowdy. The next witness is James F. O'Donnell, Federation of Business Associations of Metropolitan Washington.

STATEMENT OF JAMES F. O'DONNELL, CHAIRMAN, FISCAL AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. Mr. O'DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late but my statement is very brief.

Mr. Dowdy. Before you get started, I wish you would tell the Committee what A, B, C, Dand E class licensees are.

Mr. O'DONNELL. I will do my best. Of course, at least two of these terms are also used with regard to wholesale licensees. But when the terms are used in the hearing this morning, they relate solely to the context of retail licenses. So the term is retail Class A, which in some parlance is the package store, or the store that sells distilled spirits and wine and malt beverages for consumption off the premises.

Class B is an establishment, usually a grocery store, that is licensed to sell beer and light wine for consumption off the premises.

Class C is an umbrella type classification, but it relates primarily to establishments—a hotel, a restaurant or a club—which is licensed for the service of distilled spirits, wine and malt beverages for consumption on the premises.

And then the Class D license applies to a restaurant or a tavern licensed for the service and sale of beer and light wine for consumption on the premises.

Mr. Bowdy. And Eis Mr. O'DONNELL. The pharmaceutical license. And there is also an F license. This is the license issued for a special event, such as a picnic, and is for the consumption of beer only, and it is also a peculiar type of license under which the Washington Baseball Club has had beer in the stadium.

I am also informed there is a class L license—which is so-called consumption license at a club where a member owns his own bottle and makes use of it.

Mr. Dowdy. Now, around Washington they have what are called cocktail lounges. Which one of these would that come under ?

Mr. O'DONNELL. The term cocktail lounge could be applicable to a Class C license in one of the categories which I broke it down.

Mr. Dowdy. That might be one of the places where they do not sell anything but peanuts and liquor, is that right?

Mr. O'DONNELL. Well, actually in order to have a Class C license, there must be a determination by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board that the establishment is a bonafide restaurant. That is where this language of "substantial source of revenue” or “reasonable source of revenue” has a bearing in making a determination of what constitutes a bonafide restaurant.

Under the present law, I think the language is that the Board must satisfy itself that it is the intention of the operator to derive its chief source of revenue from the sale of meals. And I think it has been suggested by the Gichner Committee that that language would be better changed—that intention should be to derive a reasonable source of revenue from the sale of meals. But the word “meals” is significant because not withstanding what Mr. Bryan says, by some stretch of the imagination you might open the door to a peanut operation—actually the problem is created by the language of the statute itself which expressly states that a salad or a sandwich does not constitute a mealnotwithstanding the fact that many doctors are telling their patients today to limit at least one meal a day to a salad. And so the suggestion I think is well taken that the word "food" is a term broad enough to encompass a salad which is not a meal under this statute, a sandwich, which is not a meal under the statute, and as the gentleman said, a pizza, which may or may not be a meal under the statute.

Mr. Dowdy. Since there have been several references to the Gichner Committee, the so-called Blue Ribbon Committee appointed by the Beverage Control Act and its operations, without objection the report of that committee will be included in the Appendix to the hearings.

(The report appears in the Appendix.)
Nr. Dowdy. Now, I have one other question.

In the District of Columbia is there anything like what we would normally call a bar? Do they have any operations like that in the District of Columbia ?

Mr. O'DONNELL. WellMr. Dowdy. Maybe I should add "legally”. Mr. O'DONNELL. Well one man's bar is another man's restaurant. In the District of Columbia, there is no such thing as a bar, as such. Even the counter upon which some of the members of Congress may have had the privilege of enjoying a martini following the advent of the St. Germain Bill which became law, the counter is not a barit is defined in the Act as a bonafide lunch counter.

So as I say, it is a matter of language.
Mr. Dowdy. All right. You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. O'DONNELL. I am here to present a statement at the request of John L. Sullivan, the President of the Metropolitan Washington Federation of Business Associations, for which I serve as the Chairman of the Fiscal Affairs Committee.

The Federation of business supports H.R. 10744 introduced by Chairman McMillan at the request of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia. The Federation is on record in favor of similar bills virtually identical with Mr. McMillan's H.R. 10744, namely H.R. 7869 by Mr. Multer in the House and S. 1931 by Senator Bible, a companion Bill in the Senate.

This legislation should encourage more conventions here, should improve weekend hotel occupancy, should provide increased employment, and vitally needed additional revenues for the District of Columbia.

The Federation also supports the language change suggested by the Restaurant Beverage Association, substituting the word "food" for the word “meals” in Sec. 2. of the Alcoholic Beverage Act of 1934.

If I may, aside from my representation of the Federation of Business, as a lawyer who has had some practice representing clients before the ABC Board, both applicants and protestants, I would like to make a brief comment on the hurried amendments prepared, Mr. Bryan says, yesterday or last evening, and presented to the Committee this morning—to say that, without having opportunity to study it in detail-that on the surface it appears to be controversial. It was not one of the proposals that came out of the Gichner Committee study and recommendation.

There is nothing in Mr. McMillan's bill which did not come out of the Gichner Committee study and recommendation.

As Mr. Springer suggested earlier, on another subject, on a new matter perhaps it merits a little more study and consideration.

I think it would be a very unfortunate thing at this hour of this session of Congress for this amendment to be tacked onto a bill which heretofore has had hearings in committee and has had provisions which have been considered on the floor with other provisions, and has never had any opposition voiced to it.