Mr. SCHULBERG. I would like to make a short comment if I may, sir, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have my entire statement submitted for the record. Mr. Dowdy. It has been, sir. _ Mr. SCHULBERG. I would like to point out this, if I might, I think if I read a short paragraph from the statement. Perhaps it would be proper to examine whether or not there is truly a major problem of improper teen-age drinking in the District of Columbia. The record will show there is not. The files of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board will show that in 1963, 10 citations issued and in 1964, six. And mind you, many of these citations were dismissed. We think you must agree with us that the local industry has shown a remarkable degree of responsibility and compliance with the law. I would also like to point out to this committee, if I may, that approximately two years ago the Commissioners of the District of Columbia appointed a blue ribbon committee composed of prominent citizens from all walks of life and from all sections of the District of Columbia. It was chaired by Mrs. Gichner. That committee in reporting to the Commissioners, recommended against any change in the drinking laws of the District of Columbia as far as they pertain to 18 and 21 year olds drinking. If I might, I would like to associate my views with those expressed by Mr. Hester. I join with him. I would respectfully suggest to this committee that if the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia find they have a problem with some of their teenagers, that perhaps the problem would be to respectfully suggest to those states that they modernize their archaic control laws and perhaps they would not have the problem that they apparently seem to think they have. I think the record of compliance in the District of Columbia has been excellent. I think that the enactment of this type of legislation would create more problems and would create an onus here in the District which we never had. I certainly join with Mr. Hester and the others in opposition to this type of legislation. Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Schulberg, if we raise this age limit to 21, will your industry be in any more difficulty in trying to enforce the law? Mr. SCHULBERG. Let me say this: If you raise the limit to 51 it would not make any difference. The industry would make every effort to comply with whatever the Congress would pass. I think the record of the industry is such that its compliance record is the best in the nation, as far as I am concerned. The difficulties that would arise, as has been pointed out by Mr. Hester, I think might be phrased something like this: I think we have all heard the program on TV called “The Defenders” and now there is a new one called “The Avengers.” I think if this law were passed, you would hear of a new title, “The Enticers." We would be accused of enticing those youngsters under 21 into our stores to buy the beer so that they would be getting "hooked.” That would be nothing further from the truth. It would not be the industry that would violate the law. It would be the civilian. Frankly, as the Chairman has indicated, it is almost an impossibility of enforcement. As you indicated at 18 he has an ID card, he has a driver's license. We have that, we ask for it, and we do our best to comply with the law. But there will always be those who will in one way or another attempt to evade the law or avoid the law. If the law is raised to 21, an 18 or 19 year old who has had some contact with alcoholic beverages is not going to cut himself off. He is going to get it in one way or another, by having some individual get it for him, over the age, by possibly contacting unwholesome influences who will go into that business and supply it to them. I think it will create more burdens in the District than anything this might want to cure. So I agree with the intimations of the Chairman wholeheartedly. Mr. McMILLAN. There has been some mention here this morning about teen-agers coming over to the District of Columbia and purchasing beer and getting intoxicated. If my memory serves me correct, I have seen on quite a number of occasions where some of these teenagers from the District of Columbia have been over in Virginia and Maryland raising a little hell. Mr. SCHULBERG. I would assume that would be possible. Mr. McMILLAN. I understand the group that caused so much disturbance at Glen Echo was from Washington, D.C. Mr. SCHULBERG. It could very well have been. Mr. Dowdy. You mentioned the Gichner Report. The committed has already reported a bill (H.R. 10744) which incorporates substantially the recommendations of the Gichner Committee, which was approved, as I understand, by the District Commissioners. Mr. SCHULBERG. Yes, it was, sir. Mr. Dowdy. It is my understanding that the reason these particular bills subject to hearing today were not incorporated by the authors or the committee was because this was not a recommendation of the Gichner Committee and it was felt that they should be handled separately so as not to prejudice the possibility of passing the provisions of the other bill which it was agreed by all of the city officials were necessary and proper. Mr. SCHULBERG. That is correct, sir. Mr. GRIDER. Mr. Schulberg, isn't it à fact that young people between 18 and 21 come into the District from Maryland for the purpose of purchasing beer? Mr. SCHULBERG. There have been stories to that effect, Mr. Congressman. Mr. GRIDER. Don't you think that indicates that the Maryland law at least has some effect on 18 to 21 year olds? Mr. SCHULBERG. I would suggest as I suggested a moment ago if the Maryland authorities are so concerned with keeping their 18 to 21's in Maryland, that perhaps they should examine the modern sociological studies and perhaps their archaic control laws be changed. Virginia does have an 18 year old beer law. I might say that unfortunately when this amendment was added to the bill in the House the statement was made that the Maryland and Virginia laws were identical. I am certain Mr. GRIDER. I am familar with that. Mr. SCHULBERG. That was unfortunate because that was a misstatement. Mr. GRIDER. The thing that puzzles me is this. You are the second witness today who has said that young people between 18 and 21 have seems to acknowledge the fact that the kids from Maryland, the young people from Maryland, do come into the District to get it. Mr. SCHULBERG. But you see, sir, in the District it is perfectly legal. Nobody is violating any law by selling an individual who is 18 year old or over a can of beer. Nobody is violating any law. After all, it is the law of the jurisdiction where you are that controls. My suggestion and I make this sincerely, that if Maryland is so concerned about it, I think that the Maryland people should re-examine their own situation and possibly reduce their own laws to 18. Mr. GRIDER. Does the Washington, D.C. Retail Liquor Dealers Association include those who sell beer? Mr. SCHULBERG. Yes, we sell beer for off-premises consumption. Mr. GRIDER. Did you say the name of that committee was a “Blue Ribbon Committee ?" Mr. SCHULBERG. It was called a blue ribbon committee—touche. [Laughter.] Mr. Dowdy. Are there any further questions? Mr. Dowdy. Congressman Long is here. He is the author of one of the bills, H.R. 2101, Mr. Long, we will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE D. LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on behalf of my bill H.R. 2101, which I believe was the first bill introduced to prohibit the sales of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age, in the District of Columbia. I introduced this bill in the last session in the 88th Congress and I re-introduced it again this year. I have been campaigning on this for quite some time and I feel very strongly about it. Beer and wine consumed by boys and girls is the cause of delinquency, dangerous driving, accidents and death—both in the District and in Maryland and Virginia. Because Maryland and Virginia forbid drinking by persons under 21, underage youths from these states flock to taverns in Washington both to drink beer and wine and to take it back to their friends at home. Baltimore City's former States Attorney—now Judge—William J. O'Donnell and Baltimore County's head of the Juvenile Squad-Lt. Howard Schaeffer—informed me that crimes committed by teenagers under the influence of alcohol can frequently be attributed to this beer gotten in Washington and to young drunks returning from a night in the Capital. A police official of Montgomery County reports to me that Hardly a night goes by that we don't pick up a few kids who have been drinking in the District. These boys and girls frequently commit crimes in Montgomery County under the influence. Montgomery's State's Attorney Kardy says that "Washington, D.C. seems to be a haven for teenagers in search of beer and wine.” In Anne Arundel County, State's Attorney Anderson urges "any legislation which would help to alleviate the traffic of teen-age drinkers between Washington and surrounding Maryland counties." Law enforcement authorities of Charles and Prince Georges counties report similar problems with teenagers drinking in the District. Major Hawes of the Alexandria police says that “Alcohol is no doubt the overwhelming cause of juvenile offenses." The alcoholic oasis for teen-agers here in Washington has caused a major loophole in law enforcement in Maryland and Virginia. This same situation has caused the same problem between New York City and surrounding states. The growing use of automobiles by teenagers increases the opportunity for traffic accidents caused by young people under the influence of alcohol. We should have learned by now that alcohol and gasoline do not mix well with mature adults; with teenagers, many of them confused and irresponsible, this combination can be deadly. Young people who are responsible and mature do not need the protection of my bill; those who are not may find other ways to obtain alcohol and get into trouble. But my bill is a step towards solving some of the problems posed by Washington's permissive law. Thus, to curb teenage delinquency in Maryland and Virginia to say nothing of the District, and to promote traffic safety among young drivers, we should raise the drinking age in Washington from 18 to 21. I am gratified that substantially my bill was passed by the House as an amendment to the District Bill in May. I would like to put in the record, because I think it speaks very eloquently for my point, a letter from a man here in the District. With your permission, I will read an excerpt from this letter. My view is that every business man has a right to make a decent living as long as he complies with the letter and the spirit of the law-regardless of whether he sells booze, bread or bananas. When the exercise of that right impairs the reasonable use and enjoyment of another man's property, there is time for a re-examination of both the doctrine and the situation. This appears to be the case in connection with the low age limit for drinking now in force. This is true certainly insofar as our neighborhood is concerned. This neighborhood is the upper northwest in the Tenely Circle area. Young people from Maryland and Virginia come into the District and frequent nearby bars to an extraordinary extent. The result of the large numbers of incoming young people most appear to be young college students and others under 18—is that we have disturbing and objectionable results. The street, our street 39th, N.W., has become a dumping grounds for beer can and trash from these cars. Noise from the late parkers and a general undesirable atmosphere is created. If the Federal or District authorities wish to engage in a beautification project, they could well start on streets near the booze joints. We have received cooperation from our Police Precinct, but there is more than a police problem. The problem is one of careless, thoughtless young people making a real mess of the area. The results of the activities serves to lower property values—and tax valuesof the nearby property. I am not saying that raising the age limit would be a cure-all, but I do say that such action would have a favorable effect on the situation. Fewer young people would be streaming in and the more mature type of customer would probably be less disturbing in the general activities cited. I do not think that the liquor places would suffer irreparable harm. Anyone familiar with the high per capita consumption of alcoholic drinks in D.C. can reasonably presume that raising the age limit would not be fatal. We hope that the Congress will have some regard to the attitudes of residential property owners and citizens and not take its cue entirely from the self-serving commercial interests and the immature 18-year-olds. I would like to have that statement from Mr. Arch H. Mercey in (The letter follows:) Mr. Chairman, my name is Arch A. Mercey; I live and own property at 4404 39th Street, N.W., and I come here to commend those members of Congress who favor raising the age limit for buying alcoholic beverages from age 18 to age 21. My view is that every businessman has a right to make a decent living as long as he complies with the letter and spirit of the law-regardless of whether he sells booze, bread or bananas. When the exercise of that right impairs the reasonable use and enjoyment of another man's property, there is time for a reexamination of both the doctrine and the situation. This appears to be the case in connection with the low age limit for drinking now in force. This is true certainly insofar as our neighborhood is concerned. This neighborhood is the upper northwest in the Tenely Circle area. Young people from Maryland and Virginia come into the District and frequent nearby bars to an extraordinary extent. The result of the large numbers of incoming young people-most appear to be young college students and others under 18—is that we have disturbing and objectionable results. The street, our street 39th N.W., has become a dumping grounds for beer cans and trash from these cars. Noise from the late parkers and a general undesirable atmosphere is created. If the Federal or District authorities wish to engage in a beautification project, they could well start on streets near the booze joints. We have received cooperation from our Police Precinct, but there is more than a police problem. The problem is one of careless, thoughtless young people making a real mess of the area. The results of the activities serves to lower property values and tax valuesof the nearby property. I am not saying that raising the age limit would be a cure-all, but I do say that such action would have a favorable effect on the situation. Fewer young people would be streaming in and the more mature type of customer would probably be less disturbing in the general activities cited. I do not think that the liquor places would suffer irreparable harm. Anyone familiar with the high per capita consumption of alcoholic drinks in D.C. can reasonably presume that raising the age limit would not be fatal. We hope that the Congress will have some regard to the attitudes of residential property owners and citizens and not take its cue entirely from the self-serving commercial interests and the immature 18-year-olds. Mr. Long. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Congressman, I know of your great interest in this subject. In fact, you have talked to me several times in the past two years concerning this problem. Mr. Long. Yes. Mr. McMILLAN. I would like to state that my only concern about the bill would be enforcement of this law. Every boy in the United States is subject to the draft at age 18 and whether to prevent him from having a can of beer in the Nation's Capital is correct or not, I do not know. I do not believe that we could enforce this law here in the Nation's Capital or any other place. It is not being enforced in the other states that I know about where they are required to be 21. When we closed the bars here at midnight in the District, I understand people would go to Maryland and get drunk on Sunday morning. (Applause from audience.) Mr. Long. I think that applause which seems to come from a number of people who seem to regret the loss of purchasing power from the District to Maryland, if I am not mistaken Mr. McMillan. I assume that is one objection to closing the bars at midnight here. Mr. Long. I would like to say in response that enforcement of liquor laws is a difficult problem. You have the same problem of enforcement with the 18-year law in the District. You do have to start somewhere. |