Mr. O'DONNELL. I think that figure is very low.

Mr. RANDALL. Well, the records were in a state of some disarray. And I am not relying on the report of the staff of the committee. I am speaking from my own personal observation, having gone to the offices of the Bureau of Food and Drugs prior to the congressional

recess.

Now, so much for the number. You said that somewhere out of Baltimore, there is a directory called

Mr. O'DONNELL. Coleman Directory.

Mr. RANDALL. You said you are convinced that there are a thousand that are in that group, approximately.

Mr. O'DONNELL. That figure again is completely unrelated to the figures that were in the Post this morning. That is a figure of establishments that are licensed to serve alcoholic beverages as well as food. Mr. RANDALL. Yes, and I think we must all recognize that.

I could not help but note your comment that it is pretty hard to contaminate liquor. I am going to request the staff to try to get their hands on these numbers, because I think we must all recognize that there are very few eating places-maybe a few cafeterias; certainly not the hotels, not the so-called night clubs or supper clubs and the rank and file restaurants-most of them have an alcohol license, class "C"

Mr. O'DONNELL. I think that is true.

Mr. RANDALL. I think we should try to get our hands on the numbers. This is not a numbers game. I think we should know how many are in the category you represent. I think we will ask the staff to give us those figures before we make our final report.

I think you are correct about the magic figure of 85. But as I understood one comment you made pursuant to a line of questioning by the gentleman from Michigan, you said if you open at 7 o'clock and someone comes in at 11 and you had three towels and one of them is gone, then zip, you are cracked down on. And you mentioned the polished tile floors and the cracks in the sidewalk. Are you saying to us there that you believe that there should be a space on the form to show the time and hour of the inspection?

Mr. O'DONNELL. Fundamentally, yes.

Mr. RANDALL. I think that is a good suggestion.

If I heard you correctly, and said if you come in and it is 11:55 a.m.-is that what you said? They could not be serving much food at that time? Or did I misunderstand you?

Mr. O'DONNELL. If I said a.m., I would like to correct the record to say p.m. If you came in at the height of the lunch hour and you expected the kitchen to be in apple pie order and no lettuce leaves on the floor, why

Mr. RANDALL. Now, let us go back and look at these costs on which the point has been made whether the industry is bearing the costs or not. I think that points up the validity to try to get our hands on whether or not most of the eating places in the District are in fact also holders of this Class "C". If that is true, they are paying $825, plus $42. You did not specify what the occupancy fee was.

Mr. O'DONNELL. $16.

Mr. RANDALL. In other words, we are getting pretty close to $900, here.

Mr. O'DONNELL. Plus a franchise license.

Mr. RANDALL. Plus a franchise license. So maybe they are bearing the cost of these inspections.

You said that in your judgment-I want to be sure I am right about that that you felt that nobody was going in the hole on these inspections of class "C" during the year with this $825 fee?

Mr. O'DONNELL. That is correct.

Mr. RANDALL. So then again, that is why I want to try to find out how many are doing business under the $42 license only. We should have that for our final report.

Mr. O'DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I know the Chair really alluded to the jurisdiction of committees. The businessman has a problem, too. He pays his Government x number of dollars a year for licensing and that is what his overhead is. I am not saying that the businessman might not be just as willing that he pay less for his alcoholic beverage license and more for his restaurant license, I do not know. But in this city, the businessman has about all he can stand.

Mr. RANDALL. I think that is generally true nationwide for small businesses. That is why it occurs to the Chairman at least that if we can get our hands on the $42 bracket, that can be raised, but those who are paying the $825 and the $42 and the $16 and the franchise, which you did not indicate, they are carrying quite a load.

Mr. BROWN. Would you yield?

Mr. RANDALL. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Is the beverage license fee for an establishment or is it for each bar in the establishment?

Mr. O'DONNELL. Well

Mr. BROWN. For instance, a hotel may have three different bars. They may sell alcoholic beverages in two restaurants and they may have a separate lounge and what have you. Is the fee the same if you have several installations in the same facility?

Mr. O'DONNELL. If all the eating and drinking, public rooms, in the hotel are operated by the hotel, there is one license. But it is not $825. I am not that familiar with their license fee. But it is substantially higher. It is a special hotel class C license. It is substantially higher, Again, the Alcoholic Beverage Board would give you the figure.

If on the other hand, you have a hotel which operates a restaurant under a trade name not owned and operated by the hotel, in the nature of a concession or lease, you have separate licenses and do have in some hotels in the city. Most hotels pay a single alcoholic beverage license fee which I know is in excess of a thousand dollars. Maybe somebody in the room knows exactly what it is. And it covers their public rooms and I think also accords them the privilege of sending beverages to the guest rooms of their private guests.

Mr. BROWN. And they can buy it if they want to buy it, for example, if they have a reception.

I just have one further question. There has been some discussion about the desirability of the rotation of inspectors. Would you care to comment as to whether or not it is desirable from an industry standpoint to have a change of inspectors or to have the same inspector? Mr. O'DONNELL. I have not talked to any trade association leader connected with any aspect of the hotel and restaurant industry who does not favor the concept of rotating inspectors. That is so it cuts

both ways. If you get an inspector who is not too happy with you, you have to live with him until he is rotated. I think it cuts both ways. I think it makes for fairness.

Mr. BROWN. But on balance, you would suggest that the opinion of your members probably would be that they prefer to have rotating? Mr. O'DONNELL, I say I know of no one who does not favor rotating inspectors.

Mr. BROWN. I do not think I have anything else, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. RANDALL. The hour is late and as we get ready to conclude the record at this time, I want to take this opportunity before the gentleman leaves simply to comment upon a statement which he made on page 3, in which he said:

Next to its great historic shrines, this city and its visitors can take pride in a restaurant industry here which is truly international in character, diverse in the range of bill of fare and price.

I will not conclude the rest of the statement, except that you say Washington is certainly among the top of the great metropolitan centers in the country. A personal observation is this: We probably made 50 separate trips to Washington on different missions before coming to the Congress in 1959. And we, too, shared in that. We look back on some of those old places without mentioning them by name. Some of them are no longer with us. We hope again that this situation can prevail and exist in which we can be truly proud of the great restaurants of this city. That is one of the purposes of this hearing. That is one of the purposes of the activities of this committee since about the first of July.

As we conclude, I want to express the gratitude and appreciation of the Chair for those minority members who have been with us and the others who have been with us from time to time and for the faithful attendance of the city witnesses, and certainly the press, who have contributed greatly to the knowledge of the citizens of the city that this committee and its members have been working toward trying to improve a situation which we felt at the beginning needed improvement.

And hopefully, with the appearance as a final witness this morning of Mr. Alexander, we are on the march toward conditions which will be much better in the future. That is certainly the hope of the Chair. With that statement and showing the hour to be 12:05, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until further call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearings were adjourned.)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOOD INSPECTION

AND LICENSING
(PART 3)

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 24 AND 25, 1972

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations

67-558-0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1972

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

CHET HOLIFIELD, California, Chairman