« PreviousContinue »
to hit. I think that is a certainty, that the ones that are good enough to want to belong to a camping association of some sort are the ones that normally protect themselves and the people that are in their camps.
New Jersey is one of the States in the United States that has realized the problem that is presently faced by parents in determining whether or not a camp to which they send their children is indeed safe and healthful experience for their children. The New Jersey Legislature passed Chapter 375 of Public Law 1973 which was signed into law on January 9, 1974. This act is known as the “New Jersey Youth Camp Safety Act." The act states its purpose is to: "promote, protect and safeguard the health and well-being of the youth of the State attending day camps and resident camps by providing for establishment of standards for the operation of such camps, thereby providing assurance to parents and interested citizens that youth camps meet minimum safety standards."
As you can see, New Jersey has already prepared itself to meet some of the requirements or most of the requirements of H.R. 1486. We have just started. Michigan is way ahead of us. We have just started and we are going forward on our standards and we readily admit we are just in the
beginning strides of a race that will put us in a position to meet the standards that I hope you will eventually pass as law and allow the Secretary to provide suitable regulations in the future.
H.R. 1486, in my opinion, is a needed piece of legislation.
I speak as a Regulatory Officer from a State and it is good legislation, but when you work on a State level and you are dealing with your State personnel and your State businessmen, you have to be in a position that you don't set up rules and regulations that are so difficult for the people within your State so that you make it unfair competition for them when they are meeting competition from right across the borders.
Now, we have people that have camps in Delaware and Pennsylvania and in New York State which are right close and it is our contention that H.R. 1486 will eliminate a measure of what might be unfair competition.
Now, we don't suggest that Federal legislation be enacted and standards promulgated unless there is a real need to protect the health and safety of the children. In that regard, we think this advisory council that is going to be set up will be most helpful to the Secretary of HEW.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not reading this statement that I prepared and I would like it entered into the record for the purpose of saving time but I will just paraphrase some of the paragraphs I have here.
Mr. Daniels. Dr. Sussman, you may proceed in any fashion you wish. If you desire, I will ask unanimous consent at this time that your statement be placed in the record at this point and you may go ahead and summarize the balance of it.
Any objections to the question?
[The statement referred to follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. OSCAR SUSSMAN, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER HEALTH
SERVICES, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, TRENTON, N.J. New Jersey is one of the states in the United States that has realized the problem that is presently faced by parents in determining whether or not a camp to which they send their children is indeed safe and healthful experience for their children. The New Jersey Legislature passed Chapter 375 of P.L. 1973 which was signed into law on January 9, 1974. This act is known as the “New Jersey Youth Camp Safety Act.” The Act states its purpose is to: "*promote,* protect and safeguard the health and well-being of the youth of the State attending day camps and resident camps by providing for establishment of standards for the operation of such camps, thereby providing assurance to parents and interested citizens that youth camps meet minimum safety standards."
As you can see, the State of New Jersey is prepared to comply by existing state law with most of the terms of HR 1486.
HR 1486, in my opinion, is a needed piece of legislation. It is good legislation. It will tend to remove considerable concern and worry on the part of local and state health officials in the State of New Jersey, that when we enforce needed health and safety standards on camps operating in New Jersey we are not being unfair and discriminatory against them. We wonder whether we are tougher on our own business enterprises and our own eleemosynary and nonprofit institutions than the situation their competitors are encountering in nearby states. In the absence of legislation similar to HR 1486 there is a definite possibility that this could be a fact.
Federal legislation should not be enacted and standards not promulgated unless needed to protect the health and safety of our children. However, if needed and promulgated all states must enforce them equally! If nearby states' health and safety requirements are not as stringently enforced it would be less costly in manpower and money to operate a camp that does not meet the similar standards of health and safety. The requirements of proper electrical wiring, proper boat safety apparatus, water safety and life saving personnel requirements, food handling procedures and similar types of requirements with regard to the entire camp operation in most cases requires more personnel and therefore more money to operate safely and with due precautions for health of campers. When parents of children in New Jersey read advertising sent through the mails or in magazines which enter into interstate commerce which sound good, and when they hear discussions which sound better, and see brochures which look like Utopia, in the absence of a general national supervision, such as, HR 1486 aims toward, all of these may be in many cases just old fashioned "puffing” and the use of similar "Madison Avenue" advertising techniques.
While it is true we and other states can protect our children, I believe interstate commerce does enter into the advertising, mailing and transportation. Thus the Federal Government does, in my estimation, have as much responsibility in protecting the health and safety of children in all states to the same extent they do with regard to the meat and poultry the children and their parents eat. Federal legislation now provides this protection. In fact, Federal Law, the Animal Welfare Act, now protects the health, safety and proper care of dogs and other animals used in medical research. This is true even if the dogs originate in New Jersey and are used in New Jersey. This is a paradox isn't it where animals are protected, but we are here today still discussing whether we will afford similar protection to our children.
I find Section 6, a and b, ties down the implementation of any state plan quite well. The eleven requirements in section 6, b, are not onerous.
NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Section e certainly gives each state the opportunity of even a court decision should there be a difference of opinion with respect to any action by the Federal Government. I do believe a better system of administrative hearings prior to court action would be helpful.
FEDERAL AID-CARROT AND STICK APPROACH
Section 8, a, is a point which leaves me to question why any state would want to require or to set up their own state plan when by not setting up such a plan the Secretary of HEW would be responsible for enforcement of all Youth Camp Safety Standards in each of the states which fail to submit an acceptable plan.
FEDERAL PRECEDENTS-WHOLESOME MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION
There is precedent in the Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection Act and Standards wherein a similar requirement of the legislation puts the Secretary off Agriculture in a position of having to provide money to pay for meat and/or poultry inspection personnel when a state fails to provide such inspection services. To this date it is my understanding that 13 states have accepted the offer of the Federal Government, by this legislation, to pay for the entire cost of state meat inspection programs. These and/or territories are: Kentucky
North Dakota Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands Nebraska With regard to poultry inspection there are now 22 states and territories that have accepted the Federal Government's invitation to provide entire costs of poultry inspection and these states are as follows: Arkansas
Puerto Rico Oregon
North Dakota Colorado
South Dakota Kentucky
West Virginia Minnesota
Virgin Island Therefore, Section 8-(a) provides for the same possibility as does the meat and poultry inspection act. Those States who wish to have their own State programs if it meets the federal standards will get federal aid. Those states who fail to meet federal standards will have that responsibility shifted to the federal government.
SUPERVISED FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT NECESSARY
I am in agreement with Section 7 and 8 for I believe that 80–20 payment factor, if it were completely activated, with no monetary limits, would result in state preparing good plans that would provide for proper functioning at the state level. I disagree with those members of this industry and those state officials who indicate that the Secretary of HEW should issure regulations, procedures and standards but without giving to that official any real enforcement capabilities other than the withdrawing of the 80 percent of the funding factor should the plan not meet with Federal approval.
It is incumbent and necessary for the Secretary of HEW to have an adequately trained, supervisory inspection staff availablt for field activities in this connection. This is needed in order to actually make certain the state plans are not just paper plans, but are, in fact, properly implemented. To do otherwise and without a supervisory field staff, this Act may very well lead to misconceptions, deception, and generally misleading of the consuming public in those instances where the state fails to meet their plans. A written plan not rigoroulsy enforced will lead to misleading of the consumers involved.
The only way this would ever be determined would be by a supervisory Federal investigative staff. Penalty actions could never be implemented without a field supervisory staff which actually went to camps and observed by means of unannounced sampling techniques.
PENALTY ACTION-STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
I believe the Federal Government should have the authority as is emphasized in Section 10.
Consideration should be given to have enforcement also the responsibility and authority of cooperating states by cross commissioning of state employees. This is already done in other areas of Federal-State relationships. To do otherwise is to rely soley on the 80 percent aid to the program costs. I do not think this is sufficient incentive. This law and its standards will not affect adve ely any good, well operated, properly functioning, healthful and safe camp. It will undoubtedly eliminate those camps that are hazardous, poorly operated and dangerous for anyone to send their children to and so it should be if we are as interested in the health and safety of our children as this legislation's intent indicates.
TRAVEL CAMPS-SECTION 13 Travel camps should be the primary responsibility of the state of origin. The activities should be jointly coordinated where feasible with the other states involved. I, however, do not advocate a cumbersome, unworkable bureaucracy. Care must be taken to avoid unwieldy red tape in the supposed furtherance of health and safety. Red tape should be cut where it is unneeded and wasteful of time and money. The Federal Government should have no greater control over travel camps than resident camps.
FEDERAL RECREATION CAMPS-NO DOUBLE STANDARD
The Secretary should not be permitted to develop a separate set of safety standards for Federal recreation camps but should follow the same standards as the other camps in the state wherein located. No exception should be given because it is Federal land. It is my belief that state inspectors should be responsible to make inspections at Federal locations just as they would at other locations throughout the state, and that the state should be given such authority by this legislation.
STATES' RIGHTS ? I am a staunch States' Rights advocate but when states yield to acceptance of Federal funds for specific programs they cannot have their cake and eat it too. States' Rights must yield to the extent of the acceptance of Federal largesse.
States' Rights also must yield to the Federal Government with regard to the question of protection of interstate movement of people, interstate advertising, and interstate commerce in general with regard to camps--resident and travel types. To attempt to eliminate Federal intervention when Federal support money is involved is to say that many state and local officials who have been guilty of criminal acts or negligence should not be prosecuted.
In New Jersey a Federal prosecutor with his investigatory staff convicted state officials of criminal acts. It does not make sense in our present day, fast moving transient population to attempt to keep the Federal Government out of what is clearly an interstate problem. I, for one as a “States' Righter" will have to concede that we must yield with the times and make our actions more relevant to today. The Federal Government now takes approximately seven dollars from New Jersey taxpayers and returns only one or so in service and/or funds. I am more willing to accept the supervisory activities of a Federal Camp Health and Safety staff as 80 percent of the camping program funds will thus be returned to the State of New Jersey to aid in our “Youth Camp Health and Safety Program."
It is my opinion that when Federal funds enter into a program such as this, then it is incumbent for the Federal Government to be permitted to supervise dispersal of the funds in a manner which is proper for financial and program accountability. In my estimation there is a need for this legislation. I recommend its passage with the necessary amendments.
I thank you, Chairman Daniels, and your Subcommittee for permitting me to testify before you here today. Should you have any further questions, I will be pleased to attempt to answer them.
Dr. SUSSMAN. Now, the point I was trying to make here with regard to unfair competition is we set up regulations with regard to safety, electrical safety, building safety, wiring, plumbing, water safety, and our standards are what we consider on our committee, which is composed of both consumers and industry, and what is considered just and correct to protect the children.
If these are not enforced in adjoining States, brochures come for the parents of children in our State where they actually get advertising and materials that go interstate, that we really are putting our own industry in a hazardous position, as far as competition is concerned.
Now, I believe that interstate commerce enters into the advertising, mailing and presentation, thus, I don't see how the Federal Government can avoid passing this legislation.
I really think it is not a question of should we, but I think it is a question of why hasn't it been. I bring to your attention that we have Federal legislation that provides that meat and poultry that the children eat and that the people eat in the United States, is actually under Federal control if it goes interstate.
We also have Federal legislation that provides for protecting dogs, and it is called the “Animal Welfare Act", and this protects the health and safety and proper care of dogs and other animals used in medical research.
This is true even if the dogs originated in New Jersey and are used in New Jersey. Now, I think that is important, that the dogs originated in New Jersey and are used in New Jersey, they are still under this Federal legislation, because it has some impact on interstate commerce.
Now, although I agree with Mr. Esch, I don't think that one child should make this an epidemic and I don't believe that the good camps want even one child hurt or killed, but I think it is a paradox that here we are protecting our citizens in the United States on interstate meat and poultry and the interstate care of dogs, but we have not yet gotten around to protecting children who go from New Jersey to Pennsylvania or Pennsylvania to New Jersey or New Jersey to New York or New York to New Jersey, and I think that is outlandish.
Mr. DANIELS. I might also state to you that there are a number of other States that have laws for protection of other animals like alligators and coyotes and the eagle, and we have passed a Federal law on that, and, as you say, it is a paradox that we have not done anything to protect the health and safety of our children, which is America's most important asset.