[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S371-S372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CHILD FARM LABOR RULES

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am here today to raise once again a 
topic about how we raise our children in rural America, and I want to 
talk for a few moments about the proposed Department of Labor child 
farm labor rules.
  Last week, we had perhaps what would be considered a piece of good 
news. The Department of Labor announced it would withdraw and repropose 
the parental exemption portion of their proposed child labor rules. I 
am worried, however, despite this good news, there are still a lot of 
consequences that will occur as a result of the proposed rules that are 
not being withdrawn, and there is no suggestion they are going to be 
reproposed.
  The thing I want to make clear to my colleagues is that while the 
Department of Labor announced they were going to withdraw a portion of 
the rules, unfortunately, the majority of what is going to be 
offensive, difficult, and a challenge for our way of life in rural 
America remains.
  Last year, of their own volition--no direction by Congress--the 
Department of Labor proposed a set of rules to put restrictions in 
place upon a young person's ability to work on a farm, including their 
own family farm. What we are talking about here is youth less than 16 
years of age. Those rules, as proposed, would actually restrict the 
ability of a son or daughter to work on their parents' farm.
  The current rule is that if your parents own a substantial interest 
of that farming operation, you can work on your family's farm. The 
rules as proposed by the DOL are going to narrow that definition, as 
follows: If your family operates in a family farming corporation or a 
limited liability company, these new restrictions would apply. 
Fortunately, that portion of the proposed rules the Department of Labor 
has withdrawn, and I assume they will be reproposing what their 
definition of a family farm is.
  The point I want to make is that so much of the proposed rules yet 
remain, and the remaining portions of the rules still threaten to 
fundamentally alter agriculture as we know it today. If the DOL rules, 
as now proposed, go forward, the education and training for the next 
generation of farmers and ranchers will be severely disrupted.
  We have relied upon 4-H, FFA, and county extension programs to 
provide farm safety training and certification for a long time. The 
Department of Labor now says they no longer want those programs to 
qualify because they are too local. They want a national standard. They 
want to replace with a Department of Labor safety training program what 
has traditionally and very effectively occurred through 4-H, FFA, and 
county extension programs.
  The Department has, in my view, ignored research that shows the 
programs we currently have in place with FFA and 4-H and county 
extension improve the safety habits of young people, and instead 
criticizes these training programs for being too locally driven and 
lacking Federal direction. Their solution is to nationalize these 
programs and have them run by the Department of Labor. In my view, 
local experts in our high schools, our FFA programs, and our 4-H clubs 
should be the ones conducting training programs and educating our young 
people. And parents and communities should be allowed to look after the 
best interests of their families and their communities and citizens.
  The Department of Labor, in addition to attacking the programs that 
are in place, that are valuable to us in rural America, is also 
proposing to change the so-called agricultural hazard occupations. The 
proposed rules would prohibit a young person under the age of 16 from 
participating--even with the certification and safety training from the 
Department of Labor--in doing such things as rounding up cattle on 
horseback or operating a tractor.
  The proposed rules say you cannot be involved in production 
agriculture if you are more than 6 feet off the ground. In today's 
environment, in today's agriculture, tractors and combines are 6 feet 
off the ground.

  You can't clean out a stall with a shovel and a wheelbarrow. Those 
are things I am sure the 15-year-old does not want to do, but they are 
important to a family's farming operation, they are important to 
agriculture and of value to a young person in their training and 
developing skills that are important to them for the rest of their 
life.
  They can't work in a pen with a bull or mama cow. Here is one that 
really stands out to me: No engaging or assisting in animal husbandry 
practices that ``inflict pain upon the animal,'' such as branding, 
breeding, dehorning vaccinating, castrating, and treating sick animals. 
The ``inflicting pain'' restriction sounds like something more than an 
interest--``inflicting pain'' sounds like a different standard than 
really worrying about the young person's safety. These are important 
tasks that have to be done on a farm and that young people can safely 
do.
  One additional example that stands out to me is that they are 
suggesting in the rules that they would limit a young person's exposure 
to direct sunlight if the temperature reaches a certain limit once you 
factor in wind velocity and humidity. How does that work in the 
practical world of agriculture and farming today? For someone in 
Washington, DC, to propose rules that restrict a young person's ability 
to work on a neighbor's farm because of the amount of sunlight, wind 
velocity, and humidity is something that again, in my view, 
demonstrates a lack of understanding about how things work in the real 
world.
  One would assume the Department of Labor, before making such drastic 
changes to farm labor rules, would have identified reliable evidence 
and data to show the need for changes. In fact, the Department of Labor 
admits it lacks the data to justify many of its suggested changes.
  Furthermore, according to the National Farm Medicine Center, youth-
related injuries from farm accidents have declined nearly 60 percent 
from 1998 to 2009. I have no doubt that if you ask a farmer or a 
rancher about the importance of safety, they would tell you that safety 
is a top concern, especially when they are dealing with a young person. 
But they would also tell you that critical to a rural way of life is 
being able to train and encourage the next generation to safely and 
successfully pursue careers in agriculture. If today's young person is 
not given the chance to learn at a young age what it takes to operate a 
farm, we put at risk the future of agriculture in our Nation.
  I have always had a strong interest in agriculture. The economy of my 
State of Kansas revolves in many ways around the success of farmers and 
ranchers. Communities across our State are dependent upon the success, 
the profitability of production agriculture. But I also have known and 
strongly believe there is something more than just economics to family 
farms. This is the way that historically, in our country, in our 
Nation's history, we have transmitted our character, our values, our 
integrity, our love of life, and our understanding of how things work 
from generation to generation. It has worked. It has been an important 
component of our country's history, who we are as American people.
  Today, across Kansas, when I visit with business owners, they tell me 
they love to hire farm kids because they have a different 
characteristic, a different makeup, a standard that is different from 
other people. They learn something about reliability and that work does 
not get done if you do not show up, that it is not about punching the 
clock to check in and to check out, that a calf is born at times that 
are inconvenient to a farmer. There is just a different set of 
characteristics a young person develops by growing up and working on a 
family farm. If these changes go into effect--and the rule as

[[Page S372]]

proposed is being considered, and it is expected we will have an answer 
from the Department of Labor within several months as to what the final 
regulations will be--if these rules go into effect as they are written, 
not only will we see a shrinking rural workforce, but our Nation's 
youth will be deprived of valuable career-training opportunities and a 
certain way of life many of us highly value will disappear.
  It is important to us as a country--certainly to a State such as 
mine--that a young person experience the value of farming. I do not 
know how many times you talk to somebody who has determined what their 
career is going to be based on an experience they had as a young person 
and their ability to know what they want to do with their life is 
determined by the experiences they had as a young child. Our country 
cannot afford to lose the next generation of farmers and ranchers.
  This rule should be withdrawn in its entirety. We know rural 
America's values are not always Washington values, and in the weeks 
ahead I ask my colleagues and Americans across the country to express 
their opposition to the Department of Labor for this destructive rule. 
Do not allow it to move forward so we can protect our values for the 
next generation of American farmers and make sure rural America remains 
a great place to live, grow, and raise a family.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________