Dr. SUSSMAN. Now, I have gone through the bill I like the idea that it has tied down, under section 6(a) and (b), what the requirements of the Secretary are that he has to meet in accepting a plan.

I discussed this with a number of people in the industry in New Jersey, and outside, and while it may appear that some of these points could be onerous, I think they are onerous to the extent only that it protects the Federal Government from giving money out willy-nilly and it protects the children in the fact that there is a specific requirement for plans, so I personally, and my department has agreed that we feel that this is a good requirement, this section 6(a) and (b).

Now, with regard to section (e), I feel that the fact that you have provided in this legislation for a court decision, should there be some objection on the part of a State when a plan is either refused or is going to be cast off once it has been accepted is good. I think that is a legitimate thing, but I would suspect it would be a heck of a lot easier, rather than going through the court procedure first, if you made a more intensive system of administrative hearings of some sort prior to that, that is, a specific administrative hearing set up that can be worked on in that line, if you follow what I am saying.

Now, I would like to take you back a minute to a question raised by the Federal Poultry Inspection Act, which I think is the Federal Wholesome Poultry Act and Federal Meat Inspection Act. I think you handled something in this bill that would probably have avoided what has happened in that act.

Under the Meat and Poultry Inspection Act, the Federal Government sets up standards for meat and poultry. If the States do not meet the standard, then the Federal Government must take over. If the States set up a plan, such as Michigan or New York has a plan that they are starting to work on for the camps, then the Federal Government can approve the plan and pay up to 80 percent of the cost under your Camp Safety Act.

Under the Meat Inspection Act, what you have provided is that if a State meets the Federal standard, or "at least equal to", which are the words of the Federal law on meat and poultry, then the States can get up to 50 percent of the money cost of doing the program.

Well, it is obvious that what has happened under the act, because they only gave 50 percent, I think is the problem; there are at the moment 13 States that have already suggested to the Federal Government, "Come in and do our meat inspection for us." So, you know you heard a lot about States' rights, but there must not be many State rights in a State that accepted the Federal Government doing its total meat inspection and these are Kentucky, Montana, Oregon, Guam, Puerto Rico, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands, and that includes some of the territories, of course.

There are 13 States that have Federal meat inspection.

There are 22 States that have poultry inspection, Federal poultry inspection.

What I was getting at, Mr. Chairman, was in section 8(a), you have provided, well, I have the wrong Section, but-well I don't

have the section where you are providing the 80 percent funding. But, in any event, without my taking time to look for the funding section, I think the fact that you are providing for up to 80 percent of the funding will avoid what has happened in the Federal poultry and meat inspection.

Mr. DANIELS. I might say, Dr. Sussman, that is section 7(a).
Dr. SUSSMAN. 7(a), excuse me.

I think my statement then is incorrect and needs correction. Now, I think that I would not like, I have had discussion with some people and I personally would not like to have you change that section if this legislation passes, because I think if you do not change it you are going to have an opportunity, as Mr. Esch indicated, and I am certain some of you want, that you will not have an elimination of State programs.

If you leave it at 80 to 20, you are going to have the States doing the job they should be doing locally. I am for that.

Now, there has been a lot of discussion about section 7 and section 8 and I am in agreement with it. As I told you about the 80 to 20 factor, and I am also in agreement to have the Federal Government, as they do in other contracting bases, to make certain that they have a supervisory inspection staff of field activities. I think 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 general misleading of the consuming public in those instances where the State fails to meet their plan. A written plan not rigorously enforced will lead to misleading of the consumers involved.

Now I am in regulatory work and I think it is almost at the point of ridiculousness if you don't provide the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with sufficient funds and sufficient responsibility and authority so that he actually has a Federal supervisory investigatory staff to go out to the camps on a selected basis, whether it is a stastically sampling basis or what, without having to ask what camp in New Jersey he is going to or his inspector is going to and without me knowing that he is going. I don't mean they should send people into every camp in New Jersey at any one time, but unless they have authority and responsibility, and I don't mean just the authority, but I mean responsibility, that they have to do that, you are not going to have a system where you will know that we are enforcing our standards in New Jersey that you approve.

You will not have a system that will tell you that we are spending the money as we say we are spending it on paper.

Now, I make this as a stress point, because later on I will tell you my feeilngs about States' Rights, I think that if we do have the money coming in, then we have the responsibility to see that it is properly spent.

Now I have mentioned something about cross-commissioning of State employees on page 3 of my statement and I think that if we are really going to have better Federal and State functioning and if we really want to maintain State prerogatives, I think there

ought to be some definite considerations given, the same as it is in food and drug work, to have inspectors be cross-commissioned from the Federal staff and State staff.

This does not involve money but for the people to do the work, the authority to do the work under Federal and State laws. This is not as intricate as it sounds and can be worked out, and you may not have to change anything in your legislation, but it may be something that the Secretary of HEW would have to consider, as he already does it in the case of New Jersey, where we have drug work but were cross-commissioned to be Federal Drug Enforcement Officers.

I raised that because I think it will give status to the people in the States where there is this cross-commissioning, and it will avoid what happens in the case of the Federal Government when the Federal Government systems can not do things that they can do if they were commissioned as a State employee. There is no money involved. I want to stress this next point about travel camps. I think that travel camps should be the primary responsibility of the State of origin. The activities should be coordinated with the other States where the traveling group is going, however, I do not want to have a cumbersome, unworkable bureaucracy created where someone wants to leave from New Jersey and go through some areas of Pennsylvania and on out west and have to take the time to, you know, get it clear that they are going from one area to the next; I don't want that to occur and I likewise don't think it should occur with regard to the Federal Government.

Now, I don't believe the Federal Government should have a greater control over travel camps than they do over resident camps, and that is a point that I am squeamish about, within the legislation. I think that has to be considered, that is, I think that the legislation should provide the same amount of control that is done on travel camps as on the resident camps, and the Federal Government have as little control over travel camps as they do over resident camps.

Now, this next point may scare some Federal officials and I have been trying to get them to understand what I mean and maybe this is a good point to get it in.

I don't think there should be a separate set of safety standards for Federal recreation camps. I think they should follow the same standards as the other camps in the State wherein located. I make this as a point because, while there is going to be variation in the plan and there is going to be variation in the means and the determining factors involved, like if you have a hiking camp in a high mountain area, which we don't have in New Jersey, I think if there is any sort of Federal camps that get involved in that, the standards should be the same as the standards involved for a State involvement, it should not be a monolithic Federal standard.

You will recall at the beginning of your legislation for that particular State, the Federal Government still can approve the plan but once they approve the plan, I think then the State authority should have the authority and responsibility to go in to Federal land and do that inspection. That does not preclude the Federal Government

from coming in and doing a statistical sampling basis, but I think within the State, this hocus-pocus of having Federal lands, and I have Federal GI hospitals where the cockroaches are their Federal cockroaches and the cockroaches in your institution are State cockroaches and there is not a lot of difference between them. They both carry salmonella.

I think the issue is whatever standards are set up should be enforced properly within that State.

Mr. DANIELS. Doctor, at that point will you agree that the Federal Government in enacting legislation in this field should establish minimum standards?

Now, States may improve upon them if they so desire, but the Federal Government, I believe it is our intent that this legislation should say, "This is the least that we will accept", and the States may improve upon that.

Dr. SUSSMAN. There is no objection to that, Mr. Daniels, because that is what your Council is going to do, but what I am saying is that once a State plan has been approved and that State plan provides for some other higher standards within that State, and it has been approved by the Federal Government and they are giving a State 80 percent, then I think that any standards approved by you should be enforced by the State authority within that State. Do you see what I am talking about?

Mr. DANIELS. Yes.

Dr. SUSSMAN. If you don't say that clearly, what is going to happen is we will have a little place that is not within the State of New Jersey if they have a Federal recreation campground. This may not be a big deal, but it is a big deal when you are working within a State and you have some areas that you are making compliance with and the Federal Government does not have enough inspectors or does not go in. We want to make certain within New Jersey all of the standards are equally applied. That is all I am trying to get at. Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Now, I told you I would refer to State Rights again. 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.

Unfortunately, coming from New Jersey, I think, Mr. Forsythe, you and I may have read New Jersey newspapers a little more thoroughly than some other people have, and I think, while I don't in any way indicate that the camping problem that we are involved in has anything to do with any criminal activity, I think any indication that we are not going to have Federal intervention when interstate commerce is involved, whether it be campers or criminal activ

37-569-74-3

ity, that we are leading ourselves down a primrose path. I would not want to have you pass legislation that would just give money out without having us understand that we have to comply with the Federal standards.

Now, I think that no legislation is going to be perfect and I think it may have to be changed in the future. That may be a pessimistic way to look at the legislation we have in front of us, but I think with the people that you are dealing with in the Camping Association, the Girl Scouts, The Boy Scouts, the YMCA and others, you really have a superior group of people that want to do the right thing.

I have no doubts in my mind if a proper camp advisory council is set up that we are going to get legislation implemented with regulations that are going to be enforceable and will not do hardship to those good camps that are properly taking care of the children that are entrusted to their care and we will eliminate, and I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, I know we will eliminate those camps that are bad, that are hazardous, that should not be in existence. I am 100 percent for that.

So you can't expect that when you pass legislation like this that you are not going to do some harm to some business enterprise that should not be in that business.

Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Dr. Sussman, for a very fine statement. Doctor Sussman, New Jersey recently enacted a youth camp safety law, as you pointed out in your testimony. I would like to mention. also that under legislation passed a couple of years ago, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was authorized to make a study of camps throughout the United States with regard to facilities, accidents, health hazards and so forth.

A report was recently submitted to Congress and to this committee and it points out that there is no statistical evidence of any significant hazards to safety and health in our youth camps.

I was wondering if you can tell us what the safety and health record is in the State of New Jersey with regard to our youths. Is there any statistical data that you are aware of?

Dr. SUSSMAN. No, I don't have any specific statistical data with regard to camps per se, but I can tell you on inspection we have made on simple things like food handling practice, the food handling practice in some camps are such if we apply, and we intend to apply them this year, with regard to our food inspection techniques that was recently passed, they would get a unsatisfactory mark.

The only place a camp gets unsatisfactory in that area is when I won't eat there and I eat quite a lot, and if I won't eat there it is pretty bad. I am not saying this in a jocular way because that is exactly how our inspectors do it. If it is hazardous to themselves, then it is hazardous, so that the public should not eat there.

We do know of many, many cases, but no one has reported them. We now require under our new regulation those things where children have gotten hurt, where they have gotten injured, where there