U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–459 2012

THE FUTURE OF THE FAMILY FARM: THE EFFECT 

OF PROPOSED DOL REGULATIONS ON SMALL 

BUSINESS PRODUCERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 2, 2012 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–051 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JEFF LANDRY, Louisiana 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

ALLEN WEST, Florida 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVEITE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

BILL OWENS, New York 

BILL KEATING, Massachusetts 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Tipton, Hon. Scott .................................................................................................... 1 

Critz, Hon. Mark ...................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Nancy J. Leppink, Deputy Administrator Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor Washington, DC ................................................................... 3 

Ms. Chris Chinn, Owner, Chinn Hog Farm, Clarence, MO ................................. 25 

Mr. Kent Schescke, Director of Strategic Partnerships, National Future Farmers of America, Alexandria, VA ........................................................................... 27 

Mr. Bob Tabb, Deputy Commissioner, West Virginia State Department of 

Agriculture, Charleston, WV ............................................................................... 29 

Mr. Rick Ebert, Vice President, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, Blairsville, PA ... 31 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Nancy J. Leppink, Deputy Administrator Wage and Hour Division, U.S. 

Department of Labor Washington, DC ....................................................... 4 

Ms. Chris Chinn, Owner, Chinn Hog Farm, Clarence, MO .......................... 26 

Mr. Kent Schescke, Director of Strategic Partnerships, National Future 

Farmers of America, Alexandria, VA .......................................................... 28 

Mr. Bob Tabb, Deputy Commissioner, West Virginia State Department 

of Agriculture, Charleston, WV ................................................................... 30 

Mr. Rick Ebert, Vice President, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, Blairsville, 

PA ................................................................................................................... 31 

Additional Materials for the Record: 

U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet .................. 81 

National Children’s Center 2011 Fact Sheet ................................................. 90 

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Letter 

for the Record ................................................................................................ 92 

Letter to Rep. Tipton and Rep. Critz from Rep. Cleaver .............................. 94 

U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Letter for the Record 96 

‘‘Pricey Tractors Not Earning Keep on Small, Local Farms,’’ Heather 

Scofield, Durango Herald ............................................................................. 123 

Statement of the Child Labor Coalition on Proposed Hazardous Occupations Orders ................................................................................................... 126 

Testimony Submitted by the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs ............................................................................................................. 137 

Letter to Secretary Solis .................................................................................. 140 

American Farm Bureau Federation Comments on DOL Regulations Governing Agricultural Employment of Youth ................................................. 142 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE FUTURE OF THE FAMILY FARM: THE EFFECT OF PROPOSED DOL REGULATIONS ON 

SMALL BUSINESS PRODUCERS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON AGRICULTURE, ENERGY AND TRADE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Scott Tipton [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Tipton, Bartlett, King, Schilling, Rehberg, Critz, Chu. 

Chairman TIPTON. The hearing is called to order. 

I would like to thank our witness for appearing today. The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine proposed regulations by the 

U.S. Department of Labor pertaining to the employment of youth 

on farms and ranches. Like other sectors of the economy, farming 

and ranching have experienced profound changes over the years. 

The combination of mechanization, biotechnology, and the use of 

more specialized fertilizers has allowed farmers to grow more food 

using less land than at any time in history. While these new technologies and methods have brought significant change to agriculture, the need to educate and train the next generation of farmers remains as important today as it was nearly 100 years ago. It 

has often been said but needs repeating here, farming is a profession learned by doing. And while school-based instruction is important, it can teach you a great deal but there is no substitute for 

actual on-farm ranch experience. 

While I am pleased by DOL’s announcement yesterday that it 

was going to resubmit the parental exemption portion of the 

NPRM, other provisions of this rule will still make it difficult if not 

impossible for youths interested in careers in agriculture to access 

comprehensive on-farm education and employment opportunities. I 

think we can all agree that hazards are present in agriculture and 

ensuring the safety of youth is a common goal. At the same time, 

through proper safety training and supervision those hazards can 

be eliminated or at least minimized. 

We are fortunate to have with us today stakeholders involved in 

that process. They and their families have been involved in agriculture for generations and I think they will bring an important 

perspective to the Committee’s discussions. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Before I yield to Ranking Member Critz for his opening statement I would like to welcome our colleague, Representative Dennis 

Rehberg from the state of Montana. While he does not serve on the 

Small Business Committee, Denny is a fifth generation rancher 

and he has asked to be here today because this issue is so important to his constituents back home, just as it is to many of my own 

constituents. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Critz for his opening statement. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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 are also 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 hardworking 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 is also unnecessary if they want to be successful. 

With this in mind it is unfortunate that the Department of Labor’s 

proposed regulation on child labor and 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 repropose 

this portion of the rule, work 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. Reproposing 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 is critical. No 

longer will 14- and 15-year-old children be able to readily participate in many aspects of farming operations, potentially shortchanging their careers. This change is ironic because during a period of high unemployment, particularly in rural communities, we 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

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 Department of 

Labor 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 on 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 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 retail, 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 lynchpin for so many of 

our communities. As a key provider of jobs in education, they are 

central to our economy and we need to give them the tools and resources they need to succeed rather than burden them with more 

red tape. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for traveling here today, and 

I look forward to their testimony. Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Congressman Critz. 

If Committee members have an opening statement prepared I 

would ask that they submit it for the record. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY LEPPINK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Chairman TIPTON. I would like to take a moment to explain our 

timing lights for Ms. Leppink. You will have five minutes to be able 

to deliver your testimony. The light will start out as green. When 

you have one minute remaining the light will turn yellow, and finally it will turn red at the end of your five minutes. And I will 

ask that you try and limit your time but I will be lenient, of course, 

to be able to allow you to finish. 

Our first witness today is Ms. Nancy Leppink. She currently 

serves as deputy administrator of DOL’s Wage and Hour Division. 

Am I pronouncing your name correctly? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Close enough. 

Chairman TIPTON. Close enough. Okay. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Prior to joining the Department of Labor in 2009 she worked for 

24 years for the state of Minnesota, working for both the state attorney general and the State Department of Labor and Industry. 

Ms. Leppink, you may deliver your testimony. And thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY LEPPINK 

Ms. LEPPINK. Good morning, Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member 

Critz, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify at this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor recognizes the importance of youth employment and the value of agricultural work and 

respects the role of parents in raising their children. We welcome 

the dialogue with this Committee and want to ensure that the 

views of the agriculture community as a whole are fully considered. 

This is evidenced by the fact that after receiving a number of comments from stakeholders on the need to provide the Department 

with further input on the parental exemption, the Department announced yesterday that it would repropose the parental exemption 

portion of its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on children in 

agriculture. 

Since it was passed in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act has 

included child labor protections because Congress recognized that 

when children are employed they should be employed under conditions that do not put them in harm’s way. The agricultural child 

labor provisions of the FLSA only apply to youth under the age of 

16. Moreover, the statutes of child labor provisions include a parental exemption that applies to children who are employed by their 

parents on a family farm that is owned or operated by those parents. 

One of the highest priorities of the Secretary of Labor has been 

and continues to be the prevention of the death and injury of children as a result of their employment in hazardous occupations. 

Children serving as employees in agriculture businesses are among 

the most vulnerable of our nation’s workers. The fatality rate for 

young agriculture employees is four times greater than that of 

their peers employed in nonagricultural workplaces. The injuries 

suffered by children employed in agriculture also tend to be more 

severe. 

Unfortunately, even with the current laws on the books there are 

employers who continue to illegally hire and employ children to 

work in hazardous jobs in agriculture businesses. Child farm employees are still killed or injured on the job and one child injured 

or killed is one too many. It is also not uncommon for the Wage 

and Hour Division to find young children working illegally in the 

fields exposed to numerous hazards including pesticides and dangerous equipment. 

In an effort to ensure we protect and keep working children safe 

while not limiting their opportunities to be employed in positive 

work experiences, the Department of Labor has for a number of 

years been reviewing the Federal Child Labor Regulations. The 

current Federal Agricultural Child Labor Rules were issued over 40 

years ago and have never been updated or revised. The hazardous 

occupation orders that are in the proposed rule only apply to chilVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

dren who are age 15 and younger and serving as employees on a 

farm not owned or operated by their parent or person standing in 

the place of the parent, and only limits them from performing the 

most hazardous jobs. The Department’s proposed rule also only applies to situations where there is an employment relationship. In 

other words, a child of any age could, for example, assist a neighbor in need to round up loose cattle that have broken out of their 

fencing because that would not establish an employment relationship. And even if an employment relationship is established, a 

child could still help a neighbor with work, such as hand harvesting crops, detasseling corn, and many other tasks. Nor would 

the regulations apply to situations where a child is raising a pig 

as part of a 4–H project or taking that pig that she has raised to 

sell at a county fair or market. 

Most of the proposed rules in the NPRM update update the hazardous occupation orders that limit the agriculture employment of 

youth under the age of 16 unless the parental exemption applies. 

The NPRM proposes to mend those orders. Among other things, 

prohibit child farm employees who are 15 years old and younger 

from operating most power-driven equipment, including tractors 

and other hazardous farm implements. However, a bona fide student learner who is 14 and 15 would still be permitted to operate 

these types of equipment when they are enrolled in a vocational 

education program such as those offered by a state or local educational authority. The proposed rule would not eliminate safety 

programs that are provided by organizations such as 4–H and the 

FFA. We fully support the important contributions these organizations make. 

The proposed rule would also create a new nonagricultural hazardous occupational order that would prohibit employing children 

under the age of 18 from all work performed in conjunction with 

storing, marketing, and transporting farm product materials. In 

the last two years the Department has investigated the deaths or 

serious injury of six young workers in this industry. Under the proposed rule children 17 years old and younger would be prohibited 

in nonagricultural employment from working in such establishments as grain elevators, silos, stockyards, and livestock exchanges. 

The notice and comment for this proposed rule has allowed for 

significant and robust comments from all of our stakeholders, including many members of Congress. The Department will carefully 

consider those comments as it develops a final rule. I thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to take your questions. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Ms. Leppink. I appreciate your 

testimony and for appearing here today. And I think it certainly 

goes without saying, I know from my part of the world—I come 

from a rural area, ag communities—that we all want to make sure 

that our children are safe. However, I think that there are some 

concerns that recognize, and now that there seems to be a repositioning here by DOL in terms of submitting the ruling, you said 

it was going to be resubmitted for the parental exemption and 

input from agricultural producers played a significant part in this 

decision. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

I may have a couple of points to this but what sort of outreach 

did you do before the proposed rule was coming out? I think one 

of the great amounts of frustration which many of us who are not 

career politicians have is we see rules and regulations coming out 

without outreach and then we feel the impacts. What outreach was 

done before? And now what has changed so dramatically that now 

we are listening to the input? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, first of all, the whole purpose of a proposed 

rule and the opportunity for comment, which we extended for an 

additional 30 days, is, in fact, to get that input when the actual 

regulation is out in the public and people know exactly what it is 

that we are proposing. The whole idea of a notice and comment period is for us to—and we received 10,000 comments on this rule— 

is for us to be able to take in those comments and consider them 

and make sure that the rule takes them into consideration when 

it has become final. So therefore, the whole comment period—when 

we propose a rule it is by no means final. The rule is proposed for 

the very purpose of engaging the public in what that final rule will 

be. 

However, what we did prior to noticing the rule was actually this 

rule has been under consideration for a very long period of time. 

A GAO report was issued in the late ’90s criticizing the Department for not having looked at these hazardous orders for a very 

long period of time. So we commissioned a study by the National 

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to help us evaluate 

how things had changed in agriculture and what potential changes 

needed to be made in the hazardous orders. They issued their report in 2002. After that report was issued we engaged with the 

farm community, farm employers, advocacy groups and other 

academians and medical experts regarding what was put out in 

that report. And then basically nothing happened for several years. 

When this administration began, we began to look at that report 

because one of the objectives of the administration was to update 

and to look carefully at those hazardous orders to be certain that 

they were responsive to what was going on for children when they 

were working. We updated the non-ag rules and completed that 

rulemaking in May of 2010. So then when we completed that rulemaking we began the process of looking at the agricultural hazardous occupations. In that process we also brought in members of 

the community, including the National Council of Agricultural Employers and the American Farm Bureau to engage in a conversation about basically what was in that NIOSH report and the other 

subsequent feedback that we had received on those recommendations. And so it was with that input and the input of others that 

we then put out the proposed rule. We extended the Notice of Comment period an additional 30 days because we heard from Congress 

and others that additional time was important to ensure that all 

voices were heard. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. Thank you. 

You know, I would like to point out this article I had from yesterday’s Durango Herald, which is in my district. It is one of my local 

newspapers. In the article it states that for most farmers tractors 

no longer earn their keep. Basically, that over the lifespan of the 

tractor the food the tractor nets no longer nets enough money to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

be able to pay for the tractor before it needs to be replaced. Additionally, several other factors force farmers to have another fulltime job. Given these circumstances folks are becoming more and 

more reluctant to take up farming as a career. I am fearful that 

the provisions in the original proposed rule only exacerbate this situation. Can you provide us with any certainty or a sense of hope 

that these farmers who are becoming more and more discouraged 

are going to be able to do something that I noted in my opening 

comments? Family farming is literally family farming. 

Ms. LEPPINK. I understand that. I grew up in a rural community 

in Minnesota. My father was a family doc. We moved to that community because of the values that community had. So I understand 

what it means to grow up in a small town. 

So what I want to make clear is that what we are not doing 

today, what we are not talking about today so that we can make 

sure that we are focused on what we really are talking about, we 

are not talking about kids who are 16 years and older who are employed on any farm, whether a family farm or a big corporate farm. 

We are not talking about farm kids who are working for their parents or a person standing in the place of the parent on a farm operated by that parent but maybe not owned or a farm owned by that 

parent. And now, as of the announcement yesterday, a farm substantially owned by that parent, so no longer requiring that it be 

wholly-owned by that parent. 

We are not talking about neighbors helping neighbors in need. 

We are not talking about kids participating in 4–H or FFA. We 

strongly support those programs. 

Chairman TIPTON. If I could interrupt you just a little bit. When 

you are talking about in need, in my area we have grandparents, 

great grandparents, and the family farm. They may not be adjacent. We have neighbors and you say in need. I am not sure what 

in need actually means. And given the nature you said you grew 

up in a rural community. I was bucking bales when I was 12 years 

old, not effectively because they were 80-pound bales. 

Ms. LEPPINK. For your parents? 

Chairman TIPTON. Huh? 

Ms. LEPPINK. For your parents? 

Chairman TIPTON. No. No, it was actually for another farm. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. 

Chairman TIPTON. I was out and working. And great experience 

not only to be able to earn wages but to be able to learn a work 

ethic. My father felt that that was important for me. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, first of all, I do not think that the rule we 

are proposing would have precluded you from bucking hay. 

Chairman TIPTON. I was earning a wage. 

Ms. LEPPINK. I know, but this regulation only focuses on the 

most hazardous occupations. So even if you are under 16 there are 

many, many things that you can do on a farm. This does not outright prohibit kids from 15, 14, 13, 12, and younger, from working 

on a farm. It only focuses on those jobs that based on data, based 

on our enforcement experience, we have found results in the serious injury or the fatality of children. So bucking hay, I mean, to 

be honest with you I have not ever bucked hay but maybe you can 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

describe it for me. But if what I understand it, that would not be 

prohibited by this rule. 

Chairman TIPTON. Yeah. I did. Yeah. Actually, Congressman 

Critz pointed out we had a moving hay wagon in front. And I actually got to drive the tractor at 12. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. 

Chairman TIPTON. As well. And so part of the experience, I guess 

my point is that understanding, you know, you said you had 

reached out to the Farm Bureau. My Farm Bureau has talked to 

me. They want their children to be able to learn this value. And 

under the proposed rule of government is here to help and you 

have got to be involved in a voc-tech program if you are under 15 

to be able to participate and be able to work with some of the 

mechanized equipment, is this not a heavy hand of government? 

We want to be able—I would submit that our parents and grandparents loved those kids. They wanted to be able to protect them. 

Do we need the federal government? Do we need OSHA stepping 

in to the workplace of the family farm to be able to deal with that? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Chairman, we have received significant comments 

on the very things that you are stating. That is one of the reasons 

why we made the decision to repropose the parental exemption because really what you are talking about, the opportunity to work 

for grandparents and aunts and uncles is exactly what the parental 

exemption is—what the conversation we are having about the parental exemption is about. And so consequently, one of the reasons 

that the Agency reproposed the parental exemption is so that we 

would be in a position to address the very issues and concerns that 

you are raising. 

Chairman TIPTON. I guess I would like to move on. I want to 

make sure we get to our other panel members here as well. But 

can you explain the discrepancy for me between what the DOL 

states in its initial rule and what it has currently made publicly 

available? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. The proposed rule set out what was the current enforcement practice of the Agency which our enforcement 

records indicate dates back to approximately 2002. The FOH that 

is on the website is out-of-date. When this rule was published we 

were in a comprehensive revision of that chapter in part because 

of outdated provisions like the parental exemption. But also because of the recent amendments to the Child Labor Regulation that 

went into effect in 2010. 

Chairman TIPTON. When was that language changed? 

Ms. LEPPINK. When was the language changed? 

Chairman TIPTON. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. LEPPINK. The language in the FOH is out-of-date. So it has 

not been changed. But the enforcement practice of requiring that 

the farm be wholly-owned began in 2002. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. 

Ms. LEPPINK. At the latest. 

Chairman TIPTON. Has this been enforced? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Yes. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Yes. We have, I mean, we do not have regular 

bases, you know, in terms of family farms but we have—our enVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

forcement data indicates that as early as 2002 the issue of whether 

the farm was wholly-owned or not for purposes of a citation was 

an issue. 

Chairman TIPTON. Would it be possible to get that enforcement 

data from you? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Yes. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. We would appreciate that. 

I will tell you what. I think what I would like to do is I am going 

to follow up, if you do not mind. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Sure. 

Chairman TIPTON. I have got a number of questions and I do 

want to be able to get to some of our other members here so I will 

yield now to Ranking Member Critz for his questions. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

And for the record, so how do you say your last name? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Leppink. 

Mr. CRITZ. Leppink. Okay. See, mine is Critz and nobody can say 

it, so I figured we would get that out there. 

Yesterday the DOL decided to reopen the parental exemption to 

the rule. What prompted that? 

Ms. LEPPINK. What prompted it is the abundance of comments 

that we received and also, of course, the input from Congress, their 

concerns about what was being proposed. We felt that the rule 

would benefit from being reproposed and revised based on, the 

input that we had had. Plus, reproposing it allows for us now to 

engage further with interested parties. Of course, then, it will be 

published and put out for another round of notice and comments. 

Mr. CRITZ. Right. 

Ms. LEPPINK. So we want to get this right. And so consequently 

we felt that that was the best way for us to get it right. 

Mr. CRITZ. Well, I guess that leads to my next question, which 

is the current parental exemption standard must apparently be deficient. So what prompted this to be revisited? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Actually, it was not revisited. What the, I 

mean—— 

Mr. CRITZ. It is being changed, so there must be something 

wrong with the way it is structured? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Actually, it was not being changed. What we were 

doing was we were putting out for comment how we had been enforcing the law. What this has allowed for then is for us to get the 

very input that we have gotten. You know, the farm community 

thinks that that definition is no longer in step with how family 

farms are currently structured. If we had not put it out there, there 

would have been no opportunity for the family farm to weigh in on 

how we were applying that exemption in our enforcement activity. 

So what this has allowed, you know, 10,000 comments later, 

what that has allowed is for us to do exactly what I think we as 

an agency should be doing, which is giving it our best shot, based 

on what we believe is the proper interpretation. We have given now 

the opportunity for the public to comment. 

Mr. CRITZ. Proper interpretation of? 

Ms. LEPPINK. The statute. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Ms. LEPPINK. I mean, I have an obligation as the enforcement 

agency to apply the laws that are enacted by Congress. 

Mr. CRITZ. Right. 

Ms. LEPPINK. The parental exemption is a statutory provision. 

And so I have then the responsibility of going out and applying it 

in the real world. And so what that requires is often, you know, 

we have to interpret what Congress meant by wholly-owned and 

what Congress meant by operated. And so consequently, we indicated in the proposed rulemaking what we believed Congress 

meant. And as a result of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we 

are hearing that agriculture has changed in the last 10 years and 

that there is a lot of different corporate structures. There is, you 

know, the family farm is not owned by the operator. There are all 

sorts of reasons including tax reasons that family farms have now 

entered into a variety of business structures. 

So the opportunity of this rulemaking now has allowed us to 

then, you know, the rulemaking process as is would have allowed 

us, if we had just simply gone forward, because we have gotten an 

incredible amount of comments and great comments. But what we 

are doing now is reproposing it so we will, you know, sort of yet 

have people have yet another chance for us to engage stakeholders 

and another round of comments based on what I imagine will be 

a revised proposal when we republish it. 

Mr. CRITZ. So it is possible that the outcome would be that the 

parental exemption will not change at all based on comments? 

Ms. LEPPINK. I mean, it is possible. I mean, anything is possible. 

Mr. CRITZ. Right. 

Ms. LEPPINK. But, the purpose of reproposing it is because we 

feel that we have gotten comments that we need to seriously consider. And consequently, the intent is to put out a revised proposal 

as quickly as we can. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Just a couple more detailed questions. The rule 

applies to new prohibitions beginning at age 14, which are traditionally the first two years or the beginning of the first two years 

of an agricultural instruction program. A recent study showed, 

however, that 36 percent of first- and second-year agricultural education students, 36 percent, were involved in some type of handson agricultural placement. So would this new rule prevent that, 

these types of placements for these 14- and 15-year-olds? 

Ms. LEPPINK. I know actually what the proposed rule does is it 

actually wants to tightly join both the education and training, in 

the classroom with the on-the-job training that kids would receive. 

And so the rule is not prohibiting kids from getting the training in 

addition to working on the job. You know, getting additional training or reinforcing the training that they are receiving in actual 

work. 

Mr. CRITZ. All right. So that is what I am trying to get my hands 

around. As the chairman asked about the voc-tech programs, are 

you changing the definition of the different types of ag programs 

that young people could work through and be eligible for? When 

you say tightening, I am trying to figure out what tightening 

means. Are there multiple programs now out there that would not 

be eligible for this type of—— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Ms. LEPPINK. There are certain programs that would not—that 

may not meet the requirements that we are proposing. You are correct. 

Mr. CRITZ. Yeah. 

Ms. LEPPINK. So consequently—— 

Mr. CRITZ. By not being eligible, does that mean that they would 

have an opportunity to adjust to meet new requirements? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Sure. In fact, we are already in conversations with 

the Department of Agriculture about how we can work on those 

educational programs together. 

Mr. CRITZ. Yes. I guess one of the things that is driving my concern about some of the things we are talking about is have childor farm-related injuries among children seen an increase holding 

steady, or are we seeing a decline? As we are talking about child 

labor, and as the chairman was talking about—what did you call 

it? Not baling hay? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Bucking. 

Mr. CRITZ. Bucking hay. Bucking bales. At the age of 12—he was 

not on a family farm, but it was part of the culture of where he 

grew up that this was something that they did. So I am curious 

that revisiting, refining I guess you could say, or tightening of regulations. I am curious as to what we have seen in industry. Is this 

a problem that has been growing? 

Ms. LEPPINK. It is a problem that has been remaining steady. 

Mr. CRITZ. Steady? Okay. I think we have statistics that show 

that there has been a sharp decline in farm aid over the last 10 

years. So I would disagree with that. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. Mr. Critz, I would be curious to see what 

your statistics—what you are showing because ours are, according 

to the National Children’s Center for Rural Agricultural Health 

and Safety, the rate of injuries per thousand household youth that 

are living on farms declined by 48 percent from 1998 to 2009. Of 

the over 11 years from ’98 to 09, the ray of childhood agriculture 

per thousand farms includes youth who live on, visit, and are hard 

workers declined by 59 percent from 16.6 to 6.8. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. 

Mr. CRITZ. So that is why I am of the mindset if it is not broke, 

do not fix it. Obviously as time goes on we sometimes get smarter 

or we realize that what we are doing could be done better, and certainly I support that. 

Ms. LEPPINK. I have spoken in error. We can provide the Committee with the studies that we were looking at when we promulgated the rule. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. 

Ms. LEPPINK. And so sometimes we are talking percent and 

sometimes we are talking numbers and I would probably feel more 

comfortable if we provided you with the data that we were relying 

on and the data that we have in the Agency. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. I lost it now but, you made a comment that I 

am probably going to revisit in a second round, but one last question. In most cases the Labor Department cites NIOSH as the reason a particular hazardous occupational rule is expanded. However, 

in the case of working with animals, the Department of Labor deVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

cided to ignore NIOSH’s recommendation. Can you expand on why 

that is? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, we did not only rely on the recommendation 

of the NIOSH. We also relied on data that was provided by other 

entities, including medical experts and we also relied on our own 

enforcement experience in the proposal for this rule. And so consequently, that is in part—that NIOSH report then has been supplemented by the other additional information that we have acquired and have been provided since the NIOSH report came out 

in 2002. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. I was told that from all the investigations we 

have done, this is the only time that the NIOSH has not been used 

as the sole supplier of information. So if you have other examples 

that DOL has used something other than NIOSH’s recommendation, we would certainly love to see it. Or, that they disagreed with 

NIOSH. This is something we need to look at if this is going to be 

the Department of Labor’s standard operating procedure going forward; certainly something that we want to weigh in on and have 

a role in how it plays out. 

I know we have other members who want to ask questions, so 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Congressman Critz. 

I would now like to recognize Congressman Rehberg for questioning. Thank you again for being here. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Ranking Member Critz for the opportunity to sit at the dais. 

I am a fifth generation Montana rancher. Actually, my grandgrandfather was born in Montana in 1873, left home at nine and 

started breaking horses at For Assinibione at 11 in a paid capacity 

and lived to be 91. So you can, in fact, work as a young man, even 

back in the 1880s and survive. 

I have come to the conclusion in my 11 years in Congress that 

it is not necessarily a difference in philosophy between republicans 

and democrats. There is a difference in philosophy between urban 

and rural. And this is one of those situations where I think the Department of Labor is overstepping its boundaries, its knowledge 

base, and frankly, I think you are sitting around watching reruns 

of Blazing Saddles and that is your interpretation of what goes on 

in the West. And it is not anymore. 

Now, I have taken all the glamour out of my ranching operation 

because I do not rope and I do not tie and I do not brand with a 

hot iron. I use a self-catching head gate, I use a squeeze that is 

hydraulic, and I have a calf table. You cannot get hurt. It is impossible. You could have a 5-year-old out there running it. I have got 

kids that are working for me, my son’s friends, who come out and 

help with self-starting generators that are run by propane which 

under your rule looks like will no longer be able to be used. We 

have a feed operation where we take the kids in the feedlot from 

the neighboring places and we pay them to move silage around or 

shovel manure. If it is a hard and fast rule that they cannot work 

in a feedlot or they cannot man a vaccination in a self-catching 

head gate, that lacks common sense. I do not get it. 

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor that you have not seen the last of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

this. I will have a rider on my appropriations bill that I write for 

the House of Representatives that will keep you from implementing 

this rule. It makes no sense. We want a safe work environment for 

our children and our neighbors’ children. 

Let me ask you a question about herding. I had when I was 

elected to Congress 600 head of cashmere goats. My neighbor, who 

was the publisher of the largest newspaper in the state of Montana, wanted me to put his 10-year-old son to work. So I put him 

on a youth motorcycle, a little Kawasaki 60, and he herded goats 

for me on a daily basis. Now, would that be exempt under this rule 

or would he not be able to work for me as a 10-year-old riding a 

youth motorcycle? As I understand it, herding is not allowed. It 

does not say anything about how the herding occurs. And with 

goats or sheep it is a constant. I mean, I also have. 

Ms. LEPPINK. The regulation does not say that herding is allowed. 

Mr. REHBERG. It says it is not allowed. 

Ms. LEPPINK. No, the regulation does not say that herding is not 

allowed. 

Mr. REHBERG. As I read the material it looked as if jumping on 

a horse and going out and herding cattle was not going to be allowed for those under 16. 

Ms. LEPPINK. You just added an element that could result, I 

mean—— 

Mr. REHBERG. See, this is the problem because the Department 

of Labor does not know agriculture. It is a way of life. It is a lifestyle. Just because a 4–H student or FFA may have a show animal, 

but it is also how they learn. They might climb under a tractor 

with their neighbor just to learn the mechanics. And you do not 

learn this from a book. You do not need to go to a class. You learn 

it from your neighbors and your friends and your relatives. And I 

am just appalled. It really bugs me to read something like this and 

expect this one size fits all knowledge from Washington, D.C., to 

try and determine what is appropriate for agriculture within a 

state like Montana. It just baffles me. 

So as I had suggested before, Mr. Chairman, we are not done 

with this. I do get to put the writers on. I know it will pass the 

House. I have no idea whether it will pass the Senate. I will do everything I possibly can to keep this regulation from ever being implemented as it is written unless you go back and just spend a lot 

more time with Farm Union, Farm Bureau, Grange, you name it— 

I do not care who it is in the Department of Agriculture—to try 

and come up with some kind of a sensible, reasonable regulation 

that truly keeps our children safe while at the same time allows 

the next generation to take over their family farm or ranch. Thank 

you. 

Chairman TIPTON. Congressman Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I know that there is some opposition to this rule, but I am interested in what I consider to be an important issue, the lives of children. 

I read with horror about Wyatt Whitebread, the 14-year-old boy 

in Illinois that suffocated in a grain silo in July 2010. I read with 

horror the cases of Oklahoma teens, Tyler Zander and Bryce GanVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

non, both 17, who each lost a leg in a grain auger accident this 

past August. I read about the 100 preventable deaths of youth per 

year, the estimated 907 youth who died on American farms, and I 

am not one to minimize a single preventable death of a young person. 

So I would like to ask you how many youth farm workers are 

killed, injured, and how does agriculture compare to other industries in terms of young people’s deaths? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

The data that children are significantly more likely to be seriously injured or killed while performing agriculture work than children working in all other industries combined. Studies show that 

children are significantly more likely to die while performing agricultural work than while performing work in any other industry. 

These studies also show that the prevalence of children working in 

agriculture suffer more serious injuries. 

From 2003 to 2010, 74 percent of the children under the age of 

15—so we are not talking about the kids who are 16 and older who 

died—but children who are under the age of 15 who died on a job 

were employed in agriculture. Children ages 15 to 17 working on 

farms were four times more likely to die on the job than those in 

any other industry. So consequently, agriculture is the most hazardous industry that either adults or children work in. And this 

regulation is only targeting the very youngest. And we are only targeting those jobs that are the most hazardous. And we are not precluding family farms from hiring their kids to work on their farms. 

We are not prohibiting parents from employing their child. We are 

not prohibiting children from doing their chores. We are not prohibiting children from participating in 4–H. What we are talking 

about is 15, 14, 13, 12, and younger kids working as hired farm 

workers, often alongside their parents. We are talking about the 

most hazardous jobs that most frequently injure and kill children. 

We are talking about one of the most hazardous workplaces that 

anyone can work, which is a grain elevator or a grain bin. We are 

talking about Tyler Zander, and we are talking about Bryce Gannon, who lost their legs in a grain bin when they were caught in 

an auger. That is what we are talking about with this regulation. 

The youngest of the young, the most hazardous of the hazards. 

Ms. CHU. And could those injuries and deaths have been prevented? 

Ms. LEPPINK. The kids in terms of the regulation related to grain 

bins that that would not have allowed those children to be in that 

workplace, so consequently yes, it would have prevented those injuries. 

Ms. CHU. Some people think that the Department of Labor does 

not have the authority or precedence to issue rulemakings for farm 

workers. But I believe the Fair Labor Standards Act governs youth 

workers. How does the Department define their authority in that 

area? 

Ms. LEPPINK. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was amended 

in 1966, when the Congress expanded the protections for children 

in agriculture, Congress required the secretary to find and declare 

those jobs that were particularly hazardous for children to perform 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

under the age of 16. So consequently, our authority and our responsibility to promulgate these regulations was in the act. 

Ms. CHU. And once again, about the vocational programs for certification, how do these rules impact the vocational agricultural 

programs? 

Ms. LEPPINK. What these rules do is in an effort to—because 

what the bona fide child student-learner provisions of the rules 

allow is that for children who are participating in those vocational 

programs at ages 15 and 14 to engage in activities that they would 

otherwise be prohibited or jobs that they would otherwise be prohibited from being employed to do. So consequently, what the regs 

do is that when early on in the first iteration of these regulations 

there was not a lot of information about these vocational training 

programs. So what this proposed rule is intending to do is to articulate standards for training programs whereby there is more assurance that children are receiving the kind of training, both in the 

classroom and on the job that they need to be able to operate particularly this equipment, hazardous implements safely. 

Ms. CHU. But it sounds like those programs can continue. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Oh, yes. Yes. In fact, you know, there is nothing 

that eliminates any program. All it does is establishes criteria for 

when the training received in those programs can result in an employer taking advantage of that student learner exemption. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I have to go to another appointment but I 

would like to have unanimous consent to have materials inserted 

into the hearing record. I have a written statement from the Association of Farm Worker Opportunity Programs and a written statement by the Child Labor Coalition. 

Chairman TIPTON. Without objection. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Chairman TIPTON. Representative Bartlett, do you have some 

questions? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I was born in 1926, and I grew up during The Depression. I always lived on a farm. As a child we had only horses 

on the farm and then we moved to tractors. I worked as a kid on 

a farm. My kids worked on the farm. My grandkids work on the 

farm. I will tell you there is nobody more concerned about the 

health and safety of these kids than their parents. 

There are two basic philosophies as to why we need regulations. 

One of them is that every provider, every manufacturer, every employer, and in this case I guess you would include parents, are 

some combination of evil or greedy or stupid. And if you do not 

watch them and control them they are going to take advantage of 

employees or consumers or children. 

And then there is a second premise for regulations and that is 

that every consumer is incredibly stupid. And they are going to 

hurt themselves if we do not have a whole lot of regulations to prevent them from doing that. If you think about all the regulations 

that we have, they are formulated in response to one or both of 

those fundamental philosophies which I reject and I think the average American rejects those philosophies. If you want to be useful, 

please educate. 

I had a fire on my farm and some bureaucrat came and put a 

big thing on the door. It is unsafe; you cannot go in. Do not tell 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

me I cannot go in my building. Tell me you do not think it is safe 

for me to go in my building. I am not an idiot. I will be happy to 

have your education but do not tell me what I can do in my building. I just have a fundamental problem with most of our regulations. 

You know, I do not want you to modify this regulation; I want 

you to withdraw the regulation. If you cannot find useful things to 

do in educating our parents, then find something else to do because 

I think what you are doing now is not a useful pursuit at all. 

Two of our kids, one of them now is a Ph.D.; the other one is a 

very successful builder. When they were little kids and Carroll 

Burton wanted somebody to pick his corn, he could not find any 

city kids to do that because they were watching television and 

doing drugs and smoking and whatever else. Our kids were out 

there in the morning at sunup going through these fields picking 

corn with long sleeves on because you get—the blades will cut your 

arms. They came in soaking wet from that. 

Long before your age, at 14 they were lifting—well, our bales are 

not 80 pounds so they could lift them. They are 40 or 50 pounds, 

the bales that we make with the kicker balers and so forth. And 

they were proud that some of the city kids that came to do this 

could not do it. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Sure. 

Mr. BARTLETT. In the heat of the summer. You know, farming is 

a whole different thing. I have lived on a farm all my life. I do not 

know why you are meddling here. You know, there is not a problem. You can find some anecdotal things. The old farmers, the juice 

ought to be worth the squeezing. What you are doing here, the 

juice sure is not going to be worth the squeezing. You know, can 

you not find something more productive to do than hassle our farmers? 

Ms. LEPPINK. I would like to think that I am protecting children. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I will tell you that the parents are more interested in protecting children than you are. Why do you not just use 

your time educating so that they know the proper procedures and 

so forth? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Congressman, we do spend a significant amount of 

time providing educational assistance. Also, many of the things 

that you describe, this regulation would not prohibit. Certainly will 

not prohibit any work that you did on your parents’ farm. It would 

not prohibit the kids from picking the corn. It would not prohibit 

the kids from bucking the hay. Like I said earlier, it only limits the 

most hazardous work that kids can do. 

Mr. BARTLETT. You do not think parents want to do that same 

thing? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, this regulation has no impact on parents parenting their children. 

Mr. BARTLETT. How old does the child have to be before they can 

drive a tractor? 

Ms. LEPPINK. On their parents’ farm? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yeah. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Zero. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Ms. LEPPINK. They can drive the tractor on their parents’ farm 

at any age. 

Mr. BARTLETT. My time is running out. I just have a real problem with our regulations, you know. We are struggling. Every six 

hours another billion dollar debt and we are struggling with huge 

problems and you are doing this? I just do not get it. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witness for coming here to testify. I do not think I would want to do 

that. 

But we all think about this from a perspective of our backgrounds and there is a strong culture in American and agriculture. 

I grew up in a rural community and rural areas, excuse me, out 

in the country. And we only had 25 acres and that was all timber 

so I could go out and either cut trees and do that and fix fence, 

which we did, or I could work for the neighbors. It was a good 

thing for me to go out when I was very young and I was very proud 

to be able to go next door and pick up a five dollar bill for a day’s 

work. And I learned how to work. And I remember that the first 

time I was put on machinery was for 75 cents an hour. And I probably was not worth that. But I learned something about machinery 

and today we have a second generation construction company that 

is heavy equipment that runs in multiple states that grew out of 

that training that I received when the only opportunity I had was 

to go to work for the neighbors. 

And now I see that we have—and some of this is going to be nonspecific to the rules you are proposing here but the anomalies that 

come from the expansion of the nanny state, this aggressive expansion of the nanny state, which is what I think Mr. Bartlett has addressed. And I think in terms of this, this was during the previous 

administration when the Department of Labor came into my district to examine some youth that were working in a convenience 

store. And they went and interviewed them in their households and 

they said, ‘‘Have you ever worked after 7 o’clock on a school night?’’ 

‘‘Well, two of them said yes, one night. Well, that is two violations. 

‘‘Have you ever operated the pizza dough maker?’’ ‘‘Well, no, but I 

washed it once.’’ Well, there is another violation because the rule 

says ‘‘operate or otherwise use.’’ And the interpretation of the Department of Labor was that washing the tool in the pizza dough 

maker was otherwise using it. 

And so I look at this and I think what are we teaching our 

youth? Where do they learn their work ethic if we are going to ban 

them from working on a school night past 7 o’clock, ban them from 

washing the pizza dough maker, ban them from running the lawnmower up until they are the age of 18, but give them a driver’s license so they have the ability to go 120 miles an hour and turn 

the radio up full blast. I mean, there is not—and I know that is 

not your role to address this but—— 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, no, but the 120 miles per hour. 

Mr. KING. They have the ability to. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, yeah, but it is not—— 

Mr. KING. Yeah, no, there is a rule. But you do not really come 

here to propose to us that the rules are always followed so I think 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

you would recognize that people sometimes violate them. But I just 

bring you back to this, which is part of the rules that are in front 

of us. And that is when I look at prohibits them from hurting livestock in a confinement, that means that a 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-, 13-, 14- 

, 15-year-old waiting for their 16th birthday cannot step into a hog 

confinement and help sort pigs that are older than six months old, 

even with an adult there to supervise them who has been presumably authorized by the parents who are those who have the most 

vested in the protection of their children. Cannot do so on horseback. Can they ride a horse? And if there is another horse next to 

them, is that herding? Will that be the interpretation that comes, 

kind of like washing a pizza dough maker is operator or otherwise 

use? I just think this is completely outrageous to move down this 

path. 

But the real question I originally came as I listened to you talk 

is this. You said that agriculture is the most dangerous and the injuries to youth are significantly greater there than any other occupation. So what is the second greatest danger for youth in an occupation? If agriculture is first, what is the second? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Congressman, I do not know. I can get you the answer to that. 

Mr. KING. I would just find that very curious that if you looked 

at the data—— 

Ms. LEPPINK. I would speculate maybe construction but I do not 

know for sure. 

Mr. KING. But if we are looking at data and we are driven by 

data—hopefully we are not driven just by anecdotes. 

Ms. LEPPINK. No. 

Mr. KING. But driven by data. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Very much so. 

Mr. KING. If the data says agriculture and we do not know what 

is the second most dangerous, let me pose this other piece. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, I mean, people know. I just do not happen 

to have—— 

Mr. KING. Yeah, I understand. But you are our expert witness. 

And I do not mean that to mean it derogatorily. I just think that 

a professional curiosity would want to look at the full list of that 

and have an understanding of what that data means. And if you 

only know and you are ready to prepare to testify about one component of all that data, then probably the proportionality of it has not 

been internalized professionally. And that is curious to me that 

that could be the case. I am not saying would be the case. 

But I just want to pose this then. We have banned kids from 

working in every other profession that I can think of except agriculture. So the only place that is really left for them to work that 

I know of is agriculture because of the exemptions that are there. 

So would it not be that if the only place kids were really working 

in reasonable numbers is agriculture if that is where the injuries 

are, yeah, that is kind of a no-brainer to figure that out. And if we 

ban kids from working in agriculture, yes, injuries will go down. 

But what we are doing is we are shutting down the ability of generations to learn a work ethic, to learn a skill, and to learn safety. 

And I think about my kids. I brought them into our construction 

business at age nine. And their first job was take the corn knife 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

and cut the weeds growing around the grade stakes so the operators could see them from the machine. I quickly learned that the 

safest place for them was on the machine, not on the ground, and 

we made safety adjustments along the way as I got older and got 

skills. But the neighbor kids did not have that opportunity. They 

did not have a dad that had a business. They did not have a neighbor that had a farm. And these opportunities are being taken away. 

Many things about America’s work ethic are being diminished by 

the nanny state and this is one of them. And I just feel badly that 

you are charged with coming here today to make a case that I just 

believe is not very strong. And I appreciate you doing that but I 

wanted to express myself and give you an opportunity to say whatever you might. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Congressman, we have received many comments 

with some of the substantive parts of the issues that you have 

raised, particularly with regard to herding cattle, herding animals. 

And so that is part of the rulemaking process for folks like yourself 

to weigh in on that maybe we got it wrong. And so consequently, 

that is why we put these rules out for the very people like you to 

be able to express your concerns and also for you to give us your 

perspective so when the final rules comes out—and there are 

many, many examples of rules being changed as a result of this 

very process. And so therefore, I want you to know that I know 

that we have received similar comments and we are taking very seriously those comments. And they will be reflected in the final rule. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Yes, sir. Mr. Schilling. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Thank you, Chairman. 

Just quickly, and sorry, I apologize for being late today. You 

know, I have to agree with what I heard on the tail end of this 

with Mr. King. I also am a small business owner and, you know, 

one of the things I did is I was fortunate enough to where I could 

bring my kids in at 8 years old, 9 years old, and teach them some 

good, solid work ethic. And I think one of the things we have got 

to—number one is we have got to keep our kids safe. We totally 

understand that and we want that to happen. And I think the 

farmers want to keep their kids safe also. 

But one of the things that I am concerned of is so many times 

the government comes in to—as Mr. King quoted, it is like a nanny 

state. And I think overall the intentions are good but the effects 

that it has long-term for our work ethic as a nation and how it is 

going to adversely affect our small businesses, farms, and other 

businesses outside the ma and pa shops that are out there, the 

ones that are pretty much the backbone of the United States of 

America I think is something that we need to really make sure 

that as you are having people write in that we are really careful 

and we read through and really look at both sides rather than just 

being reactionary. We understand that you want to be on the offense on this also but a lot of times we do reactionary things quickly and have some very bad consequences that come that hurt our 

economy which as everybody in this room would understand with 

a 15, 16 percent unemployment rate when you count everybody 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

that has quit looking for work, now is not the time to do that. But 

at the same time keeping our kids safe. So that is the comment 

that I would like to make. 

But thank you very much for coming. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. SCHILLING. I yield back. 

Chairman TIPTON. I just have a few more questions and I think 

Congressman Critz does as well. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Sure. 

Chairman TIPTON. I would like to follow up a little bit on some 

of your earlier comments in regards to the field operating manual 

when you stated that it was wrong. When did DOL update it? And 

when was the record of those updates? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, the Department has been in the process of 

doing a comprehensive update of the Child Labor chapter that was 

driven by a variety of both regulatory and statutory changes and 

interpretations. One was the passage of the GINA law that increased the penalties that the Wage and Hour Division is to issue 

in certain kinds of situations where children are killed and injured. 

We were also updating them for purposes of the 2010 amendments 

to the non-agriculture child labor regulations. But that chapter had 

not been updated in many years. 

And so consequently, it is very difficult to keep up to date. The 

FOH, first of all, is an internal Field Operations Handbook. Its primary purpose is to guide my field in their enforcement of the law. 

So consequently, however, every time the law changes, every time 

a court decision comes down, every time a regulation changes there 

is a need to update those FOH chapters. There are many of them. 

My agency enforces seven major statutes. So as a consequence, we 

are continuously updating or in need to update the FOH, the Field 

Operations Handbook. So as a consequence sometimes those updates are delayed. However, the FOH is primarily on the website 

because we get frequent FOIA requests for the public portions of 

that document. And so in order to expedite the publics access to 

that frequently requested information, we simply put it up on the 

website so that we can simply direct people to the website as opposed to having them go through a FOIA process to get that information. 

So consequently, we are always in a balancing game of do we 

make the information available even though all of it might not be 

up-to-date. So, for example, the FOH that is up on the website now 

does not have any reference to the May 2010 amendments to the 

Child Labor Regulations because we were in the process of updating the entire chapter in addition to add those in addition to many 

other changes. So consequently this is a continuous process that we 

are engaged in. 

Chairman TIPTON. So we have almost got a situation where the 

people are hearing one thing, the enforcement is doing something 

else, and there is not great coordination going on. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, the Agency has significant guidance that is 

actually the guidance that we direct the public to in the form of 

fact sheets and field assistant bulletins and interpretations and 

opinion letters that are the formal interpretations of the Agency. 

The regulations and, of course, the statute, are the prime sources 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

for people to know what the law requires. As I said, the Field Operations Handbook is primarily written to guide my field. But policies 

change, laws change, regulations change, and I have done my best 

since I have started to proactively get those chapters that are outof-date that languished prior to 2009 and were not updated. I have 

been working as hard as I can to get those chapters updated because I know the importance of that information, you know, being 

current to the extent that the public would look to that document 

for guidance. 

Chairman TIPTON. I am curious, and it actually comes from some 

of the comments that have been made here. Does your agency—do 

you think congressional intent is important? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Absolutely. 

Chairman TIPTON. In terms of doing that? Given that, the NPRM 

states that one of DOL’s goals is to promote parity between agriculture and nonagricultural exemptions. Can you tell me where in 

the originating statute or any subsequent amendments that had 

been made where Congress indicated that it wanted such parity? 

Ms. LEPPINK. I think the conversation about parity comes from 

the idea that agricultural farm worker employees should have similar protections as children who are employed in any other industry. 

So consequently, when the Congress made clear that we were not 

going to give similar protections based on age to children who were 

employed in agriculture because for kids who are employed in agriculture any kid over the age of 16 can be employed to do anything. 

But Congress, in the amendments in 1966, made clear that it 

was its expectation that the secretary of labor would identify that 

work that was particularly hazardous for children in agriculture to 

perform; therefore, it is not a mandate of parity but the idea being 

that when we are updating these regulations we should be looking 

at the hazard as a hazard. And if it is too dangerous for a child 

to perform, it does not really matter whether it is in agriculture or 

in another industry if it results in the same risk to that child of 

serious injury or death. 

Chairman TIPTON. You know, that begs the question why were 

not the enforcement actions and actions on enforcement disclosed 

in the rule? What is going to be the fine? Who is going to enforce 

it? How much is it going to cost? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Well, actually, we have a portion of the chapter 

that does discuss the imposition of civil penalties. And again, that 

was an effort to make transparent and to allow for comment on 

how the Agency would be issuing civil penalties. And so, you know, 

regulations are really there to implement and interpret the law. 

And so consequently, that is what is put in a proposed rule. So I 

guess I am not understanding. Maybe you could repeat your question. 

Chairman TIPTON. Well, I guess what I—because I want to be 

able to move on and be respectful of your time and our other panel 

as well—I guess one thing that greatly concerns me is you keep 

talking about the family farm. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Right. 

Chairman TIPTON. But you ignored in my opening statement we 

have got great grandma and grandpas farm, grandparents? farm, 

our best friend?s farm down the road, to be able to get them inVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

volved and for those children to actually to be able to get to work. 

So is this government trying to micromanage what has been a traditional method of neighbors working with neighbors, family members working with family members, and you are going to define 

what a family unit is and limit it to that? 

Ms. LEPPINK. There is a lot of legislative history that talks about 

how this new regulation or this new statute was going to protect 

children, and taking into consideration as expressed in the congressional history, the family farm. The way it is articulated in the legislative history, the purpose of the parental exemption, which is the 

language—this is not regulatory language; this is statutory language, which is that a child employed by their parent on a farm 

owned or operated by their parent, was based on the legislative history the effort of Congress to acknowledge the family farm and the 

opportunity for children to work on their family’s farm. 

So what the Department of Labor is doing its best is to apply 

that statute and, of course, the intent as we understand it of Congress that parents were perceived—which I would absolutely agree; 

I am a parent—are naturally in a position to look after the welfare 

of their children. And therefore, the law should not go there to impinge on the ability of that parent to make good decisions on the 

path of their child. So now the task for the Department of Labor 

is to discern how best to implement the intent of Congress. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. Just kind of an opinion. I think that we 

ought to empower those parents as well to say they can go and pick 

corn. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. And I, you know, Congressman, this is another area, as you know, because we are reproposing the rule 

where the Agency has received significant comments. The idea of 

reproposing the rule was to be able to be certain that we can take 

full consideration of just the concerns that you just raised. 

Chairman TIPTON. Congressman King, thank you. 

Mr. KING. I thank the Chairman for recognizing me. I just want 

to—a brief question I would like to ask. And as I understand it you 

do speak for the Secretary of Labor. 

But has the Department of Labor consulted with the Department 

of Agriculture? And does the secretary of agriculture advocate also 

for these rule changes? 

Ms. LEPPINK. I cannot speak for the secretary of agriculture. I 

mean, his statement is in the press release regarding his concern 

about ensuring the safety of children who are employed as hired 

farm workers in agriculture. He has also made the commitment 

and so has my secretary that the two agencies will work together 

when this part of the rule is reproposed. And, of course, in the part 

of the rule that is going forward with comments considered. And 

so consequently we have been working for probably over a year 

with the Department of Agriculture on the policy discussions related to this. 

Mr. KING. And so he has been weighing in. And judging from the 

public statements that he has made, the secretary of agriculture is 

working in cooperation with the secretary of labor in advocacy for 

these rules? 

Ms. LEPPINK. What I can say is that the Department of Labor 

is working with the Department of Agriculture on these rules. We 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

will be working with them on the reproposed parental exemption 

also. And so both agencies are fully engaged and we are working 

together. 

Mr. KING. I will not press you further. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Well, you are about off the hook here. I do 

want to yield to the congressmen for the last series of questions on 

this. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. 

Mr. CRITZ. And just in case you did not see, Punxsutawney Phil 

did see his shadow so there are six more weeks of winter. So 

just—— 

Ms. LEPPINK. Winter has not been so bad so far so I guess we 

cannot complain. 

Mr. CRITZ. No. No. So just as a point of clarity, when you said 

reproposing the rule, is it only the parental exemption rule? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Right. 

Mr. CRITZ. It is nothing else? 

Ms. LEPPINK. The reproposal is the parental exemption. 

Mr. CRITZ. Just the parental exemption? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Right. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay, just one final question. To give you some background, I used to work in my District for a Member. So part of my 

job was trying to figure out what was going on in Washington and 

what it was going to mean to our constituents. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Sure. 

Mr. CRITZ. And one place where I have concerns—because it is 

all based on interpretation—is that in the Federal Register, in the 

proposed rule it says ‘‘Department’s broad proposal to prohibit 

hired farm workers under the age of 16 from operating or tending 

any power-driven machinery, power-driven equipment operated by 

any source of energy, such as wind, electricity, fossil fuels, batteries, animals, or water, would all be considered power driven 

under this Ag Hazardous Occupation Order, as would any farm implement powered or pulled by an animal, a tractor, or any other 

power-driven equipment.’’ That is pretty broad. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Right. 

Mr. CRITZ. Does it include a wheelbarrow? 

Ms. LEPPINK. No. 

Mr. CRITZ. Are we sure? 

Ms. LEPPINK. We will make that clear. 

Mr. CRITZ. See, because interpretation can be very broad; it can 

be very narrow. And your interpretation could be extremely different from what someone elses interpretation is of this. 

Ms. LEPPINK. We have received many comments on just that part 

of the rule. We recognize, you know, it is always good to have 

10,000 hypotheticals to help you sort of make sure that what you 

are doing is clear. So consequently, and I have heard about the 

flashlights and the battery operated screwdrivers. So believe me, 

we will be addressing those issues that have been raised in the 

comments so that there will not be that confusion. 

Mr. CRITZ. Good. Just two more things. 

In Pennsylvania, there are a lot of Amish. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Yes. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

Mr. CRITZ. And the farming is done on communal land where the 

parents may not actually own the farm. While there is a religious 

exception in federal law for the Amish, it only pertains to the 

schooling hours requirement. Given the critical role that farming 

plays in these communities, did the Labor Department consider 

any further exemptions? 

Ms. LEPPINK. The proposed rule does not include any further exemptions for the Amish. I have to say that I do not know whether 

we got any comments on that. So that would be then an issue as 

to whether if we did, you know, whether that would be in the scope 

of the rulemaking. So I can be happy to have my staff let you know 

whether we received any comments. All the comments are public 

and posted on the website but there are 10,000 of them so I would 

be happy to make sure that my staff provides you with any information that we got related to application to Amish. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. We actually have representation in the audience from the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Okay. So then maybe they can help you. 

Mr. CRITZ. Yes, we can make sure that if they have not had an 

opportunity or did not even know what was going on, that they are 

made aware. 

The final, closing comment is that, I think we have heard it from 

here and we are probably going to hear it from the panel as well, 

that family farming is a different animal than how traditional businesses are run. The interesting part about farming is the statistics 

I cited that safety has been increasing exponentially over the last 

10, 12 years. One other thing that I think is interesting is that the 

education level of family farmers and farmers that I know across 

Pennsylvania has increased dramatically. What we know is that 

these are their children. Obviously there is going to be negligence 

at some point, and my hope is that we are not creating a rule or 

defining a rule because of one or two bad actors and imposing it 

on everyone else who is following the rules. That would be my closing comments. 

I really appreciate your coming in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. And I interpret what I am allowed 

to do to extend it actually just a little bit. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Oh, okay. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. Congressman Schilling had another 

question. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Thank you, Chairman. And Mark brought up a 

pretty good point. My cousin had a 2,000 acre farm that as kids 

we used to go there all the time. Would this also include recreational vehicles of the farm family? Like, for example, snowmobiles or minibikes? Are they not going to be able to allow kids, the 

farm kids to ride those? Those are motorized vehicles. Is that something that is going to have—to me this is very frustrating because 

it is more of the unintended consequences that the government 

puts forth. Is this something that is going to be clarified also, 

ma?am? 

Ms. LEPPINK. Yes. This is a proposed rule. First of all, again, 

kids can do any work for their parents. So, you know, at any age, 

any job, any time they can work for their parents. Yes. We have 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

received comments on that. I am cognizant of that. I can assure 

you as the head of the agency that we will fully consider all of the 

things that have been brought up today regarding concerns, confusions, the issues that have been raised regarding the scope of the 

parental exemption. Every single one of them will have my personal attention to ensure that we are thinking through the issues 

that this Committee has raised. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Awesome. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Thanks. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Congressman Schilling. And I 

think the last thing I would like to encourage you to do, you keep 

focusing on the family farm. 

Ms. LEPPINK. Yes. 

Chairman TIPTON. You have got to understand the ag community 

is a different world than downtown Washington, D.C. When we 

talk about, again, the grandparents, the neighbors that are there. 

And I think we are all going to be monitoring this and we will certainly appreciate any updates from you. 

The Committee may have some additional questions regarding 

this matter so we may reach out to you with those and we would 

appreciate your response. And again, I would like to thank you for 

taking your time, Ms. Leppink, to be here with us today. 

Ms. LEPPINK. It has been my pleasure. 

Chairman TIPTON. This portion of the hearing is now closed. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman TIPTON. I will now continue with our second panel. 

STATEMENTS OF CHRIS CHINN, OWNER, CHINN HOG FARM, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICA FARM BUREAU; 

KENT SCHESCKE, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF FUTURE FARMERS OF 

AMERICA; BOB TABB, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WEST VIRGINIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; RICK EBERT, 

VICE PRESIDENT, PENNSYLVANIA FARM BUREAU 

Chairman TIPTON. And I would like to take a moment for our 

panelists to be able to explain the timing lights. Each witness will 

have five minutes to be able to deliver your testimony. The light 

will start out as green. When you have one minute remaining the 

light will turn yellow. And finally, it will turn red at the end of 

your five minutes. And I would ask that you try and keep it in that 

time limit but I will certainly be respectful of you in terms of letting you wrap up a comment. 

I would like to introduce our first panelist here on our second 

panel, Chris Chinn of Chinn Hog Farm in Clarence, Missouri. She 

and her husband operate Chinn Hog Farm located in Clarence, 

Missouri. Chris and her husband are fifth generation agricultural 

producers and they currently operate a diversified operation that 

includes raising crops and livestock. She is testifying today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation and will be able to 

provide an agricultural producer’s perspective on the effect of these 

rules on family-owned small business farms. Ms. Chinn, thank you 

for appearing today and you may now deliver your testimony. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS CHINN 

Ms. CHINN. Thank you, Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to share my comments on 

the Department of Labor’s proposed regulation and how it will affect farm families. 

As you said, I am also here today on behalf of the American 

Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s largest general farm organization. 

Last December, Farm Bureau and over 70 other agricultural organizations filed extensive comments in opposition to the Labor Department proposal. I would like to ask that those comments be included in the hearing record. 

My husband Kevin and I are fifth generation farmers and we are 

the proud parents of two terrific kids, Rachelle, who is 14, and 

Connor, who is 10. Both of our children work on our family farm 

on a daily basis, just like Kevin and I did when we were growing 

up. It is a way of life in rural America but it is more than that. 

It is a way for us to instill important values in our children. Having the right work ethic, earning your keep, recognizing that if you 

set your mind to something you can accomplish almost anything. 

That effort and reward are related. And above all, to be careful 

when the job that you are doing entails risk. 

In addition to the chores that our kids do on our farm, both our 

kids help their grandma and grandpa on their farm. Connor collects eggs from the hens for which grandma pays him for, and he 

also helps her clean out the chicken house. Rachelle helps grandma 

in the breeding barn with our sows and she helps breed those animals. She also uses the power washer in the hallways to help clean 

the hog barn. 

Their childhood is a lot like mine was, except I did not get to 

grow up on a family farm. I spent lots of weekends in the summertime and days through the summer helping my grandparents on 

their family farm. I started driving a tractor when I was 12 years 

old. I milked the cows, I collected the eggs, I fed the livestock. I 

even cut weeds out of the bean field. And I also bucked hay bales. 

That was part of growing up on the farm and I can honestly tell 

you that I would not trade it for anything in the world. 

But nearly every one of the tasks that I did as a teenager would 

be prohibited by the new proposed hazardous occupation order. 

Driving tractors is forbidden by HO No. 1. Milking a cow is prohibited by HO No. 4. Cutting weeds would be banned by HO No. 3. 

And building or repairing a fence would be banned by HO No. 6. 

I know that some people are saying that these regulations will not 

affect farm families, but I urge the members of this Committee to 

read the actual proposal. 

Yesterday, the Department said they would repropose the parental exemption part of the rule. That is positive. But until we know 

exactly what they intend to do I think farmers and ranchers in agriculture are going to continue to be worried. To know why you just 

need to look at that original proposal. The Department said that 

once ownership of a farm is shared with persons other than or in 

addition to the parent the exemption does not apply. The proposed 

regulation also said that a child had to actually live with a relative 

for possibly three months to be exempt and that a period of less 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

than one month would not be sufficient for the parental exemption 

to apply. It also stated that a child who is exempt from the AG 

HOs when employed on his or her parents’ farm would generally 

lose that exempt status when employed on a farm owned or operated by a neighbor or a nonparental relative such as a grandparent, aunt, or uncle. 

When farm and ranch families tell you they feel threatened by 

these regulations, I hope you can understand why. I do not know 

how anyone can say that the Department of Labor is not fundamentally changing how they are going to enforce the law. The 

parental exemption is a critical part of this debate but it is not the 

only part. For instance, the Department wants to say that no youth 

under the age of 16 can work with any equipment that is operated 

by any power source other than human hand or foot power. That 

would eliminate a lot of equipment, including flashlights and garden hoses, which is not particularly hazardous. I do not think for 

one minute that Congress gave them that authority, and I certainly 

hope that you will not now. 

People like Kevin and I, we do not need people in Washington, 

D.C., telling us what our children can and cannot do on our family 

farm. We are pretty good at doing that ourselves. Our children are 

never allowed to go near our bulls or the grain augers. They are 

not allowed to be around a tractor that is mowing hay unless they 

are inside that tractor in a buddy seat with a seatbelt on. They are 

not allowed to go near our feed mill mixer. They are not allowed 

to mow grass on hills or near buildings. And they are not allowed 

to power wash inside of a furrowing room yet. 

I would also like to mention that my 14-year-old daughter 

Rachelle has been to the emergency room three times this year. 

Not one of these injuries was a result of something that happened 

on our family farm. Instead, they were school-related sports injuries. Never have my children been hurt on our family farm and 

never have they had a need to have to go to the emergency room 

because of something that happened on our farm. But my daughter 

Rachelle has went to the E.R. three times this year because of 

something that happened at school. 

There is an overwhelming feeling in the agriculture community 

that the whole proposal is fundamentally flawed. While we are 

pleased about yesterday’s decision to repropose the parental exemption, I think most of us in agriculture feel that it would have been 

much better had the Department withdrawn the entire rule. 

I would like to thank Congressman Rehberg for his leadership in 

this issue and to each of you on this Committee who signed onto 

his letter last year. Thank you for allowing me the time to testify 

today and for allowing me to share my story with you. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Ms. Chinn. 

Our next witness is Kent Schescke. He is director of Strategic 

Partnerships for the Future Farmers of America. Kent has worked 

with the National FFA organization since 1991 and has served in 

his current position since 2009. As a youth, he participated in FFA 

programs and is here to testify regarding the effect of DOL rules 

on youth agricultural education vocational training programs. 

Kent, if you would like to go ahead and deliver your testimony. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

STATEMENT OF KENT SCHESCKE 

Mr. SCHESCKE. Thank you, Chairman Tipton and members of the 

Subcommittee for allowing me to be here to speak. 

As you shared in my introduction, I am a product of FFA. I have 

worked for 14 years in Missouri as an agriculture instructor, and 

I have had the privilege for the last 20-plus years to work for the 

National FFA. 

We are here really today to talk about the impact of this, and 

it has been alluded to in some of the comments that were made in 

opening as well as the impact of this on agricultural education programs that are school-based programs. And we think that there are 

some issues that need to be addressed. 

And to give you a little bit of background today, we have about 

7,500 agricultural education programs across the United States. 

These programs are run by about 11,000 professionally trained 

teachers, meaning these are teachers that have degrees in agriculture or certification to teach, hired by their local school district 

to be agriculture education instructors. We have enrollment today 

of about nearly 800,000 students, high school students in these programs across the country. We have an FFA membership today of 

540,000, which really represents an all-time high membership for 

our organization. 

Agriculture education in public schools has been around for almost 100 years. The Smith-Hughes Act in 1917 really created these 

programs and today while the focus of agriculture has changed, our 

programs today really focus on the science and the business of 

technology of agriculture and helping young people prepare for careers in agriculture. 

When it started the primary focus was, again, this dates it but 

young boys involved in agriculture. It was not until 1969 that we 

actually recognized young women and brought them into it. But 

really preparing young people for careers in agriculture. 

The other interesting statistic is that two-thirds of the students 

we serve today come from non-farm backgrounds. These are students who live in rural America who are interested in agriculture 

or students who live in urban and suburban communities. And we 

feel this is important that we give them the experiential learning 

experiences that go along with agriculture as alluded to over in the 

comments. 

Our program has got really three components. And in my testimony I presented a diagram that kind of illustrates that. For students to be members of FFA they have to be enrolled in an agriculture education program. That is somewhat unique. It is not just 

a club that they walk off the street and join; it is tied to this instructional program. In these programs this is where they learn the 

science business technology and there is also a heavy emphasis on 

safety and safety education because of the career preparation part. 

Helping people understand the hazards that are in agriculture and 

how by expanding their knowledge and understanding of it and the 

practices that they can work safely. 

The second part of the program is what we call experiential 

learning or supervised agricultural experience. And again, it is an 

opportunity for students to take what they learned in the classroom and put it to application in a workplace setting. And that was 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

alluded to in the earlier discussion. That experience is very important for young people as they prepare for agriculture because they 

are able to learn the science, the business, the theory, but the contextual hands-on learning is a part of our motto. Actually, the FFA 

motto is Learning to do, doing to learn, earning to live, and living 

to serve. And that learning to do and doing to learn is an important 

part of what we believe and what is core to our program. 

The third circle is really the FFA organization. And we provide 

a lot of rewards, recognition, motivation for those young people to 

take not only what they have learned in the classroom but also to 

the experiential learning programs and help them see how they can 

utilize that in their career aspirations, whether that is to continue 

in the production of agriculture or to work in many of the related 

areas. And for even students who are going into non-farm agricultural-related careers, that agricultural knowledge that they gained 

through the firsthand experience of working in production agriculture is a very important experience for them. 

Probably some of our concerns about the proposed rule is really 

the role of the student learner exemption. And I would call your 

attention. The side by side comparisons exists on the Department 

of Labor’s site. It looks at the current and the proposed. And in 

there it states that in the existing current role the student learner 

exemption kind of runs across all of the defined hazardous occupation areas. In the proposed rule it is limited to only the first two. 

And at the same time they have taken it from what was six areas 

and expanded it to 14. 

So in our opinion, at least our definition of the rule is that they 

have severely limited the opportunities for students who are enrolled in these agricultural education programs to benefit from this 

experience by drawing it down to just two areas from now what is 

in the proposed rules 14 different hazardous occupation areas. And 

that is an area that we have concern with. We hope that is an area 

that the Department of Labor continues to work on this, continues 

to look at. In fact, we would have liked to have seen that one as 

well opened up in this parental exemption piece because we think 

there is as much work that maybe needs to be defined in that process as well. 

And I want us to stop here and say that our teachers, their responsibility in this is to provide the supervision, to work with the 

employers, to work with the parents, and to come up with training 

programs that reflect the scope of the work that the students are 

to do, as well as make sure that it is done safely. Our teachers care 

about the safety of their students. They are very committed to 

making sure that they maintain that safe-working, and make sure 

that our students benefit from the experience. 

Thank you and I entertain any questions. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you so much. 

Our next witness is Bob Tabb. He is deputy commissioner of the 

West Virginia State Department of Agriculture. Bob grew up on a 

dairy farm and has been involved in production agriculture his 

whole life. He is testifying today on behalf of his boss, the electric 

commissioner for the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, 

Gus Douglas. Mr. Tabb, you may now deliver your testimony and 

thank you for being here. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

STATEMENT OF BOB TABB 

Mr. TABB. Thank you, Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member Critz, 

and other members of the Subcommittee for inviting us to participate in one of the most important situations to affect agriculture 

for the future of this country. And it is about agriculture and young 

people. 

I am Bob Tabb, and I am deputy commissioner of agriculture for 

the longest serving commissioner in the country. Gus Douglas is on 

his 44th year as the commissioner of agriculture for the State of 

West Virginia. And in West Virginia, the commissioner of agriculture is a constitutional officer. So he is elected by the officer and 

to represent the people. And that is why I am here today because 

we are representing the people of West Virginia along with 

NASDA, which is an organization we belong to of all 50 states and 

four territories. 

I grew up on a dairy farm in Jefferson County, West Virginia, 

which is about 60 miles west of here. And having been from a dairy 

background the one thing I will share with the members today, this 

year dairy farmers get to do one thing they do not normally get to 

do. It is a leap year so they get to milk the cows two extra times 

this year. And the point of that is agriculture is commitment. It is 

not just an occupation; it is a way of life. And that is the part that 

I think some people do not seem to understand the affect that 

these type of rule changes can have on an industry so critical to 

this country. 

West Virginia has over 23,000 small farms, and statistically a little bit higher ownership than the state of Pennsylvania. West Virginia actually has the highest percent in the country of owner-operated farms. A lot of small operations. In West Virginia and across 

this country—and this is a quote from Secretary Vilsack last month 

at a briefing I was at here in D.C.—but he said the average age 

of the American farmer is nearing 60 years old. And a lot of this 

focus is on the family farm and the children. But for me to do the 

math, when the average farmer is approaching 60 years old, that 

tells me there is getting to be less and less children under 16 that 

their parents are actually farming. So that increases the need not 

only to allow nieces and nephews and grandchildren and grandnieces and nephews but of other youth in the community. 

As this population ages, they need help. And they care about 

their operations. The one thing that has not been brought out here 

today is liability. If these children are negligently injured or killed 

on a farm there is a price to pay. And there is no price to put on 

a child’s life. But if they do serious violations, they have got penalties to pay. And the farmers that I know are not prone to go out 

there and just shamelessly put people in harm’s way. I do not care 

whether it is their child. In fact, I am a grandparent. And I let my 

kids do things on the farm that I will not let my grandkids do. So 

I think if you want the next level of child protection, if you put the 

grandparents in charge of them there are a few things they might 

not get to do. 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has 

made 14 recommendations. And although the Department of Agriculture is in agreement with some issues about instances of when 

you can and cannot use a cell phone, you know, working with anhyVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

drous ammonia, some of these confined spaces with limitations, 

there are some things that can be done. But they need to be done 

in a reasonable manner. 

The proposed change to—this is a quote from the Proposed Rule 

Change to Employment in Agriculture under Adverse Conditions 

states in part, The Department is asking for comments on whether 

it should create a new Ag HO addressing use exposure to extreme 

temperatures. Such an Ag HO could provide the youth under the 

age of 16 would not be permitted to work in agriculture occupations 

where the temperatures at which they are working exceed or drop 

below a certain temperature, factor in such things as humidity, 

wind velocity, and the degree of duration of physical exertion required by the work. It might also require that hours in direct sunlight be limited if the temperature reaches certain thresholds for 

long periods of time.’’ 

Anyone who has ever farmed understands weather is the most 

unpredictable part of farming. To comply with this proposed rule 

change would most likely require one of two options. Hire a fulltime meteorologist to document all the requirements and advise 

when youth under 16 could work. Or secondly, just simply limit 

farming if you rely on youth under 16 to stack hay, pick fruits or 

vegetables, feed or work with livestock, or just pull weeds because 

it does get hot and it does get cold on a farm. 

Studies over the 11-year period from 1998 to 2009. I know I am 

about to run out of time but I appreciate your involvement of the 

2011 fact sheet on childhood agriculture injuries and I would certainly be glad to answer any questions you may have relating to 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Tabb. And I would now like 

to yield to Ranking Member Critz so that he may introduce the minority’s witness. 

Mr. CRITZ. Rick Ebert is the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau’s vice 

president, a position he has held since 2004. Mr. Ebert, in partnership with his brother, operates a dairy farm where he milks 80 

Holsteins and farms corn, alfalfa hay, barley, soy beans, and wheat 

on 450 acres. He was the 1983 recipient of the Westmoreland 

County Conservation award, and won the Charles E. Cohen Memorial Award, presented to the dairyman who has demonstrated superior management capabilities and provided outstanding leadership 

qualities within the industry. Rick, welcome, and please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF RICK EBERT 

Mr. EBERT. Thank you. Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member 

Critz, and members of the Committee, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak at this hearing. 

I appear before you today not only a as a farmer but also as a 

parent. And I want to recognize my wife who is here with me today 

with the same concerns as parents who have kids on the farm. We 

have raised four wonderful children on a farm that are highly productive, respectable kids out in the community right now. 

I must admit yesterday’s announcement by DOL regarding parental exemption was good news to the farming community, but the 

decision does not help American farmers. It only makes their curVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

rent proposed rule hurt a little bit less. And I would be remiss if 

I did not say that farmers are still concerned with what DOL might 

repropose. DOL must take great care in considering any changes 

to the parental exemption. 

My farm is a partnership. DOL should not reserve the right to 

tell operators of a farm like mine that they cannot hire their children, nieces, nephews, or grandchildren to help during the summer 

months. My children help all feed cows. This involves direct contact 

with an animal. There is little or any risk at all in helping feed 

cows. Anybody here that has children, calves to my children are the 

same as anybody else’s children getting a new puppy or a new kitten. It is the same idea for them. They enjoy doing it. It is a pleasure. There is hardly any risk involved. 

Whether jobs involve animals or not, I am constantly mindful of 

each of the child’s abilities and the task at hand. I match the 

child’s ability to the task that they can complete. DOL’s rules seek 

to limit the ability of kids to milk cows or feed calves. I also fear 

this rule will restrict the ability of youth to work with any livestock 

for the purpose of ag education. My school district is the only district in the county that still funds an ag education program, but 

in a current budget year for Derry Area School District, ag ed was 

cut by 50 percent. Last year we had two ag teachers instructing 

over 120 students in 14 classes. This year we are left with one ag 

teacher reaching 80 students in six classes. DOL’s rule would have 

our remaining ag teacher rebuild his curriculum to achieve safety 

requirements and then try to squeeze in all the other aspects of 

farming and ag business. 

The rule restricts 14- and 15-year-olds from farm activities unless they are enrolled in ag education and complete 90 hours of 

safety training. If you think about 90 hours of safety training and 

with a high school class of between 45 and 60 minutes, you are 

talking over 18 weeks or at least half of the school year that they 

are devoted to safety training only. And that only leaves that portion of the rest of the year for any type of career development. In 

my area there are several students who enjoy working on a neighbor’s farm during the summer months for various reasons but they 

cannot be enrolled in the ag education program because their 

school does not offer it and because they are really not planning 

on a career in agriculture. But the work performed by these students is still valuable and needed and it allows them to earn a 

wage that they can put away for college. 

As my boys were growing up they would help me put hay away. 

Working on the hay wagon and in a barn’s hayloft occurs at elevations over six feet on my far. DOL’s height restrictions may be 

intended for 30-foot ladders, but unfortunately it would disallow 

the process of placing hay in storage on many farms. 

Mindful of safety, I provided opportunities to my children to 

learn in the hands-on environment, whether it was an impact 

wrench, screw gun, power washer, or electric feed cart. My children 

were safely operating powered equipment on a farm with appropriate levels of adult supervision and safety precautions. If taken 

literally, DOL’s standards would prohibit most activities around my 

farm. Without being harshly critical of DOL’s position on power 

equipment, the days of hand and foot powered equipment has 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

passed. Technology has offered much safer and more efficient 

means to accomplish farm tasks. On my farm, no one operates 

equipment unless I am comfortable with their ability and the level 

of risk associated with their job. 

Thank you for this opportunity and I entertain any questions at 

this time. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Ebert. I appreciate your time 

and being here today. 

I will go ahead and begin our questioning. And I would like to 

start with Mr. Tabb, if I may. I understand that Commissioner 

Douglas could not be here today because he is appearing before the 

Legislature’s Budget Committee. 

In a time of declining and tightening state budgets, will state 

education agencies and local school districts be in a position to provide more safety training? Or should DOL continue to allow federal 

extension services to provide those programs? 

Mr. TABB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We definitely believe that the programs that are in place are 

working. And the study that I will cite is the Childhood Agriculture 

Injury Study that was actually sanctioned by NIOSH, was done at 

WVU in Morgantown, and actually is one of the most current studies on childhood injuries that is out there. A lot of the data in this 

rule was old data. 

But to show a 59 percent decrease in the amount of injuries over 

the last 11 years truly shows that education and technology have 

both helped to move this forward. So with the cutting budgets, 

what is available through Extension, through 4–H, through the 

current programs, if the numbers had gone the other way on this 

study I think there would be a different mindset because none of 

us want children to get injured. 

Chairman TIPTON. Certainly. You know, in your testimony you 

addressed the Ag HO that is talking about extreme temperatures 

and you joked that in order to comply with the ever-changing 

weather it would probably be necessary to hire a full-time meteorologist. You have been around this. Do you not think most parents who supervise their children know when it is time to come in 

from the outside? 

Mr. TABB. That. And not only the children but the employer, the 

farmer who has got them there, if he does not keep his help, 

whether it is his own children over 16, over 18, 14 to 16, if he does 

not keep them hydrated and in reasonable accommodations you are 

not going to get any work. You do not get productivity. 

You know, I priced the Gatorade and that type thing to them but 

I just cannot understand. It is making the assumption that every 

farmer is some evil person who their goal is to have children 

harmed on their operation. I do not think the statistics show that 

of reporting and, like I said in my statements about the liability, 

you know, if you are negligent and you let somebody, whether they 

are 14 or 16 or 25, is negligently hurt on your farm operation, you 

have got something to deal with both with penalties and liabilities 

on lawsuits. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Chinn, we probably have some other people in here that 

know what bucking bales means. I appreciated that. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Everyone has testified today that they are not only farmers but 

also a parent. In your experience, do other blood relatives, such as 

grandparents, aunts, uncles, all share that same level of concern 

for the well-being of our children? 

Ms. CHINN. They do. You know, I love my children more than 

anything in this world and I would never do anything to put them 

in harm’s way. 

Chairman TIPTON. The government does not have to tell you to 

care about your children? 

Ms. CHINN. No. They do not. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. 

Ms. CHINN. But my mother-in-law, she is more possessive of my 

children’s safety than I could ever think about being. Someone 

made that comment earlier about being a grandparent and not letting your grandchildren do what your children do. My mother-inlaw is a perfect example of that. My husband started going out in 

the hog lot out in dirt lots at the age of five behind his mom and 

dad. Luckily because of science and technology we have been able 

to move our hogs indoors now at a climate-controlled computer system that keeps it like air conditioning in the summertime and it 

is heated in the winter. So it is year round 70 degrees inside our 

hog barns. That is a very safe environment for our children to be 

in. But my husband as a child did not have that luxury. And my 

mother-in-law every day thinks about what she is doing with her 

grandchildren and how she wants to teach them how to care for the 

livestock and care for our environment so that someday they are 

teaching their grandchildren the same thing that she is doing. She 

would never, ever put our children in harm’s way. 

Chairman TIPTON. She would never tell them to run in front of 

a tractor? 

Ms. CHINN. It is interesting you brought that up. My children 

learned at a very young age to get out of the way of a tractor, yet 

we had a state department worker who was there doing an inspection on our family farm that we had to ask to get out of the way 

so he did not get run over by a tractor. 

Chairman TIPTON. The government expert. Okay. 

You know, you mentioned that your 14-year-old daughter 

Rachelle visited the emergency room three times, never got injured 

on the family farm, injured at school. So do you believe there is a 

need for the Department of Labor and this administration to try 

and regulate so many facets of everyday life? 

Ms. CHINN. No. I think the Department of Labor may be well intentioned but I do not think they fully understand what we do on 

our farms and our ranchers today. My children have never once 

been injured on our farm but I send them to school and I get phone 

calls that I need to take them to the emergency room because they 

have a concussion as a result of a basketball injury or their hip 

gets pulled out of place doing a layup. These are the types of phone 

calls that I get, and I have been there. And I have watched it happen. But I have never put my child in harm’s way out on our family farm. If something is not safe for her to do I am not going to 

let her do it. Because when you get that phone call that your child 

has been hurt, there is nothing worse in the world. It breaks your 

heart and you want to take care of your child. And I do not need 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

the government coming out here telling me how to love my daughter because that is something that the day I gave birth to her was 

automatic. It was even before I gave birth to her that I loved that 

little girl. 

Chairman TIPTON. Absolutely. Thanks. And you are leading the 

charge on basketball regulation I understand? 

Ms. CHINN. No, no, no. 

Chairman TIPTON. Mr. Schescke, I have here a letter from some 

of my local county commissioners in my district out of Delta County. In the second sentence of the letter it states skills learned by 

youths working on farms and in livestock production programs 

such as FFA and 4–H and teens on farm programs instill a lifelong 

ethic towards safety that is unparalleled by other education efforts.’’ Would you agree with that statement? 

Mr. SCHESCKE. I would. And I think the idea that students learn 

best in context. You can teach students about safety but when they 

see the real life application of that, I think that is where the opportunity to not only combine what we do in a classroom but then follow that right up with the ability for students to work in that environment and see the application. So many of the problems we have 

in our education system today is that kids learn something but 

they do not immediately see the connection or the context to it. 

And I think that the ability for our students to have this experiential learning and to work in agriculture, it brings into that context 

of yes, there are safety issues and things that they have to be 

aware of but the more they are educated on them, a lot of concerns 

I have heard come from one of our teachers is that if these rules 

were to go forward and our students really would not have the opportunity to be involved in experiential learning, then why would 

the unintended consequences may be actually a decreased amount 

of time in the instruction program on safety. As was noted, you 

know, to completely comply with what is proposed you would eat 

up over half of the year just teaching safety. There has to be a reasonable part of that. Safety is important and it should be not necessarily half a year but it really needs to be infused all the way 

through the instructional program so students are learning about 

livestock, they learn about safety. If they are learning about equipment, they are learning about safety. If they are learning about 

crops, they are learning about the safety aspects of that at the 

same time. 

Chairman TIPTON. You know I am a country boy so when you are 

saying experiential learning, learning by doing is essentially what 

you are really talking about. Are you as concerned as I am about 

the provisions and the proposed rule that would prevent future 

generations from learning important skills—how to handle the 

hogs, techniques critical to farming as a result of DOL’s hands-off 

approach? 

Mr. SCHESCKE. I am. And part of it is that, you know, the comments made does not affect it but it does because of the limiting 

of the student exemption to only the first two HOs. Imagine how 

difficult it would be to emplace a student in a work situation, employment situation working on a farm where the list of things that 

they could not do was longer than the list they could do. And so 

that is where I think we would like to see if they do go forward 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

with this many HOs that that student learner cover as many of 

them that are it really makes sense to because, you know, how 

many employers are going to hire those student learners when they 

know that technically by the DOL standard 12 of the things are on 

the list they cannot do. Only two are allowed and that is a pretty 

narrow scope in terms of the opportunities for the students to learn 

experientially. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Ebert, a common comment we hear from stakeholders is 

typically a lack of a neutral outreach by federal agencies. What 

should DOL do that will better inform or better yet make you a 

partner in this rulemaking process? 

Mr. EBERT. It is my understanding in the state we actually have 

a rule safety board and agency but it has not been funded. So how 

is an agency that has not been funded able to reach out to the community and help them with safety? I think it would be in DOL’s 

best interest to work along those lines instead of imposing more 

rules on our farming community. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay, thanks. You know, if you were prohibited from working on your family’s farm as a youth do you think 

that you would be as involved or involved at all in production 

today? 

Mr. EBERT. No, not at all. I just would not have the experience 

and develop the love of the farm aspect and the animals and the 

industry. 

Chairman TIPTON. Learn by doing. 

Mr. EBERT. Right. 

Chairman TIPTON. Great. Thanks so much. I would like to yield 

to Ranking Member Critz. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think my most important question is for Ms. Chin. So your 

daughter had her hip pulled out doing a layup? 

Ms. CHINN. Yeah, she did. 

Mr. CRITZ. What kind of basketball do they play in your neighborhood? 

Ms. CHINN. Middle school basketball is very rough for girls I can 

tell you. 

Mr. CRITZ. I was not allowed to play basketball because I played 

it like football, but it sounds like that would work well. 

Ms. CHINN. We need helmets and pads. 

Mr. CRITZ. Mr. Schescke, I think you mentioned that two-thirds 

of the FFA students are non-farming community students? 

Mr. SCHESCKE. Roughly two-thirds of the students we serve 

today come from non-farm backgrounds. Meaning only a third of 

our students today fall in this category of having grown up on a 

family farm. This two-thirds is roughly divided between the students that we would consider rural non-farm, meaning students 

who live in those rural areas and those are the students that are 

probably most affected by some of this because their opportunity 

for that experiential learning is often working for farmers in that 

community in some kind of wage earning place that is part of this 

SAE, supervised agriculture experience program. 

But also we have today roughly a third of our students who come 

from suburban and urban neighborhoods because the idea of agriVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

culture in its broadest sense is not limited to just rural areas. Finding young people today, even in a suburban area, our largest programs in the country are actually in places like Chicago and Philadelphia. And it actually provides a lot of growth opportunity for our 

programs. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thanks. I think we would all probably agree that 

working on a farm is hard work. When you have hard work, sometimes accidents will happen; I think that is just a natural progression. I was thinking about this—about defining where young people 

can work, whether it is a family farm or not a family farm and defining, of course, what a family farm is—obviously over time the 

procedures that you use in your operations and the equipment that 

you use changes. It seems to me that you would have training to 

make sure that the folks on your farm understand the new dangers, so to speak. It seems like DOL’s purpose might be served better at the front end, not at the back end. I would open up to everyone for comment, if you just want to go from my right to left, because I would be curious what you do when you get that new piece 

of equipment or the new technique that you have to adjust; not 

only do your children have to know what the new processes are, 

but everyone up the chain as well. So, please. 

Ms. CHINN. Right. Any time we get a new piece of equipment on 

our farm there is a training period. Nobody is allowed to use it 

until they have gone through the training period with it, they understand it, they are fully comfortable with the rules and the safety 

procedures that go along with that. The same holds true for our 

children. Any time that we feel like they are ready to move on to 

the next step they do not get to do it without hearing the proper 

safety guidelines to using that piece of equipment or to being 

around that older animal. We would never turn somebody loose 

without that proper training. It is not common sense. We do not 

want somebody to get hurt. We do not have time for somebody to 

get hurt. 

Mr. SCHESCKE. I would like to comment. This is an important 

issue because from our standpoint the classroom instruction, our 

teachers are always in need of and looking for resources to better 

teach safety. And the idea of how do you have appropriate safety 

assessments. And we do pretty well for all the equipment. They are 

contained in a school and that is pretty much a given. When we 

go out into the workplace situations, that is where the teacher has 

to work with that farmer or the person who is employing that student and make sure that the student in that training agreement 

covers that. 

It was mentioned in the earlier panel that this is something DOL 

is interested in. In fact, we would welcome that from an educational standpoint. I mean, sure, if there are resources that at 

DOL and maybe resources at USDA to make sure that for students 

who are in these situations that we are providing the best education and that we have the assessments in place to make sure 

that those students are qualified. Our teachers are striving to do 

the best they can with the resources that they have. And what the 

gentleman at the end of the table described is happening at a lot 

of our schools. You know, programs are under a lot of financial constraints and they are having to do more with less. So any assistVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

ance rather versus regulation that could be given would be probably well received and appreciated. 

Mr. TABB. Thank you. And the one thing in my context is a farm 

is actually an outdoor classroom and laboratory. And that is where 

they can get the hands-on experience through the vocational programs at the schools. But I will go back to these statistics again. 

You know, for the injury, per 1,000 farms, in 1998 on the farms 

were 16.6 per thousand. And in 2009, it was down to 16.8. That 

drop of 59 percent, if playing high school sports was an occupation 

then for every 1,000 players that you would have less than 1 percent injured during a year, I think not. Just because they are being 

compensated for something to do and a lot of kids love to do sports. 

In fact, they are encouraged to do sports. Physical activity is actually supposed to be good for you. And being on a farm in that environment, doing the physical activity, you do sometimes get hurt. I 

think if you look at it statistically it is a lot safer than playing organized sports. 

Like I say, I was an EMT. I was a volunteer EMT in my community for 18 years, a lifetime member of the fire department, and I 

have been thinking about this for a couple weeks. In the 18 years 

that I was a certified EMT—I was not just the driver but I was 

a certified EMT for the back of that ambulance—I cannot still 

think of one instance, and I am glad, of either a fatality or a serious injury involving a farm youth worker. On a regular basis on 

Friday nights I went on the ambulance to the high school football 

team games on standby and very seldom we ever left there without 

transporting somebody to the hospital. You know, people get hurt, 

but I think this just has gone totally overboard and I think if they 

do a little bit of compared to what—if farming is the only thing you 

can compare it to, yes, it is going to be the most dangerous but it 

will also be the safest. But I think just looking at organized sports. 

And with that they are making improvements. They are doing 

new head protection. And agriculture is doing the same thing. As 

a kid growing up, for me probably the biggest single improvement 

in agriculture that I have seen in my lifetime was slip shafts on 

power takeoffs. That was probably the most dangerous thing on a 

farm. When that thing started spinning, you know, all it took was 

a thread to get into that and you could just be wrapped up in that 

thing in a heartbeat. But all the technology that has come along, 

you know, over the last years, it is phenomenal. 

And I am proud to be a farmer. I am not ashamed to be a farmer. 

So thank you. 

Mr. CRITZ. Rick. 

Mr. EBERT. I will sort of add on to his. You know, I can remember when I started working with my dad. The older machinery they 

had. The power takeoffs were open, you know, nothing was covered, 

belts and everything did not have shields on where today’s modern 

machinery does. A lot of stuff has quick shutoffs, all that. And I 

have always taught my kids. I always matched my kid to the ability of what he could do and the task at hand. And I always stressed 

and they always learned if you are working with a piece of equipment and something goes wrong, the first thing you do is shut the 

whole thing down. Do not risk losing an arm, a finger, even life. 

And I think that is what farmers do today. They realize that farmVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 076459 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A459.XXX A459

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

ing is highly mechanized and highly computerized but there is still 

a lot of danger out there and there are things that we teach them 

for their safety and our safety for our children. 

Mr. CRITZ. Well, and that is really the point we are talking about 

is that as Mr. Bartlett said earlier, many times regulations and the 

government comes in because the person or the constituent or the 

consumer does not have the mental wherewithal without our help. 

And many times, because things can be inherently dangerous, I 

mean, there is danger involved with farming and, there is obviously health and welfare, health and safety that have to be taken 

into account. But the point I was trying to make is that the farmer 

is doing exactly what the government wants, what anybody would 

want. And when it comes down to your own family, I think sometimes we push our own families a little harder than we might other 

families. But still, the safety of that individual is paramount. 

One of the things that struck me regarding farming, as I delve 

more and more into the subject, is the current education level of 

farmers; I mean, the number of people in the farming community 

now with bachelor’s degrees from college. The government saying 

maybe they are not educated, maybe they do not know so we have 

to help, is even further from the truth. 

I really appreciate your testimony. Obviously the point is that we 

do a very good job of one size fits all. This is one place where 

maybe the previous size fit well, and if it is not broken, let us not 

fix it. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all the witnesses. I do not know when I have 

listened to a whole panel of witnesses and agreed with very one of 

you. I appreciate the background experience you bring to this and 

the comments. 

First, I think, Mr. Tabb, your comment about put the grandparents in charge, that really hits home. For some reason the reproduction part is out of our control and we realize how precious 

these kids are, especially when they are grandchildren. And not to 

diminish being a parent; I am both. 

I appreciate your comments also, Ms. Chinn, and I wanted to say 

to you that your oral testimony was even better than your written 

testimony and I would suggest the congressional record of your testimony be very useful to put in a farm magazine and I would like 

to see that read in the urban areas if there is a way that we can 

advocate that through FFA or anywhere else because that picks up 

the flavor of this and the sense of what the way of life is like. 

And I also, the comments about the inspector does not know to 

get out of the way but the kids do, yes, that is simple common 

sense. It transcends species. And if you have ever tried to herd confinement hogs on dirt you know that. If you have ever taken a kennel raised, field trial champion birddog out to the actual field and 

realized that that dog does not know how to get across the creek 

or through the fence, kids are the same way. If they grow up on 

the farm they learn these things incrementally. The best safety you 

can have is you watch those kids and you see what they know. You 

know where their weakness are. You know where the dangers are 

and you are constantly there to make sure they avoid the dangers, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

including none of our little kids got near the limited-fed sows during gestation. That would be the most dangerous thing I can actually think of and horrifying included. 

The statement that you testified, Mr. Tabb, I just looked it up 

here because the language struck home with me. Where the temperature is at which they are working exceed or drop below a certain temperature, factoring in such things as humidity, wind velocity, and the degree and duration of the physical exertion required 

by the work, da-da, in direct sun be limited, the temperature 

reaches certain thresholds for prolonged periods of time. 

I just have to tell you that Marilyn and I raised three sons and 

they are grown now in their 30s. The oldest one sat down with me 

a couple of years ago and he said, ‘‘Dad, do you remember when 

you had us all working when it was 126 degrees heat index?’’ I 

said, ‘‘Yeah, I do actually. That was an unusual day but we had 

the forms set and we had to pour concrete and we made money.’’ 

He said, ‘‘That is what you said, Dad. You said ‘We made money.’ 

But do you remember two days in a row when we were out driving 

sheet piling across the swamp when it was 60 below wind chill?’’ 

I said, ‘‘Yeah, I do remember that, too, because we did not have to 

mat the dragline and we made money.’’ He said, ‘‘That is what you 

said, Dad. But what I wanted to tell you is that, you know, that 

is 186 degrees temperature range between 60 below and 126 above 

and no species other than your sons would survive such an ordeal.’’ 

But, you know, all three of those sons, they are grown up and 

they all work. They enjoy work. And work is an honorable thing. 

And the life that we have in rural America is among the most honorable that we have. And when it is threatened I am concerned 

about it and it comes to me in a lot the same way it does Danny 

Rehberg and many others that have had the benefits of living in 

this way. 

I just think that it is a mistake for us to even think about—I 

guess they would say raising the standards; I would say lowering 

the standards—for youth to work because the work ethic and the 

way of life is so valuable. And I trust that we should have and the 

people that are the parents, the grandparents, the neighbors, the 

relation, and the mentors for these children should be adequate. I 

trust them and I trust the parents to make the judgment as to who 

they will trust their children’s safety to. 

And I would pose this question. Should we instead of adding regulation to agriculture, should we instead lift some of the regulations for nonfarm work for our youth so that they could learn a 

work ethic in the neighboring business. And should we allow parents to sign a waiver so that they could allow their children to go 

to work in a neighboring business with somebody that they trust 

rather than having more regulation tying this down and eventually 

choke off our work ethic, it would be better to allow that opportunity for many other children, aside and in addition to agriculture. 

And I start with Ms. Chinn. 

Ms. CHINN. I think that would be a great idea. Our local newspaper in our town would love to be training young kids to just stuff 

papers. But he cannot because of the labor rules. He cannot hire 

a 13-year-old kid to come in and stuff inserts into his newspaper. 

But what a great thing for a child to learn, the value of hard work, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

that when I work hard at something I am going to get paid for it. 

And then I can have that pride of ownership in that newspaper 

when it gets delivered into mom and dad’s mailbox the next day. 

These are things that our kids are not being allowed to do today. 

They are not learning this at a young age. But they all know how 

to play a video game real good. How does that benefit everybody 

in life? What these kid learn in a job, they are going to take with 

them as they grow older. And we are going to have a great workforce and we are going to have kids that know responsibility and 

the value of hard work. And that it does not matter how big that 

obstacle is, if you set your mind to it you can achieve anything. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Mr. Schescke. 

Mr. SCHESCKE. Agriculture education is one of the few career and 

technical education programs that allows students to really get involved and engaged as early as middle school and junior high. In 

fact, most of the current technical education programs remaining 

outside of agriculture are really only limited to students in their 

junior and senior year in high school. And the advantage is that 

it is much easier under current regulations to make sure those students have that experiential learning. In fact, I would say that a 

lot of those—the part of the whole career technical education model 

that they struggled with the most is providing students the relevant experiential learning, learning by doing. Often they are creating that within the classroom. 

But in our case, you know, the farm as it was alluded to by Mr. 

Tabb and others, is an opportunity to extend that learning environment out into the community and kids to get real life learning experience so they can actually save money. It helps them go on to 

college or do other things. It helps advance her career. And I think 

that is another part of this whole financial literacy piece. 

Back to your comment about one of the inherited advantages 

young people in the rural America have is that because they have 

the opportunity to work in those situations and earn money, they 

become probably more financially literate and responsible with 

their funds than do their counterparts who have never had that experience. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Mr. Tabb. 

Mr. TABB. Absolutely. You know, urban youth should be afforded 

the same opportunities that rural youth have. And since we do not 

have many urban farms, a little bit of container growing here and 

there. But growing upon a farm and working, I had five siblings. 

There were six of us kids. And one Sunday morning a lady came 

up to my dad and said, ‘‘Mr. Tabb,’’ said, ‘‘your children are so well 

behaved in church I would like my son to sit with you one Sunday.’’ 

And he said, ‘‘That is fine.’’ And he said, ‘‘I would like to have him 

by Friday but Saturday morning at the very latest.’’ 

We did not have time to get in trouble. We were taught that 

work ethic at a young age. In fact, if you want to do something 

mandatory, put a work ethics requirement in anybody that graduates from high school. I think you would find that would be a real 

good part to a well rounded education. But allowing young people, 

whether they are in the country or in an urban area, to actually 

be able to learn something, learn a trade, learn how to change oil 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

in a vehicle or how to properly measure something, even put it together. Because I have been a tremendous proponent of vocational 

education. A lot of kids who are at risk, cannot see a reason to stay 

in school, if they can see practical application they will stay in 

school. If they can learn how to read calipers to be an auto mechanic or to figure how many cubic yards of concrete it is going to 

take for that footer of foundation, it is amazing how you can keep 

these kids involved. But if you have got to make them wait until 

they are beyond that threshold to have the curiosity to want to 

learn, you are starting to lose a lot of them. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Mr. Ebert. 

Mr. EBERT. I think we need to back off on some of those regulations because I think kids today have so much opportunity to get 

involved in work-related activities and opportunities. Why do we 

want to stifle them? Let them start early. They are going to grow 

so much more and make America greater than what it is now by 

giving them that opportunity. 

Mr. KING. And just briefly in closing to support a statement, I 

just added up the times that we have been to the emergency room. 

We have had two knee surgeries and a broke femur and none of 

them had to do with any of the work that those young men did. 

It all had to do with sports or recreational. 

Thank you very much all of you witnesses. And I appreciate especially the statements made in conclusion here. And I yield back 

to the chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Congressman King. 

I appreciate the panel taking the time to be here. Mr. Ebert, I 

think you had a nice summation about the greatness of America. 

And we find it in the traditions of our agricultural community. And 

I certainly appreciate Ms. Chinn also, your notification. I think 

government maybe needs to hear that moms and dads, grandmas 

and grandpas, do not need government to tell them how to love 

their children and how to be able to protect them, that we see that 

caring here. 

So I would like to thank all the witnesses for taking time out of 

their busy schedules for appearing today. You have all provided us 

with some great insights on how decisions made in Washington are 

affecting small businesses across our country, most in particular 

our ag community. I would also like to remind the Department of 

Labor as they make these decisions that 98 percent of the domestic 

farms are defined as family farms and that 96.7 percent of these 

are defined as small businesses. Small businesses are the greatest 

job creator and are responsible for on average 7 out of every 10 

new jobs in our country. 

It is my hope today that the Department of Labor will consider 

all the comments made here today when deciding whether or not 

to move forward with the NPRM or certain provisions within that 

NPRM . I think we can all agree that the safety of our youth 

should be of foremost concern and the initial purpose behind the 

proposed rule may have well been well intentioned, I would like to 

reiterate that I believe that as the majority of American farmers 

do, that this rule all together should have never been proposed. 

The rule as offered would change longstanding and proven programs that provide training to young people who are interested in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

pursuing careers in agriculture. This is bad for agricultural small 

businesses and it is bad for the future of our nation’s farming 

needs. I would like to recommend to the DOL to reconsider that 

rule in its entirety. 

I ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days 

to be able to submit statements and supporting materials for the 

record. Without objection so ordered. And this hearing is now adjourned. Again, thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the Subcommittee hearing was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 76459A.001
45 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 76459A.002
46 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 76459A.003
47 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 76459A.004
48 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 76459A.005
49 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 76459A.006
50 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 76459A.007
51 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 76459A.008
52 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 76459A.009
53 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 76459A.010
54 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 76459A.011
55 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 76459A.012
56 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 76459A.013
57 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 76459A.014
58 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 76459A.015
59 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 76459A.016
60 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 76459A.017
61 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 76459A.018
62 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 76459A.019
63 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 76459A.020
64 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 76459A.021
65 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 76459A.022
66 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 76459A.023
67 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 76459A.024
68 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 76459A.025
69 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 76459A.026
70 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 76459A.027
71 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 76459A.028
72 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 76459A.029
73 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 76459A.030
74 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 76459A.031
75 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 76459A.032
76 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 76459A.033
77 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 76459A.034
78 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 76459A.035
79 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 76459A.036
80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 76459A.037
81 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 76459A.038
82 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 76459A.039
83 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 76459A.040
84 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 76459A.041
85 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 76459A.042
86 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 76459A.043
87 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 76459A.044
88 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 76459A.045
89 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 76459A.046
90 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 76459A.047
91 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 76459A.048
92 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 76459A.049
93 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 76459A.050
94 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 76459A.051
95 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 76459A.052
96 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 76459A.053
97 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 76459A.054
98 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 76459A.055
99 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 76459A.056
100 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 76459A.057
101 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 76459A.058
102 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 76459A.059
103 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 76459A.060
104 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 76459A.061
105 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 76459A.062
106 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 76459A.063
107 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 76459A.064
108 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 76459A.065
109 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 76459A.066
110 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 76459A.067
111 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 76459A.068
112 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 76459A.069
113 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 76459A.070
114 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 76459A.071
115 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 76459A.072
116 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 76459A.073
117 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 76459A.074
118 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 76459A.075
119 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 76459A.076
120 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 76459A.077
121 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 76459A.078
122 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 76459A.079
123 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 76459A.080
124 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 76459A.081
125 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 76459A.082
126 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 76459A.083
127 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 76459A.084
128 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 76459A.085
129 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 76459A.086
130 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 76459A.087
131 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 76459A.088
132 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 76459A.089
133 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 76459A.090
134 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 76459A.091
135 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 76459A.092
136 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 76459A.093
137 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 76459A.094
138 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 76459A.095
139 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 76459A.096
140 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 76459A.097
141 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 76459A.098
142 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 76459A.099
143 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 76459A.100
144 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 76459A.101
145 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 76459A.102
146 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 76459A.103
147 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 76459A.104
148 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 76459A.105
149 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 76459A.106
150 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 76459A.107
151 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 76459A.108
152 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 76459A.109
153 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 76459A.110
154 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 76459A.111
155 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 76459A.112
156 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 76459A.113
157 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 76459A.114