[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 83 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3686-S3694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota):
S. 1161. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore
integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity
payments and benefits; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S3687]]
S. 1161
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Rural America Preservation
Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.
Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) Legal entity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `legal entity' means--
``(i) an organization that (subject to the requirements of
this section and section 1001A) is eligible to receive a
payment under a provision of law referred to in subsection
(b), (c), or (d);
``(ii) a corporation, joint stock company, association,
limited partnership, limited liability company, limited
liability partnership, charitable organization, estate,
irrevocable trust, grantor of a revocable trust, or other
similar entity (as determined by the Secretary); and
``(iii) an organization that is participating in a farming
operation as a partner in a general partnership or as a
participant in a joint venture.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `legal entity' does not include
a general partnership or joint venture.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), by striking ``(except
a joint venture or a general partnership)'' each place it
appears;
(B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``$40,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000''; and
(C) in paragraphs (2) and (3)(A), by striking ``$65,000''
each place it appears and inserting ``$30,000'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), by striking ``(except
a joint venture or a general partnership)'' each place it
appears;
(B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``$40,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000''; and
(C) in paragraphs (2) and (3)(A), by striking ``$65,000''
each place it appears and inserting ``$30,000'';
(4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency
Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--The total
amount of the following gains and payments that a person or
legal entity may receive during any crop year may not exceed
$75,000:
``(1)(A) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a
marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities and
peanuts under subtitle B or C of title I of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8731 et seq.)
at a lower level than the original loan rate established for
the loan commodity under those subtitles.
``(B) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance
loan for 1 or more loan commodities and peanuts under those
subtitles by forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount
exceeds the repayment amount for the loan if the loan had
been settled by repayment instead of forfeiture.
``(2) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more
loan commodities and peanuts under those subtitles.
``(3) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity
certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1
or more loan commodities and peanuts, as determined by the
Secretary, including the use of a certificate for the
settlement of a marketing assistance loan made under those
subtitles or section 1307 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 7957).'';
(5) by redesignating subsections (e) through (h) as
subsections (f) through (i), respectively;
(6) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Spousal Equity.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) through
(d), except as provided in paragraph (2), if a person and the
spouse of the person are covered by paragraph (2) and
receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or gain covered
by this section, the total amount of payments or gains (as
applicable) covered by this section that the person and
spouse may jointly receive during any crop year may not
exceed an amount equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts
specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d).
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Separate farming operations.--In the case of a
married couple in which each spouse, before the marriage, was
separately engaged in an unrelated farming operation, each
spouse shall be treated as a separate person with respect to
a farming operation brought into the marriage by a spouse,
subject to the condition that the farming operation shall
remain a separate farming operation, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(B) Election to receive separate payments.--A married
couple may elect to receive payments separately in the name
of each spouse if the total amount of payments and benefits
described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) that the married
couple receives, directly or indirectly, does not exceed an
amount equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts specified
in those subsections.'';
(7) in paragraph (3)(B) of subsection (g) (as redesignated
by paragraph (5)), by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Irrevocable trusts.--In promulgating regulations to
define the term `legal entity' as the term applies to
irrevocable trusts, the Secretary shall ensure that
irrevocable trusts are legitimate entities that have not been
created for the purpose of avoiding a payment limitation.'';
and
(8) in subsection (i) (as redesignated by paragraph (5)),
in the second sentence, by striking ``or other entity'' and
inserting ``or legal entity''.
SEC. 3. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE; PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE
FARMERS.
The Food Security Act of 1985 is amended by striking
section 1001A (7 U.S.C. 1308-1) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 1001A. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE; PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE
FARMERS.
``(a) Substantive Change.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of the application of
limitations under this section, the Secretary shall not
approve any change in a farming operation that otherwise
would increase the number of persons or legal entities to
which the limitations under this section apply, unless the
Secretary determines that the change is bona fide and
substantive.
``(2) Family members.--For the purpose of paragraph (1),
the addition of a family member to a farming operation under
the criteria established under subsection (b)(3)(B) shall be
considered to be a bona fide and substantive change in the
farming operation.
``(3) Primary control.--To prevent a farm from reorganizing
in a manner that is inconsistent with the purposes of this
Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to simultaneously
attribute payments for a farming operation to more than 1
person or legal entity, including the person or legal entity
that exercises primary control over the farming operation,
including to respond to--
``(A)(i) any instance in which ownership of a farming
operation is transferred to a person or legal entity under an
arrangement that provides for the sale or exchange of any
asset or ownership interest in 1 or more legal entities at
less than fair market value; and
``(ii) the transferor is provided preferential rights to
repurchase the asset or interest at less than fair market
value; or
``(B) a sale or exchange of any asset or ownership interest
in 1 or more legal entities under an arrangement under which
rights to exercise control over the asset or interest are
retained, directly or indirectly, by the transferor.
``(b) Payments Limited to Active Farmers.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive, directly or
indirectly, payments or benefits described as being subject
to limitation in subsection (b) through (d) of section 1001
with respect to a particular farming operation, a person or
legal entity shall be actively engaged in farming with
respect to the farming operation, in accordance with
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4).
``(2) General classes actively engaged in farming.--
``(A) Definition of active personal management.--In this
paragraph, the term `active personal management' means, with
respect to a person, administrative duties carried out by the
person for a farming operation--
``(i) that are personally provided by the person on a
regular, continuous, and substantial basis; and
``(ii) relating to the supervision and direction of--
``(I) activities and labor involved in the farming
operation; and
``(II) onsite services directly related and necessary to
the farming operation.
``(B) Active engagement.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3), for purposes of paragraph (1), the following shall
apply:
``(i) A person shall be considered to be actively engaged
in farming with respect to a farming operation if--
``(I) the person makes a significant contribution, as
determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value
of the farming operation), to the farming operation of--
``(aa) capital, equipment, or land; and
``(bb) personal labor and active personal management;
``(II) the share of the person of the profits or losses
from the farming operation is commensurate with the
contributions of the person to the operation; and
``(III) a contribution of the person is at risk.
``(ii) A legal entity shall be considered to be actively
engaged in farming with respect to a farming operation if--
``(I) the legal entity makes a significant contribution, as
determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value
of the farming operation), to the farming operation of
capital, equipment, or land;
``(II)(aa) the stockholders or members that collectively
own at least 51 percent of the combined beneficial interest
in the legal entity each make a significant contribution of
personal labor and active personal management to the
operation; or
``(bb) in the case of a legal entity in which all of the
beneficial interests are held by family members, any
stockholder or member (or household comprised of a
stockholder or member and the spouse of the stockholder or
member) who owns at least 10 percent of the beneficial
interest in the legal entity makes a significant contribution
of personal labor or active personal management; and
``(III) the legal entity meets the requirements of
subclauses (II) and (III) of clause (i).
``(C) Legal entities making significant contributions.--If
a general partnership,
[[Page S3688]]
joint venture, or similar entity (as determined by the
Secretary) separately makes a significant contribution (based
on the total value of the farming operation involved) of
capital, equipment, or land, the partners or members making a
significant contribution of personal labor or active personal
management and meeting the standards provided in subclauses
(II) and (III) of subparagraph (B)(i) shall be considered to
be actively engaged in farming with respect to the farming
operation involved.
``(D) Equipment and personal labor.--In making
determinations under this subsection regarding equipment and
personal labor, the Secretary shall take into consideration
the equipment and personal labor normally and customarily
provided by farm operators in the area involved to produce
program crops.
``(E) Significant contribution of personal labor or active
personal management.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of
subparagraph (B), a person shall be considered to be
providing, on behalf of the person or a legal entity, a
significant contribution of personal labor and active
personal management, if the total contribution of personal
labor and active personal management is at least equal to the
lesser of--
``(I) 1,000 hours; and
``(II) a period of time equal to--
``(aa) 50 percent of the commensurate share of the total
number of hours of personal labor and active personal
management required to conduct the farming operation; or
``(bb) in the case of a stockholder or member (or household
comprised of a stockholder or member and the spouse of the
stockholder or member) that owns at least 10 percent of the
beneficial interest in a legal entity in which all of the
beneficial interests are held by family members who do not
collectively receive payments directly or indirectly,
including payments received by spouses, of more than twice
the applicable limit, 50 percent of the commensurate share of
hours of the personal labor and active personal management of
all family members required to conduct the farming operation.
``(ii) Minimum labor hours.--For the purpose of clause (i),
the minimum number of labor hours required to produce a
commodity shall be equal to the number of hours that would be
necessary to conduct a farming operation for the production
of each commodity that is comparable in size to the
commensurate share of a person or legal entity in the farming
operation for the production of the commodity, based on the
minimum number of hours per acre required to produce the
commodity in the State in which the farming operation is
located, as determined by the Secretary.
``(3) Special classes actively engaged in farming.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the following persons shall be
considered to be actively engaged in farming with respect to
a farm operation:
``(A) Landowners.--A person or legal entity that is a
landowner contributing owned land, and that meets the
requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i), if, as determined by the Secretary--
``(i) the landowner share-rents the land at a rate that is
usual and customary; and
``(ii) the share received by the landowner is commensurate
with the share of the crop or income received as rent.
``(B) Family members.--With respect to a farming operation
conducted by persons who are family members, or a legal
entity the majority of the stockholders or members of which
are family members, an adult family member who makes a
significant contribution (based on the total value of the
farming operation) of active personal management or personal
labor and, with respect to such contribution, who meets the
requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i).
``(C) Sharecroppers.--A sharecropper who makes a
significant contribution of personal labor to the farming
operation and, with respect to such contribution, who meets
the requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i), and who was receiving payments from the landowner
as a sharecropper prior to the effective date of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122
Stat. 1651).
``(4) Persons and legal entities not actively engaged in
farming.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), except as
provided in paragraph (3), the following persons and legal
entities shall not be considered to be actively engaged in
farming with respect to a farm operation:
``(A) Landlords.--A landlord contributing land to the
farming operation if the landlord receives cash rent, or a
crop share guaranteed as to the amount of the commodity to be
paid in rent, for such use of the land.
``(B) Other persons and legal entities.--Any other person
or legal entity, or class of persons or legal entities, that
fails to meet the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3), as
determined by the Secretary.
``(5) Personal labor and active personal management.--No
stockholder or member may provide personal labor or active
personal management to meet the requirements of this
subsection for persons or legal entities that collectively
receive, directly or indirectly, an amount equal to more than
twice the applicable limits under subsections (b), (c), and
(d) of section 1001.
``(6) Custom farming services.--A person or legal entity
receiving custom farming services will be considered
separately eligible for payment limitation purposes if the
person or legal entity is actively engaged in farming based
on paragraphs (1) through (3).
``(7) Growers of hybrid seed.--To determine whether a
person or legal entity growing hybrid seed under contract
shall be considered to be actively engaged in farming, the
Secretary shall not take into consideration the existence of
a hybrid seed contract.
``(c) Notification by Legal Entities.--To facilitate the
administration of this section, each legal entity that
receives payments or benefits described as being subject to
limitation in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 1001
with respect to a particular farming operation shall--
``(1) notify each person or other legal entity that
acquires or holds a beneficial interest in the farming
operation of the requirements and limitations under this
section; and
``(2) provide to the Secretary, at such times and in such
manner as the Secretary may require, the name and social
security number of each person, or the name and taxpayer
identification number of each legal entity, that holds or
acquires such a beneficial interest.''.
SEC. 4. FOREIGN PERSONS AND LEGAL ENTITIES MADE INELIGIBLE
FOR PROGRAM BENEFITS.
Section 1001C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308-3) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``PERSONS'' and
inserting ``PERSONS AND LEGAL ENTITIES'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Corporation or
Other'' and inserting ``Legal'';
(B) in the first sentence, by striking ``a corporation or
other entity shall be considered a person that'' and
inserting ``a legal entity''; and
(C) in the second sentence, by striking ``an entity'' and
inserting ``a legal entity''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``person'' and inserting
``legal entity or person''.
SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement
this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall be made without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 6. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1165. A bill to protect children and other consumers against
hazards associated with the accidental ingestion of button cell
batteries by requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
promulgate consumer product safety standards to require child-resistant
closures on remote controls and other consumer products that use such
batteries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ROCKEFFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Button Cell
Battery Safety Act of 2011. This bill will protect the most vulnerable
members of our society from the hazards of button cell battery
ingestion. These small batteries, which are present in more and more
consumer products each year, can be deadly if swallowed. While most
swallowed batteries pass harmlessly through the body, a toddler who
puts one in her mouth can be severely injured in just two hours and the
damage can be fatal after only eight hours.
Button cell batteries are small, round, and are approximately the
size and shape of common coins. Just the sort of thing a curious child
might put in his mouth. When ingested, these batteries can become
lodged in the throat or elsewhere in the digestive system and cause
permanent damage to the tissues.
Between 2007 and 2009, more than 3,400 button battery ingestion cases
were reported to U.S. poison centers annually. The number of ingestions
that result in serious injury or death
[[Page S3689]]
have increased sevenfold since 1985 due to the higher voltage of newer
batteries. Hundreds of children have been severely injured and six have
died from these ingestions in the last two years alone.
Despite the severe risk, most parents and caregivers remain unaware
of the danger.
Imagine not realizing a child has swallowed one of these batteries.
It gets lodged in the esophagus, begins to cause severe burns, and
stays there for days with parents and doctors not realizing something
is terribly wrong. It may seem like a respiratory infection, or a
stomach virus. But it is not. It is the chemical reaction of a button
cell battery, lodged in the esophagus. Even if the battery is removed
within several hours, the damage is done. The child can end up in the
intensive care unit for weeks, following hours of surgery. There can be
permanent damage to the vocal cords, or to the gastrointestinal tract,
meaning the child would require feeding tubes, home nursing care, and
multiple surgeries. As severe and painstaking as this is for the child
and for the parents, the child is fortunately given a second chance at
life.
For a small number of the 3,400 cases of button cell battery
ingestion reported to poison control centers every year, the damage
from the battery proves to be fatal. Aidan Truett of Hamilton, Ohio,
had a battery surgically removed after nine days of severe symptoms and
doctor visits. The doctors found the battery when they ordered an X-
ray, looking for pneumonia. Two days after his surgery, Aidan died from
his injuries. He was 13 months old.
Two year old Elaina Redding, from Fort Lupton, CO died after the
current from a swallowed battery set off a chemical reaction that
eroded her esophagus and aorta. Four days after clutching her chest in
pain, she was taken to the hospital and the battery was removed. Two
weeks after being sent home, Elaina suffered a bloody coughing fit that
sent her back to the intensive care unit where she bled to death.
These stories are horrifying and compel us to act. Small batteries
which are in multiple products in our houses--in remote controls, toys,
and musical greeting cards--are highly dangerous in the hands of
toddlers who may swallow them. We have the ability to protect children
and we must do so.
We need to make sure that these batteries are securely enclosed in
products and cannot be removed by curious children. And we must also
make sure that parents and caretakers are aware of the danger. No
parent should leave batteries lying around the house after removing
them from a product, or hand them to a small child.
This legislation would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission
to promulgate a safety standard requiring child-resistant closures on
consumer products that use these types of batteries. We already have
Federal safety rules that require toys that use batteries to have such
compartments; now it is time to make sure all products that utilize
these particular batteries are secured in a manner that will reduce
children's access to these potentially harmful batteries.
In addition, the legislation will require warning labels that alert
adults of the danger of these batteries. Such labels will be required
on the packaging for replacement batteries, in the user manual of
products that use these batteries, and where appropriate, on the
product itself. Too many injuries occur because batteries are left out
and accessible after they have been replaced.
Today, I ask my colleagues to support this simple and straightforward
bill that will save lives and prevent unnecessary injuries.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Brown
of Ohio, Mr. Franken, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 1166. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 to expand coverage under the Act, to increase protections for
whistleblowers, to increase penalties for high gravity violations, to
adjust penalties for inflation, to provide rights for victims of family
members, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. MURRAY. 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.
[[Page S3690]]
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.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1167. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the
diagnosis and treatment of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. 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.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1173. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
modernize payments for ambulatory surgical centers under the Medicare
program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, once again, to advocate for
patients and their access to more choice and competition in providing
good quality health care by introducing The Ambulatory Surgical Center
Quality and Access Act of 2011 with my colleague, Senator Crapo.
Advocates for health care reform and a healthier nation continue to
emphasize the importance of keeping patients ``out of the hospital.''
ASCs can help do that by providing cost-effective services in an
outpatient setting.
There are more than 5,200 Medicare-certified ASCs across all 50
States, with 83 in Oregon alone. These facilities, that employ the
equivalent of 117,700 full-time workers nationwide, ensure that
patients from Portland to Hermiston, from Klamath Falls to Coos Bay,
have access to safe, effective, and quality surgical care.
But ASCs can do more than provide the same services found in a
Hospital Outpatient Department; they can do it at lower cost. Medicare
saves an estimated $3 billion each year when surgical procedures are
performed in ASCs rather than hospitals due to ASC reimbursement
equaling 56 percent of what a hospital receives.
Currently, Medicare uses two different factors to update
reimbursement: one for ASCs and a different one for hospitals. ASC
payments are updated based on the consumer price index, while hospital
rates are updated using the hospital market basket, which specifically
measures changes in the costs of providing health care. Both facilities
can provide identical surgical procedures, so why aren't their
respective reimbursements linked to the same update mechanism? Why
should there be a double standard?
This inequity could have significant consequences for both patients'
access to services and Medicare's rate of outpatient expenditures if
facilities begin consolidating or hospitals begin acquiring these
practices in an attempt to reimburse for the same services at a higher
rate--and cost to the taxpayer.
The legislation Senator Crapo and I have introduced today, however,
begins to address this in two ways: First, this bill creates parity by
allowing ASC payment rates to be updated using the same market basket
update hospitals use; and second, the bill goes a step further by
establishing a Value-Based Purchasing program which will dispense
shared savings payments based on quality reporting and improved
performance.
The Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality and Access Act puts
commonsense policies in place that will enhance patients' access to
quality care in a cost-effective way. I urge my colleagues to join us
in cosponsoring this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1173
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ambulatory Surgical Center
Quality and Access Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. ALIGNING UPDATES FOR AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER
SERVICES WITH UPDATES FOR OPD SERVICES.
Section 1833(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
13951(i)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii);
(2) in the first sentence of clause (v), by inserting
before the period the following: ``and, in the case of 2012
or a subsequent year, by the adjustment described in
subsection (t)(3)(G) for the respective year''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause:
[[Page S3691]]
``(vi) In implementing the system described in clause (i)
for 2012 and each subsequent year, there shall be an annual
update under such system for the year equal to the OPD fee
schedule increase factor specified under subsection
(t)(3)(C)(iv) for such year, adjusted in accordance with
clauses (iv) and (v).''.
SEC. 3. IMPROVING ASC QUALITY MEASURE REPORTING AND APPLYING
VALUE-BASED PURCHASING TO ASCS.
(a) Quality Measures.--Paragraph (7) of section 1833(i) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(i)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(beginning with
2014)'' after ``with respect to a year''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``Data required to
be submitted on measures selected under this paragraph must
be on measures that have been selected by the Secretary after
consideration of public comments and in accordance with the
process described in subparagraph (B). Such measures may
include healthcare acquired infection measures appropriate
for ambulatory surgery centers, prophylactic IV antibiotic
timing, and patient falls. Ambulatory surgical centers
determined by the Secretary to furnish a minimal number of
items and services under this title with respect to a year
shall not be subject to a reduction under this subparagraph
for such year.'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``Except as the Secretary may otherwise
provide, the'' and inserting ``Except as provided in the
subsequent sentence, the''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``In carrying out
the previous sentence, the Secretary shall--
``(i) ensure that measures meet the definition and process
for identifying quality measures under subsections (a) and
(b) of section 931 of the Public Health Service Act;
``(ii) ensure that measures are developed, selected, and
modified in accordance with the development, selection, and
modification processes for measures established under section
1890A and in accordance with section 1890;
``(iii) ensure that measures are selected, and a data
submission process is implemented, under this paragraph in a
manner that ensures ambulatory surgical centers are able to
voluntarily submit data under this paragraph not later than
January 1, 2013;
``(iv) make available an infrastructure which will allow
ambulatory surgery centers to submit data on such measures
through electronic and other means;
``(v) ensure that the form and manner of submissions under
this paragraph by ambulatory surgical centers shall include
the option of submitting data with claims for payment under
this part;
``(vi) ensure that a mechanism is developed to allow an
ambulatory surgical center to attest that the center did not
furnish services applicable to selected measures for use
under the Program established under paragraph (8); and
``(vii) establish and have in place, by not later than June
30, 2013, an informal process for ambulatory surgery centers
to seek a review of and appeal the determination that an
ambulatory surgical center did not satisfactorily submit data
on quality measures.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) To the extent that quality measures implemented by
the Secretary under this paragraph for ambulatory surgical
centers and under section 1833(t)(17) for hospital outpatient
departments are applicable to the provision of surgical
services in both ambulatory surgical centers and hospital
outpatient departments, the Secretary shall--
``(i) require that both ambulatory surgical centers and
hospital outpatient departments report data on such measures;
and
``(ii) make reported data available on the website
`Medicare.gov' in a manner that will permit side-by-side
comparisons on such measures for ambulatory surgical centers
and hospital outpatient departments in the same geographic
area.
``(D) For each procedure covered for payment in an
ambulatory surgical center, the Secretary shall publish,
along with the quality reporting comparisons provided for in
subparagraph (C), comparisons of the Medicare payment and
beneficiary copayment amounts for the procedure when
performed in ambulatory surgical centers and hospital
outpatient departments in the same geographic area.
``(E) The Secretary shall ensure that an ambulatory surgery
center and a hospital has the opportunity to review, and
submit any corrections for, the data to be made public with
respect to the ambulatory surgery center under subparagraph
(C)(ii) prior to such data being made public.''.
(b) Ambulatory Surgical Center Value-Based Purchasing
Program.--Section 1833(i) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) Value-based purchasing program.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
ambulatory surgical center value-based purchasing program (in
this subsection referred to as the `Program') under which,
subject to subparagraph (I), each ambulatory surgical center
that the Secretary determines meets (or exceeds) the
performance standards under subparagraph (D) for the
performance period (as established under subparagraph (E))
for a calendar year is eligible, from the amounts made
available in the total shared savings pool under subparagraph
(I)(iv), for shared savings under subparagraph (I), which
shall be in the form, after application of the adjustments
under clauses (iv), (v), and (vi) of paragraph (2)(D), of an
increase in the amount of payment determined under the
payment system under paragraph (2)(D) for surgical services
furnished by such center during the subsequent year, by the
value-based percentage amount under subparagraph (H)
specified by the Secretary for such center and year.
``(B) Program start date.--The Program shall apply to
payments for procedures occurring on or after January 1,
2015.
``(C) Measures.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of the Program, the
Secretary shall select measures from the measures specified
under paragraph (7).
``(ii) Availability of measure and data.--The Secretary may
not select a measure under this paragraph for use under the
Program with respect to a performance period for a calendar
year unless such measure has been included, and the reported
data available, on the website `Medicare.gov', for at least 1
year prior to the beginning of such performance period.
``(iii) Measure not applicable unless asc furnishes
services appropriate to measure.--A measure selected under
this paragraph for use under the Program shall not apply to
an ambulatory surgical center if such center does not furnish
services appropriate to such measure.
``(D) Performance standards.--
``(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
performance standards with respect to measures selected under
subparagraph (C)(i) for a performance period for a calendar
year.
``(ii) Achievement and improvement.--The performance
standards established under clause (i) shall include levels
of achievement and improvement.
``(iii) Timing.--The Secretary shall establish and announce
the performance standards under clause (i) not later than 60
days prior to the beginning of the performance period for the
calendar year involved.
``(E) Performance period.--For purposes of the Program, the
Secretary shall establish the performance period for a
calendar year. Such performance period shall begin and end
prior to the beginning of such calendar year.
``(F) ASC performance score.--The Secretary shall develop a
methodology for assessing the total performance of each
ambulatory surgery center based on performance standards with
respect to the measures selected under subparagraph (C) for a
performance period (as established under subparagraph (E)).
Using such methodology, the Secretary shall provide for an
assessment (in this subsection referred to as the `ASC
performance score') for each ambulatory surgical center for
each performance period. The methodology shall provide that
the ASC performance score is determined using the higher of
its achievement or improvement score for each measure.
``(G) Appeals.--The Secretary shall establish a process by
which ambulatory surgery centers may appeal the calculation
of the ambulatory surgery center's performance with respect
to the performance standards established under subparagraph
(D) and the ambulatory surgery center performance score under
subparagraph (E). The Secretary shall ensure that such
process provides for resolution of appeals in a timely
manner.
``(H) Calculation of value-based incentive payment.--
``(i) Value-based percentage amount.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall specify a value-based
percentage amount for an ambulatory surgical center for a
calendar year.
``(ii) Requirements.--In specifying the value-based
percentage amount for each ambulatory surgical center for a
calendar year under clause (i), the Secretary shall ensure
that such percentage is based on--
``(I) the ASC performance score of the ambulatory surgery
center under subparagraph (F); and
``(II) the amount of the total savings pool made available
under subparagraph (I)(iii)(I) for such year.
``(I) Annual calculation of shared savings funding for
value-based incentive payments.--
``(i) Determining bonus pool.--In each year of the Program,
ambulatory surgery centers shall be eligible to receive
payment for shared savings under the Program only if for such
year the sum of--
``(I) the estimated amount of expenditures under this title
for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (as defined in
section 1899(h)(3)) for surgical services for which payment
is made under the payment system under paragraph (2),
adjusted for beneficiary characteristics, and
``(II) the estimated amount of expenditures under this
title for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (as so
defined) for the same surgical services for which payment is
made under the prospective payment system under subsection
(t), adjusted for beneficiary characteristics,
is at least the percent specified by the Secretary below the
applicable benchmark determined for such year under clause
(ii). For purposes of this subparagraph, such sum shall be
referred to as `estimated expenditures'. The Secretary shall
determine the appropriate percent described in the preceding
sentence to account for normal variation in volume of
services under this title and to account for changes in the
coverage of services
[[Page S3692]]
in ambulatory surgery centers and hospital outpatient
departments during the performance period involved.
``(ii) Establish and update benchmark.--For purposes of
clause (i), the Secretary shall calculate a benchmark for
each year described in such clause equal to the product of--
``(I) estimated expenditures described in clause (i) for
such year, and
``(II) the average annual growth in estimated expenditures
for the most recent three years.
Such benchmark shall be reset at the start of each calendar
year, and adjusted for changes in enrollment under the
Medicare fee-for-service program.
``(iii) Payments based on shared savings.--If the
requirement under clause (i) is met for a year--
``(I) 50 percent of the total savings pool estimated under
clause (iv) for such year shall be made available for shared
savings to be paid to ambulatory surgical centers under this
paragraph;
``(II) a percent (as determined appropriate by the
Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph (H)) of such
amount made available for such year shall be paid as shared
savings to each ambulatory surgery center that is determined
under the Program to have met or exceeded performance scores
for such year; and
``(III) all funds made available under subclause (I) for
such year shall be used and paid as sharing savings for such
year in accordance with subclause (II).
``(iv) Estimate of the total savings pool.--For purposes of
clause (iii), the Secretary shall estimate for each year of
the Program the total savings pool as the product of--
``(I) the conversion factor for such year determined by the
Secretary under the payment system under paragraph (2)(D)
divided by the conversion factor calculated under subsection
(t)(3)(C) for such year for covered OPD services, multiplied
by 100, and
``(II)(aa) the product of the estimated Medicare
expenditures for surgical services described in clause (i)(I)
furnished during such year to Medicare fee-for-service
beneficiaries (as defined in section 1899(h)(3)) for which
payment is made under subsection (t) and the average annual
growth in the estimated Medicare expenditures for such
services furnished to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries
(as so defined) for which payment is made under subsection
(t) in the most recent available 3 years, less
``(bb) the estimated Medicare expenditures for surgical
services described in clause (i)(I) furnished to Medicare
fee-for-service beneficiaries for which payment was made
under subsection (t) in the most recent year.
``(J) No effect in subsequent calendar years.--The value-
based percentage amount under subparagraph (H) and the
percent determined under subparagraph (I)(iii)(I) shall apply
only with respect to the calendar year involved, and the
Secretary shall not take into account such amount or
percentage in making payments to an ambulatory surgery center
under this section in a subsequent calendar year.''.
SEC. 4. APC PANEL REPRESENTATION.
(a) ASC Representative.--The second sentence of section
1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(9)(A)) is amended by inserting ``and suppliers
subject to the prospective payment system (including at least
one ambulatory surgical center representative)'' after ``an
appropriate selection of representatives of providers''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. ENSURING ACCESS TO SAME DAY SERVICES.
The conditions for coverage of ambulatory surgical center
services specified by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services pursuant to section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(F)(i)) shall not prohibit
ambulatory surgical centers from providing individuals with
any notice of rights or other required notice on the date of
a procedure if more advance notice is not feasible under the
circumstances, including when a procedure is scheduled and
performed on the same day.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Begich,
Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Carper, Ms. Collins, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1176. A bill to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the
shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing,
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be
slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1176
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``American Horse Slaughter
Prevention Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING,
DELIVERING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, PURCHASING,
SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER
EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
(a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Horse Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 1821) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (6), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(1) The term `human consumption' means ingestion by
people as a source of food.''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(4) The term `slaughter' means the killing of 1 or more
horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the
flesh for human consumption.''.
(b) Findings.--Section 3 of the Horse Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 1822) is amended--
[[Page S3693]]
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as
paragraphs (6) through (10), respectively;
(2) by adding before paragraph (6) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the
collective experience of the United States and deserve
protection and compassion;
``(2) horses and other equines are domestic animals that
are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport;
``(3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and
other equines are not raised for the purpose of being
slaughtered for human consumption;
``(4) individuals selling horses or other equines at
auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for
the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption;
``(5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the
Department of Agriculture has found that horses and other
equines cannot be safely and humanely transported in double
deck trailers;''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph
(1)) and inserting the following:
``(8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore
horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping,
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing,
purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of
horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human
consumption, adversely affect and burden interstate and
foreign commerce;''.
(c) Prohibition.--Section 5 of the Horse Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 1824) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (11) as
paragraphs (9) through (12), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph 7 the following:
``(8) The shipping, transporting, moving, delivering,
receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of
any horse or other equine to be slaughtered for human
consumption.''.
(d) Authority to Detain.--Section 6(e) of the Horse
Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence of paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) and as
paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; and
(3) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(1) The Secretary may detain for examination, testing, or
the taking of evidence--
``(A) any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or
horse sale or auction that is sore or that the Secretary has
probable cause to believe is sore; and
``(B) any horse or other equine that the Secretary has
probable cause to believe is being shipped, transported,
moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or
donated in violation of section 5(8).''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 12 of the
Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1831) is amended by striking
``$500,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1177. A bill to provide grants to States to improve high schools
and raise graduation rates while ensuring rigorous standards, to
develop and implement effective school models for struggling students
and dropouts, and to improve State policies to raise graduation rates,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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.
[[Page S3694]]
____________________