STATEMENT
Of the Honorable Mark Critz
House Committee on Small Business
Subcommittee on Energy, Agriculture, and Trade
Hearing on Department of Labor's Regulation of Child Labor in Agriculture
February 2, 2012

Across America, farming is not just a source of food, but a way of life. In my home state of Pennsylvania, there are more than 63,000 farms, and more than 90 percent are family-owned and operated.  This means that while they bring food to the nation’s table, they also are an essential ingredient to rural economies, driving employment, innovation, and the quality of life.  Making sure that this remains so is a top priority of mine.

Central to family farming is the notion that children and local youths can participate in the agricultural way of life. For many, this may mean milking cows, cultivating a field, or repairing a barn.  The skills and the responsibility these adolescents receive at such a young age help them become trustworthy and hard-working adults.  Instilling such values is just as much a part of the family farm as is harvesting crops.
In this regard, farmers have always prioritized health and safety in their fields and silos.  Doing so not only safeguards their very own families, but also is necessary if they want to be successful. 

With this in mind, it is unfortunate that the Department of Labor’s proposed regulation on child labor in agriculture could undermine much of what makes family farms so special.  If enacted, the rule would equate agricultural labor with non-agricultural labor, something that makes no sense to anyone that has ever stepped foot in a rural community. 

Until yesterday, the most concerning part of the regulation was the narrowness in how DOL defines “family farm.”  While it is promising that the agency has decided to re-propose this portion of the rule, works still needs to be done.

The matter at hand concerns the parental exemption from the regulation.  Current law provides an exclusion for farms owned by a parent.  This has generally been interpreted to include arrangements where the parent has an ownership interest, such as a partnership or a corporation.  Such instances are fairly common among family farms, as multi-generational families – including grandparents, uncles, and aunts – may operate one entity instead of several. 

This is no trivial matter as Pennsylvania alone has nearly 5,000 family-held corporations and partnerships.  Re-proposing this aspect of the rule is a step in the right direction – and if done properly, will ensure that children can continue to work on the very family-owned farms as the generations before them have done. 

In rural communities, farms are also centers of learning.  In many areas of agriculture hands-on experience in critical.  No longer will 14 and 15 year old children be able to readily participate in many aspects of farming operations, potentially short-changing their careers.  This change is ironic because during a period of high unemployment, particularly in rural communities, we should be expanding vocational education opportunities, not restricting them.

At the center of the rule are changes to DOL’s Hazardous Occupation orders.  These orders provide the limits on what tasks adolescents can perform on a farm.  While unchanged since 1970, a review is reasonable.  However, in several instances the DOL has gone too far.  Prohibiting children under 16 from using power-driven machinery, whether self-propelled or not, could restrict their access to nearly all aspects of farming, such as harvesting crops, repair work, or raising animals.  Such a ban would be a real burden of farmers, who often rely on local youth to fill many jobs.

Similarly broad terminology is used to prohibit work in storage facilities and on construction projects.  This would mean silos, but could also mean barns, which are used to store hay or animals.  While the intent may be appropriate, in practice it will end up limiting youth employment in historically non-hazardous and educational fields.

Together, the DOL’s rules are a step back for family farmers and the communities that they support.  The reality is that farms are unique operations and with this comes a wide-range of tasks that you would not see in a retailer, restaurant, or office.  We have to be mindful of these differences and not simply regulate it as we would any other industry. Breaking the intergenerational bond among family farmers and increasing red tape on them is a risky proposition.  In the end, it could ultimately result in lower employment in rural areas and even higher food prices across the country.

Family-owned farms are a critical part of America, putting dinner on the table, but also serving as a linchpin for so many of our communities.  As a key provider of jobs and education, they are central to our economy and we need to give the tools and resource they need to succeed, rather than burden them with more red tape.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for traveling here today and I look forward to their testimony.

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

###