Senator LEVIN. You were doing random checks on a beef processing company at this time?

Mr. GEE. Yes. These are slaughter houses.

Senator LEVIN. You were doing random checks on beef slaughter houses at a certain time.

Mr. GEE. This is AQL. This is the AQL that was inaugurated for that purpose for slaughter houses only.

Senator LEVIN. Okay. So now what happened? You came there during a random check and you found that the plant official had falsified the report?

Mr. GEE. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. And then what did you do?

Mr. GEE. I immediately reported to my supervisor and he then imposed a penalty of 15 days that the inspector would do the inspection. After the 15 days he would either take them off the penalty and they would continue back the way they were.

Šenator LEVIN. Was that handled properly by your supervisor? Mr. GEE. Yes, according to the rules or information that he got from his supervisor. That was the plan that had been working all this time.

Senator LEVIN. Do you have an objection to the direction which he got from his supervisor?

Mr. GEE. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. What was there about the direction that he got that you think was wrong?

Mr. GEE. I object due to the fact that the company that was involved had been falsifying these documents all along. They were not doing the AQL as they had promised USDA. We had a chance to monitor all the records that they had. When I checked on those records at least four or five times, they were not done and they were not complete. In some cases there were no markings whatsoever put on those forms.

Senator LEVIN. Do you feel then that they were let off too lightly; is that the bottom line?

Mr. GEE. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. And is that because of the direction that your supervisor got from his supervisor?

Mr. GEE. That's it.

Senator LEVIN. And that direction was what? What was the specific direction that your supervisor got?

Mr. GEE. When he imposed the penalty on the company, he had to report to his higher superior that he was imposing a penalty, and he would also put that in writing. And after then it would go for 15 days. Once the plant was off the penalty, it would be put back to business as usual. That's the way it works. That's the way the USDA system works.

Senator LEVIN. Did you ever do a random check on that compa

ny?

Mr. GEE. Yes, I did that.

Senator LEVIN. And did you find that they continued to falsify those reports, or did they correct it?

Mr. GEE. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. Which?

Mr. GEE. They were not correct.

Senator LEVIN. They were what?

Mr. GEE. The reports that the company did were not correct.
Senator LEVIN. Even when you went back?

Mr. GEE. Even after I went back.

Senator LEVIN. So after they were penalized once, too lightly as far as you were concerned, you went back on a random check and you still found incorrect reports?

Mr. GEE. Yes, incorrect reports.

Senator LEVIN. And then did you report that to your supervisor? Mr. GEE. I reported that to my supervisor.

Senator LEVIN. And what did he do then?

Mr. GEE. I got assigned some place else. I don't know what happened after that.

Senator LEVIN. You got assigned some place else.

Mr. GEE. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. And do you believe it's because you were insistent upon pressing the case against that particular plant?

Mr. GEE. No. Food inspectors get transferred every 10 weeks, and at that time my 10 weeks assignment was up. This happened on a Friday and I was transferred to another plant on Monday.

Senator LEVIN. So you don't know what happened the second time.

Mr. GEE. I don't know what happened here.

Senator LEVIN. Okay.

Senator Pryor do you have questions just of Mr. Gee. We kind of focused in just on his testimony, and then we'll go to Mr. Leonard. Senator PRYOR. Yes, not a long question.

Mr. Gee, I just want to ascertain one or two things.

First, I guess you would be a whistleblower. Now this Committee applauds you and we want to do everything we can to protect people like you who, if you think there is a problem, come before the proper Committee and let us know. I say that with all good in

tentions.

Also, I'm a little confused about one thing. I've been in and out of the room. Are you an inspector in a meat or a poultry plant, a red meat plant or a poultry plant?

Mr. GEE. I'm an assigned inspector in a red meat plant.

Senator PRYOR. Not in a poultry plant.

Mr. GEE. Not in a poultry plant.

Senator PRYOR. And most of the problems that you are speaking about this afternoon, I started to say this morning, but this afternoon, they occurred not in a poultry plant but in a red meat plant; is that right?

Mr. GEE. Mostly in a beef plant and a pork plant.

Senator PRYOR. Pardon me?

Mr. GEE. Pork and beef.

Senator PRYOR. I see.

Senator COHEN. Any lobster plants? [Laughter.]

Senator PRYOR. I think we've gotten Senator Cohen's attention about lobsters, Mr. Gee. [Laughter.]

Senator COHEN. You've certainly got my attention because I want to go on at some length to promote Maine lobsters over this-- [Laughter.]

Senator LEVIN. We are trying to keep commercials out of this, all kinds. [Laughter.]

Senator PRYOR. I think that's all the questions I have.

Thank you, Mr. Gee. And by the way again, thank you for coming forward.

Senator LEVIN. We might say, Mr. Gee, while we're talking about whistleblowers, that there is pending a whistleblower's protection act which is going to increase the protection which we do provide to whistleblowers which is now inadequate in many ways so that more people will be willing to come forward and tell their stories.

I know this Subcommittee and indeed this full Committee is very much involved in that effort to try to improve the protection that we do give because there are not enough people who are willing to come forward. They are afraid, and we're glad you are not afraid, and we particularly appreciate your willingness to come forward. Now we're going to move to▬▬

Senator COHEN. May I just ask a quick question?

Senator LEVIN. Yes, of course.

Senator COHEN. Mr. Gee, have you ever seen an example of a plant turning itself in for violations?

Mr. GEE. I didn't hear the question.

Senator COHEN. Do you know of any plant in your experience that has turned itself in voluntarily for violations?

Mr. GEE. No, never. [Laughter.]

Senator COHEN. Does a company know when a Government inspector is going to come in for an AQL test?

Mr. GEE. They are not supposed to know that.
Senator COHEN. Do they know?

Mr. GEE. Well, yes and no. If you catch a plant trying to get away with something, the plant owner figures that he can clean the beef before you get there. Well, just say, for instance, that you don't do this on a Monday. Well, he would know and he's waiting for you on a Tuesday. And if you don't do it between Tuesday and Thursday, he knows you'll have to come Friday. And this is what that they are on the lookout for.

Senator COHEN. Mr. Chairman, could I indulge your patience and that of Senator Pryor just to ask perhaps one question to Mr. Devine who represents whistleblowers?

Senator LEVIN. Yes.

Senator COHEN. Because I may not be able to stay for the completion of the testimony.

Senator LEVIN. Of course.

Senator COHEN. Mr. Devine, would you comment about your experience with representing whistleblowers from the FSIS? Is this atypical? Is Mr. Gee unusual? Is he a rare occurrence and not reflective of what kind of problems you face with representing whistleblowers?

Mr. DEVINE. I'm very disappointed that his experiences have not been atypical. They have been representative. In fact, Mr. Gee has probably done a little bit better in terms of harassment over the last year, I think because he was on national television and the companies have eased off on him a little bit since then.

In our experience there has been a real disrespect for the free speech laws at the Department of Agriculture. One of my first gli

ents there was a gentleman named Dr. Carl Telleen who received a reprimand for violating the code of ethics. His misconduct was that he wrote an article warning the public about eating fecally contaminated food products, the same thing that the NAS warned the public about this week. And the USDA responded that since the code of ethics prohibits any Government employee from taking actions that would adversely affect public confidence in the integrity of the Government, Dr. Telleen was clearly engaging in an ethical violation by warning the public about food poisoning.

I think this is like saying Paul Revere was a traitor when he said the British were coming. It just doesn't make sense.

Even recently the USDA inspectors at the Simmons facility have been put under a gag order not to talk about the corrective action there. There is a real unwillingness by this agency to let the facts get out to the public.

We saw that in 1981, when review team members started resigning because their reports were censored when they talked about contamination at beef, pork and poultry plants.

We saw that in 1985 in Southern California when one of the review team members later stated it in an affidavit. They took out the information about contaminated products getting to the public, because that would devastate the agency's credibility with the public.

Senator, the problem of whistleblower protection and reprisals at this agency is part of a larger problem. We believe that telling the public the whole truth is a public safety issue, and until USDA accepts that premise, the agency's management approach to public health is going to be a public health threat.

Senator COHEN. Thank you very much. I tend to agree with you. It sounds more like a Soviet system where if you criticize the Government you can be thrown in jail. Here they're saying that you're violating the official ethics of the agency by going public with some serious complaints.

So I think it's something that Senator Pryor I know, other than this issue per se, is very interested in as is Senator Levin. We have been very vigorous in trying to promote legislation dealing with the protection of whistleblowers.

Senator LEVIN. If I can quickly add a little plug since we were involved in some commercials here this morning; Mr. Devine has been very helpful in working with us on that whistleblower protection act as have a number of other people here this morning, and we thank you for that assistance.

Senator PRYOR. And I am also a supporter of Senator Levin in this legislation.

Senator LEVIN. Senator Cohen also is a co-sponsor of it. So we all really are in agreement on this, that we have got to protect people who come forward, and we are not going to tolerate any agency retaliating or taking any action or not promoting people because they speak the truth-when the agency says, well, if you speak the truth that might hurt the agency. I mean that's the whole point for protecting whistleblowers is to get them to speak the truth even though it does hurt the agency. We are not interested in the agency's reputation if it doesn't deserve a good reputation. We are in

terested in protecting the reputation if it deserves it, but not if it doesn't.

That is our interest and it is kind of in a way a separate problem, but it's very much related to the issue here this morning.

We again now probably should move to Mr. Leonard and then we'll come back to the other witnesses if you can stay for questions. Mr. Leonard.

TESTIMONY OF RODNEY E. LEONARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY NUTRITION INSTITUTION 1

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will summarize my summary for you so we can get on.

I served as the Administrator for the Consumer and Marketing Service from 1967 to 1969. That is the agency or was the agency at USDA responsible for meat and poultry inspection.

When I left in 1969 we had a renewed legislative mandate for risk avoidance. We had 10,000 inspectors on staff. We had an adequate budget provided by Congress and we had merged meat and poultry inspection to indicate to the industry that the Federal Government was in control of food safety.

That situation has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Congress no longer sets food safety policy. Meat and poultry inspection is understaffed and underfunded. There are only 7,000 inspectors at the present time to handle nearly twice the workload as compared to 1968.

Meat and poultry inspection is really no longer in charge of food safety. As a consequence, the incident of food poisoning caused by salmonella, for example, has more than doubled.

Since 1960, according to the NAS report that came out this week, the number of cases of food poisoning attributed to salmonella has increased from 8 per 100,000 to 19 per 100,000 in 1984. Most of the increase occurred after 1977 when USDA authorized feces to be washed from poultry carcasses.

Preventing contact with salmonella is the single most important task in processing the National Academy of Science report said. Now the industry says that this scandal is the fault of the consumer. Consumers should wash the poultry, clean up carefully in the kitchen and cook poultry meat thoroughly. Blaming the victim is an arrogant diversion and it's also a deception.

Studies document that salmonella cannot be controlled when it enters the kitchen on poultry. I would be happy to share that study with the committee.

As has been discussed here already, the reports of food poisoning that come to the Government are reports of contamination at commercial locations, and the reason for that is simply that when it occurs in the home people can't believe that they have been poisoned by food that has been approved as safe by the Federal Government.

Now I don't understand why industry cannot control microbial contamination. The poultry industry is the most highly integrated meat processing industry in the United States. Three firms control most of the output, and 45 firms account for over 90 percent of production.

1 See p. 173 for Mr. Leonard's prepared statement.