Date: 1985-04-18
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. some distinguished voices have recent-. ly said the Labor Departments refusal to issue a farmworker field sanitation standard was nothing short of outrageous. Noin truth what is outrageous is this matter being a subject of disputation at all. We are a nation priding itself on our inbred compassion and sense of dignity. Hygiene. I would have thought. is something which should not be bantered back and forth like any other socioeconomic question debated in a public tavern. Were not talking about interest rates on T bills. were talking about the kind of health problems that should not exist in a technologically advanced civilization. Dysentery. cholera. hepatitis. and the like are infections we associate with standards of living from our distant past. It would be only the most inhumane farm owner who would deliberately put his field workers at risk of contracting those avoidable infections. But what is the extent of such inhumanity? Are we truly a nation of Simon Legrees forcing tens of thousands of fruit and vegetable fieldworkers to routinely endure sickness. dehydration. and digestive disorders for the sake of a bucket of tomatoes? NoI do not think this is the case. But I am certain there still exists a sizable number of farmworkers who lack the sanitary means to ensure good health. It is those people we must address ourselves. The Labor Department tells us in its April 16. 1985. final determination by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that over 75 percent of all fieldworkers now labor in States where there are statutory and regulatory provisions on field sanitation. Is this a statistic which can be refuted? Would a Federal standard improve the conditions under which this 75 percent population toil? A Federal standard would extend an umbrella over the remaining 25 percent population who currently work in States where there is no sanitation standard. In those few States. are farmowners complying voluntarily to any degree? Can we assume with any justification that they are not? And what are we to make of OSHAs declaration that of the 13 States which presently enforce field sanitation standards. 10 of them have stricter rules than those which our own Congress instructed OSHA to promulgate? The other three States have standards that somewhat parallel the Federal OSHA proposal. Is OSHA deceiving us with numbers we cannot instantly verify? Mr. Speaker. it is my belief that a Federal standard would principally satisfy a problem that exists In farm labor States with no statutory requirements. The States which now have enforceable standards are California. Colorado. Connecticut. Florida. Idaho. Illinois. New Jersey. New York. North Carolina. Oregon. Pennsylvania. Texas. and Maine. for blueberry pickers only. The extent to which any of these 13 States have fully implemented their sanitation standards is not precisely known to mebut- all these States have regulations on their books. But other States where perishable commodities are prevalent need some protection. How are we to provide it if OSHA refuses to act? That is a question we cannot immediately answer. Farm labor groups will play a key role in convincing certain State legislatures to get on with the task of doing what their neighboring States have done. It must be done. I find it personally inconceivable that the States lacking any sanitation guidelines have made no progress toward that end. It seems to me the question here is not one of commitment to health. Absolutely everyone would agree to that. Even the groups representing agricultural employers did not argue to OSHA that farmworker health was not a desirable thing. Their principal argument was economicsand that is a pretty. standard argument. Its a weak one. too. Fresh water and a portable toilet dont cost much to provide. I reject these arguments about costO benefit ratios. They are inhumane in themselves. We are speaking of a question of basic morality and human decency. What we need to address at this sad juncture in our efforts is the need for a Federal presence. OSHA claims it does not have the enforcement personnel to service a Federal standard. I wont argue with thatOSHA has been RIFd like every other agency. Our several State departments of health and/or agriculture currently manage and oversee many Federal programs as well as indigenous State programs. Can those State agencies pick up the enforcement responsibility if a Federal standard were issued? It is a possibility. The OSHA belief that no Federal standard is needed because it cant be enforced is ludicrous. Now what do we do. If a Federal standard whose rough silhouette was drawn by Congress is issued. it would preempt better standards In 13 States. It would seem to me that we have a choice. Congress can begin the process all over again. issue new legislative instructions that match or exceed the existing rules in those 13 States. and let OSHA proceed with a new round of rulemaking. Our other choice is to support the efforts of existing groups to lobby in State capitols where there are no standards and apply some firm persuasion to get those States to do what is proper. It seems to me that instead of arguing over whether the Federal executive should take the lead or the States should take the leadwe should all be working toward our goal down the quickest avenue possible. Mr. Speaker. how long can we sit back and allow these indignities to be suffered by human beings?