Button Cell Battery Safety Act of 2011

Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce a piece of legislation that I have introduced many times in past Congresses. I have made some progress on the goals I seek but have not gotten 100 percent finality of the policies I want. I am always able to do this with a bipartisan piece of legislation.

Today, I present this with Senator Johnson of South Dakota. I will let Senator Johnson speak for himself, but I want to give the reasons I am introducing this bill in my remarks. First, I want people to know this deals with farm policy, and on farm policy the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, and I agree on most everything.

Mr. President, this is a piece of legislation that is probably going to come up not so much as a stand-alone, as when we discuss the reauthorization of the farm bill--which generally could start this year and probably go into next year--but as an effort that I am not going to give up on. It deals with the issue of how much one individual farmer should get from the farm program. My approach is to put what one might call a hard cap on the amount of money that one farmer can get, and my remarks will explain why.

Also, though, at a time when we have great budget deficits, people might think I am introducing this bill just because I am concerned about the budget deficit. It is true this bill, if enacted, will save about $1.5 billion, but that is not my main purpose for doing it. My main purpose is to have the historical basis for a safety net for farmers; to espouse the principle that our safety net ought to be targeted toward small- and medium-sized farmers. So today, Senator Johnson and I are introducing the Rural America Preservation Act.

America's farmers produce the food that feed our families. The bill helps ensure that our farmers are able to provide a safe, abundant, and inexpensive food supply for consumers around the world while maintaining the safety net that allows small- and medium-sized farmers to get through tough times.

Everybody sees tough times that are out of their control, but the importance of the farm safety net can be seen no further than the dinner table each of us sits around, as recently as last night. Stop to think what you would do if you were unable to feed your children for 3 days. There is an old adage that says something like this: You are only nine meals away from a revolution. Maybe in those circumstances, if you love your children--and maybe you wouldn't think this could happen to you because we have such an abundance of food in America, but we are all aware of the fact a lot of countries do have food riots when there is a shortage of food--you might do just about anything--steal, riot, whatever it takes--to give your children the food you want them to have to keep them alive after not having food for 3 straight days.

So the cohesion within our society, the social cohesion, that is one of the reasons it is vitally important we maintain a farm program that will make sure there is a readily available food supply.

Another reason I am not going to go into in these remarks is that food is very essential to the national security of our country--in other words, the defense of our country. All we have to do is rely upon an old adage Napoleon used to use: An army marches on its belly. More recently, however, we can look at the farm programs in Germany and Japan where they recall the mistakes made in their war effort during World War II--and, thank God, they didn't succeed--when they did not have enough food for their military people. So I also want to think in terms of a sure supply of food not only for social cohesion but also for national security purposes.

To ensure the family farmer remains able to produce a food supply for this cohesive and stable society that I have talked about, we need to get the farm safety net back to its original intent--to help small- and medium-sized farmers get over the ups and downs of farming that are out of their control. As an example, it could be a natural disaster, it could be grain embargoes such as those put on by the President of the United States, it could be the situation where President Nixon froze the price of beef and ruined the beef industry in the Midwest.

The original intent of the Federal farm program was not to help a farmer get bigger and bigger. But the safety net has veered sharply off course, and that is why I talk about the necessity for a hard cap on any one farmer getting help from the farm program. We are now seeing 10 percent of the largest farmers actually getting nearly 70 percent of the total farm program payments coming out of the Treasury of the United States.

There is no problem with a farmer growing larger in his operation. Let me make that clear. If you want to get bigger and bigger in America, that is an American right to do so. But the taxpayers should not have to subsidize that effort, and that is what is happening today. There comes a point where some farms reach levels that allow them to weather the tough financial times on their own. Smaller farmers do not have that same luxury, and these same small farmers play a pivotal role in producing the Nation's food.

I have been approached time and time again by farmers concerned about where the next generation of farmers will come from when the price of farmland is shooting up or the price of cash rent is shooting up, particularly when the Federal taxpayers are subsidizing that effort. It is important that we keep young people on the farm so they can take the lead in producing our food when the older generation of farmers is ready to turn over the reins. But the current policies that allow 10 percent of the largest farmers to receive nearly 70 percent of the total farm program payments creates a real barrier for beginning and small farmers.

The current system puts upward pressure on land prices, making it more difficult for small and beginning farmers to buy a farm or to afford the cash rent. This allows the big farmers to get even bigger, and this is not unique to my State of Iowa. I am sure it is not unique to the State of South Dakota, where my cosponsor friend, Senator Johnson, comes from. This upward pressure on land prices is occurring in many States. It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a single farmer can receive in the farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it the most, and it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments can have on land prices and cash rent.

Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for married couples. Now, people listening in the Senate, or people listening back home on television, probably think it is outrageous to have a figure that high and call it a hard cap. But this is something that is national policy and may not be applicable just to my State, so it is necessary to reach some sort of common ground in the Congress. I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, so this is a compromise.

Just as important as setting the payment limits is the tightening of the meaning of ``actively engaged.'' I will not go in depth as to what actively engaged is about at this point, but it generally means, if you are a farmer, you ought to be a farmer and not a city slicker from New York City benefiting from the farm program. This will help make sure that farm payments only go to those who deserve them.

In light of the current budget discussions, everyone should agree that we don't want money going to those who fail to meet the criteria set for the program. This bill will help do that.

I hope my colleagues will agree this bill takes a common sense approach to improve our farm safety net, and a help to make sure the dollars spent go to those who need it most.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of education bills S. 1177, S. 1178, and S. 1179, that reflect many of my legislative priorities in K-12 education policy and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and my Senate colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee continue negotiations on the reauthorization of ESEA, I feel that it is appropriate to introduce legislation that I have developed for inclusion in the reauthorized legislation. While the bills I have introduced today do not address all of the many changes that I feel are necessary to fix No Child Left Behind, they do emphasize areas of particular and longstanding concern to me and my constituents.

I strongly believe that there must be a continued federal role in education in the United States. I have great respect for State and local school officials, and as such I believe that they continue to require Federal support to improve student achievement and improve graduation rates. Given the severe education funding challenges in my home State of New Mexico and across the country, Congress has a particular obligation to retain its focus on student achievement, especially among low-income and disadvantaged youth.

Federal education policy should prioritize ending the nationwide high school dropout crisis; supporting the effective use of education technology, especially in high-poverty schools; ensuring that students benefit from high expectations, rigorous standards and curriculum; and extending the school day, week, and/or year to ensure that U.S. students do not continue to fall behind our global competitors.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.2 million students drop out of school without receiving a diploma, at an estimated annual cost to the country of over $300 billion. My home State of New Mexico has one of the lowest statewide graduation rates in the country. The Graduation Promise Act, which I am introducing today, authorizes a new Federal focus on helping underperforming high schools improve student achievement and increase graduation rates.

The Federal Government should support teachers using the most up-to- date technology to prepare students for success in college and 21st century careers. Today, I reintroduced the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Act of 2011. This bill would renew and strengthen the existing education technology program in ESEA. The ATTAIN Act recognizes that learning technologies are critical to preparing students for the 21st century workforce, ensuring high quality teaching, and improving the productivity of our Nation's educational system. The Act would provide Federal funds to states and local school districts to train teachers, purchase education technology hardware and software, and support innovative learning methods and student technological literacy.

All students, regardless of their income levels, should be able to benefit from high expectations, high academic standards, and college- level academic opportunities. The Advanced Programs Act of 2011 would renew the current ESEA program, which provides Federal funding to pay low-income students' AP exam fees and incentive grants to expand student access to AP courses and exams.

Finally, I wish to highlight my cosponsorship of the Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, which Chairman Harkin introduced on April 14th of this year. The TIME Act authorizes Federal funding to support expanded learning time, ELT, initiatives in public schools. American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations, which hinders our students' ability to succeed and compete. ELT programs typically provide extra time for academic student, enrichment activities, and teacher collaboration. Studies show that programs that significantly increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule can lead to gains in academic achievement, particularly for students who are furthest behind.

Taken together, these four bills present a coherent, consistent vision for the Federal role in education reform. We must turn around struggling high schools and improve our high school graduation rates. We must use the best technology available to provide solid instruction and develop the student technological literacy necessary for success in the digital age. We must provide all students with access to high standards and college-level academic opportunities. We must support schools adding the school time necessary to allow our students to keep pace with students in high-performing countries.

Now is not the time for the Federal Government to back away from its commitment to helping disadvantaged students succeed in school and in life. While the Elementary and Secondary Education Act needs to be reconsidered and substantially reworked, we must not roll back Federal policy and ignore the persistent achievement gaps that limit our national competitiveness and deny millions of our children access to the American dream.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about our obligation to protect workers across America and to urge my colleagues to support the Protecting America's Workers Act, which I am very proud to introduce today.

Mr. President, middle-class families across this country are struggling. So many of them have lost their homes or their jobs and are fighting to keep their heads above water. We are working hard here to create jobs and get the economy back on track, but we also owe it to middle-class families to make sure those jobs are safe and healthy.

In 2009 alone there were 4,340 deaths in workplaces across America, and over 3 million more were injured or sickened while on the job. If more than 4,000 Americans were killed in 1 day, it would be on the front page of every newspaper in this country. If an epidemic in this country claimed 4,000 lives, it would lead the nightly news each week. But that is not the way it works with workplace injuries. They happen a few at a time, spread out across the country, in communities such as Anacortes in my home State of Washington, where a fire broke out last year at the Tesoro Refinery and killed seven workers.

These were men and women who were taken too young, with so much life to live and with so many people to live it with; workers who took on tough jobs and worked long hours during difficult economic times to provide for their families. They were people who made tremendous sacrifices and who embodied so much of what is good about their communities and their States. They have been dearly missed.

Washington State investigators looked into that incident and determined that the tragedy could have been and should have been prevented. The problems that led to what happened were known beforehand. They should have been fixed, but they weren't. That is heartbreaking.

Every worker in every industry deserves to be confident that while they are working hard and doing their jobs, their employers are doing everything they can to protect them. That is why I am proud to reintroduce the Protecting America's Workers Act. This legislation is a long overdue update to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, or the OSH Act.

Since that groundbreaking law was passed over 40 years ago, we know American industry has changed significantly. Businesses and workplaces have become much more complex, and workers are performing 21st-century tasks, but the government is still using a 1970 approach to regulations to protect employees. It doesn't make sense, and it needs to change.

We need to update the way we as a country think about our worker safety regulations, and this law is a very important step in that direction. This is not about adding more regulations, it is about having smarter regulations. It is about having regulations that protect workers and make sense for business.

Mr. President, the Protecting America's Workers Act makes a number of key improvements to the OSH Act, but I want to highlight just a few.

First of all, it increases protections for workers who blow the whistle on unsafe working conditions. Protecting workers who tell the truth is just common sense. In fact, in other modern laws, such as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, they do exactly that. But since the OSH Act has not been updated, the vast majority of workers today don't have similar protections.

An important part of my bill would make sure a whistleblower's right to protection from retaliation cannot be waived through collective bargaining agreements, and they have the option to appeal to the Federal courts if they believe they are being mistreated for telling the truth about dangerous practices.

The Protecting America's Workers Act also improves reporting, inspection, and other enforcement of workplace health and safety violations. It expands the rights of the victims and makes sure employers who oversee unsafe workplaces are pushed to quickly improve them to avoid further endangering worker health and safety.

This is a good bill. I am proud to have a number of cosponsors in the Senate, as well as the support of many prominent national groups in our efforts to improve workplace safety.

Nothing can bring back the workers we lost in communities such as Anacortes, but we certainly owe it to them to make sure workers everywhere are truly protected on the job. So I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting America's Workers Act and to keep working with us to make workplaces safer and healthier across America.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleague and friend from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, in introducing the Rural America Preservation Act of 2011, which will provide for common- sense, meaningful farm program payment limitations. Particularly given our country's budgetary constraints, this is a straight-forward and fiscally responsible proposal that would target our farm program payments and safety net.

The current farm program payment structure has, quite frankly, failed rural America. According to the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, in 2008, the largest 12.4 percent of farms received 62.4 percent of farm program payments. The current rules permit the most capitalized farming corporations to receive massive subsidies and deprive small and medium-sized family farmers of the opportunity to thrive. The farm bill is intended to provide programs that function as a safety net for farmers, in contrast to the cash cow they've become for a few producers. It is important that we maintain a safety net for producers, but such a system must be targeted to family farmers instead of large agribusinesses.

The 2008 farm bill took some important first steps in strengthening the integrity of our farm programs. Under the law, anyone making more than $500,000 in non-farm Adjusted Gross Income will not receive farm payments and producers making over $750,000 AGI will lose their direct payments. Additionally, the law eliminates the triple-entity loophole and farm payments now go directly to an individual, rather than a corporation or general partnership, through direct attribution. I support direct attribution and elimination of the triple-entity loophole; however, I believe these provisions should have been much stronger and I have consistently pressed for a hard payment cap of at least $250,000. The bill we introduced today would finally provide for meaningful payment limitations and ensure that assistance goes to small and medium-sized family farms.

Our legislation includes several specific limits. Direct payments would be capped at $20,000 per producer and counter-cyclical payments would be limited to $30,000. Additionally, the bill would establish a cap of $75,000 on loan deficiency payments, LDPs, and marketing loan gains. There is currently no cap on LDPs and marketing loan gains, essentially meaning there is no effective payment limitation.

Just as important as establishing a hard payment limitations cap is how we define whether an individual is actively engaged in the operation of a farm. Current law lacks a defined active management test, and therefore someone could participate in no more than a yearly conference call and be eligible to receive payments. Our bill closes the management loophole which has allowed ``paper partners'' to collect payments without contributing any real or meaningful role in the operation. This proposal will improve the management standards determining payment eligibility by requiring that management be provided on a regular, substantial, and continuous basis through direct supervision and direction of the operations of the farm. These are reasonable and common-sense requirements which seek to further ensure the integrity of the farm safety net.

Agriculture is the economic engine that drives our rural communities, and without viable family farmers, our small towns and Main Street businesses throughout South Dakota would face significant financial hardships. I am proud to join with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who has also been a longtime champion of family farmers, in introducing this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill will prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption, a practice that the majority of Americans oppose and of which many are unaware. The last American horse slaughterhouses were closed in 2007, and there is virtually no demand for horse meat for human consumption in the United States. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of American horses are still being inhumanely transported to foreign processing plants, where they are brutally slaughtered.

Horses are domestic animals that have served men and women as loyal, hard working companions for thousands of years; and today, they are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport. Horses differ from other livestock animals in that we do not raise them for the purpose of slaughter. We raise and train them to trust us, perform for us, and allow us on their backs. As such, they are entitled to a sense of human compassion, of which the practice of horse slaughter is void.

Throughout the development of this country, human consumption of horse meat has not been a widely accepted activity. This is undoubtedly due to the unique relationship enjoyed between mankind and horses for thousands of years. Horses were there in our work, on our farms, for transportation and communication in the taming of a vast American Frontier, and on every battlefield prior to World War II. They have proven their loyalty and nobility, and without them, the development of our country might not have been possible and at the least, would have been significantly more difficult. In modern time, horses provide joy and entertainment. Through racing, jumping, recreation, and even therapy to the disabled, horses touch the lives of many Americans. Clearly, they hold a special place in our culture, and it is for these reasons, that so many people are strongly opposed to horse slaughter in America.

Unfortunately, horse owners do have to face the realities of infirmity, age, or other reasons that may necessitate putting down their animal. However, this calls for humane euthanasia, and slaughter is simply not an appropriate alternative. The average cost for humane euthanasia and disposal is about the same as the cost of one month's care, so it is not unreasonable to expect horse owners to accept responsibility and incur this minor expense.

Additionally, because we do not raise horses with the intent to slaughter for human consumption, they are frequently treated with drugs not approved for use in animals raised for human consumption. These drugs can be toxic when ingested by humans. We have no system in the United States to track which medications a horse has received throughout its lifetime, and as such, American horse meat poses a food safety and export risk.

It is for all of these reasons that I am committed to ensuring that this bill is brought to the attention of all of our colleagues here in the Senate. I look forward to working with the senior Senator from South Carolina and others to address this important issue and pass a commonsense bill that reflects the desires of many of our constituents, who support the humane treatment of our horses and the prohibition of their slaughter for humane consumption.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.