Mr. OBEY. That is all. Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Scherle? Mr. SCHERLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In answer to Mr. Hope, my colleague here made the observation that apparently more is being flushed in than is being flushed out of the Tidal Basin. Thank you. ADMINISTRATION Mr. NATCHER. Under administration, the increase is $191,400. This is for pay cost only; is that right, Mr. Rutledge? Mr. RUTLEDGE. That is correct. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR Mr. NATCHER. Under the Office of the Director you are requesting an increase of $30,900, and this is also for pay cost only. Mr. RUTLEDGE. That is correct. CLINICAL SERVICES Mr. NATCHER. Under clinical services you are requesting an increase of $995,200, which consists of mandatory pay cost only, is that correct? Mr. RUTLEDGE. That is correct. WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1971. INSPECTION OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Rutledge, before we start on the increases in the next section, I believe you have a statement you want to make to the committee. Mr. RUTLEDGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, Dr. Raymond Standard, the Director of the Community Health Services Administration, and Mr. Malcolm Hope, the Associate Director for Environmental Health for that administration, and I, appeared before the House Governmental Operations Subcommittee on Special Studies to meet with the committee regarding the environmental health program. 66-168 0-71-pt. 2-62 There were a number of questions raised, to which we responded. Though the record of that meeting will speak for itself, because of the newspaper reports, we thought that this committee might be interested in some perspective on that testimony. I would like to invite Mr. Hope to join me at the table in place of Dr. DuPont for the moment. The discussion yesterday centered around the practices in the environmental health directive regarding inspection of food establish ments. The newspaper reports this morning raised some questions regarding our appearance before the Special Studies Committee which this committee might wish to discuss. Certainly it is entitled to some clarification. With respect to the questions about the budget specifically— Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Rutledge, excuse me for interrupting you. The matter that you are bringing to the committee at this time pertains to the testimony that appeared before the other committee yesterday. I believe you were in attendance, along with Dr. Standard, Mr. Hope, and certain other members of your staff. In this morning's Washington Post there is an article entitled, "Most Food Firms Held Substandard." They go on to point out what resulted at the hearings. This is the matter you are calling to the attention of the committee this morning, is that correct? Mr. RUTLEDGE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NATCHER. We appreciate it. You go right ahead. CONDITIONS OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Mr. RUTLEDGE. Thank you. With respect to those food establishments under discussion not meeting the standards that we set, Mr. Hope and I thought the committee was entitled to know that that does not mean that the food establishments are in fact unsafe, nor that they present any imminent health danger. INSPECTION REPORT The department has an inspection report schedule in which restaurants are rated and given certain demerits if they do not meet certain kinds of standards in given areas. For the major violations that we attribute some six points or more to, we require that effective action be taken immediately. There are a number of lesser important things that we give the restaurants some time to comply with. It is only when the food establishments cannot show any progress toward complying with our requirements that enforcement action is taken. We would like to share with the committee for its information copies. of the Food Establishment Inspection Report. If the Chairman feels it would be appropriate to put it in the record, we would be pleased to do so. We would also be pleased to answer any questions about that inspection schedule that the committee would wish to ask. Mr. NATCHER. This material should be in the record at this point, Mr. Rutledge. Without objection, it will be inserted. (The information follows:) To determine compliance with District and Federal regulations under a cooperative agreement with Effective action must be taken this date to correct all underlined deficiencies having a demerit value of 6. Other underlined deficiencies must be corrected as indicated under "Remarks." Failure to make the indicated correction within the specified time may result in court proceedings being initiated for the enforcement thereof. DEMERITS D EQUIPMENT 1. Installation: equipment location permits easy access to and cleaning of equipment and adjacent surfaces or properly sealed to adjacent surfaces 2. Refrigerated and hot food holding equipment: adequate - capable of maintaining proper food temperature in good repair provision for separation of raw and finished products 3. Food Contact surfaces of equipment and multi-use eating and cooking utensils: constructed of suitable material free of cracks, crevices, chips, rust or paint equipment easily disassembled and readily cleanable - clean and sanitized before each use proper facilities and material available for cleaning and sanitizing 6 6 1. Premises: no rodent harborage - effective vermin 2. General storage: storage areas clean, adequate 3. Operating methods: food protected during dis- 6 6 6 Mr. NATCHER. This is a better explanation to me than the one that I read in the paper. Certainly I knew that beyond any question of a doubt, there was a better system of inspection in our restaurants and our establishments which sell and dispense food to the public, than might appear to be from some of the reports we have heard in the last 48 hours. I want you to know that I appreciate your bringing this matter to the attention of the committee, Mr. Rutledge. Is there anything else you would like to say on this particular matter? Mr. RUTLEDGE. If there are any questions which the committee would have about the inspection report, we would be pleased to answer them. Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Giaimo, do you have any questions on this matter? PERCENTAGE OF ESTABLISHMENTS FAILING TO MEET STANDARDS Mr. GIAIMO. I am looking at the newsstory now. Did the city officials acknowledge that 90 percent of the food handling establishments failed to meet acceptable health and sanitation ratings? Mr. RUTLEDGE. By this particular inspection schedule? Mr. GIAIMO. By the one you have submitted in the record? Mr. RUTLEDGE. Yes; once the points on which the restaurants do not measure up are subtracted from 100, only 10 percent of them then rated above 90 percent. We wanted the committee to know that that does not mean, when one looks at the schedule, that the restaurants are unsafe. It means they have not met those standards that we set for them to meet. Mr. GIAIMO. You mean they haven't attained perfection? TYPES OF VIOLATIONS Mr. RUTLEDGE. They haven't attained perfection. For example, their floors may not be as clean as we would like. Some of the walls and ceilings may require some improvement. We also maintain a list of critical items on which we hold them immediately accountable to make corrections. Mr. GIAIMO. How serious is the situation at the Occidental? Mr. RUTLEDGE. That was fairly serious over a period of time. The Occidental, as you know, is closed now. Mr. Hope, who has been working with this for some while, might give additional information if you would like to pursue it. Mr. GIAIMO. What is the problem there, if you can tell us either on or off the record? Mr. HOPE. Simply the fact that the establishment is getting older day by day. There has been no replacement equipment. Very frankly, what was needed would have involved an expenditure of about a quarter of a million dollars by management to completely refurbish the kitchen and the food handling facilities. On the basis of a numerical rating, the establishment would run somewhere around 30 to 35 out of a total rating of a potential of 100. Frankly, the situation is atrocious. Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Davis? Mr. NATCHER. Mr. McEwen? Mr. MCEWEN. I have no questions. JUDGMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF INSPECTION SYSTEM Mr. MYERS. I have just one observation. From the news report that I heard, someone made the statement that they would not eat in a restaurant in the District of Columbia. Was that one of you people who made that statement? I think I heard that on television or radio. Mr. HOPE. It was WRC. It was a girl who asked me the question yesterday. She said, "Would you knowingly eat in a restaurant that was rated less than 90 percent?" I said I would not. Mr. MYERS. Where is the cutoff spot where you choose a restaurantat what rating? Mr. HOPE. We have not established any given numerical rating. At this point, we would recommend that there has to be some judgmental consideration of the total conditions that exist in an establishment. At that point in time we then plan it that the action be initiated for the revocation of licenses. Mr. RUTLEDGE. For example, Mr. Myers, some of the major demerits would come from equipment deficiency problems. But if the food handling practices themselves are superior, there is not necesasrily an imminent danger. If a certain combination of inadequate equipment facilities and inadequate personal practices exist, then that combination would be bad. Mr. MYERS. Mr. Hope said he wouldn't eat in restaurants that rated less than 90. What about the rest of the folks? AVERAGE RATING OF ALL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Mr. HOPE. A lot of folks are eating in a restaurant that rated substantially less than 90. I would remind you the rating of all food establishments is in the neighborhood of about 83 percent. This means that is the average. A lot of them are substantially lower. EXTENT OF INSPECTIONS Mr. MYERS. Is every restaurant investigated? Mr. HOPE. We look at a restaurant, within the limits of our resources, on the basis hopefully of four times a year. With the budget cut that has been proposed in relation to this particular activity, we will have to make 6,000 fewer inspections this current fiscal year than we had planned to make. RESTAURANTS CLOSED IN 1971 Mr. MYERS. How many restaurants have you closed? Mr. HOPE. Over the past year, there were nine actual revocations of licenses. FOLLOWUP INSPECTIONS Mr. MYERS. If a restaurant came up with a score of 75, how soon after this examination would you go back and reexamine? |