[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   NANNY TAX--PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to discuss 
the so-called nanny-tax legislation now before us.
  You may recall that the nanny-tax issue received national attention 
when it was discovered that President Clinton's nominee for Attorney 
General, Zoe Baird, had failed to properly file the necessary paperwork 
and pay adequate Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes for 
a domestic worker in her employ.
  While I am pleased that the Congress was able to make life a little 
easier for those citizens who employ household domestic help, I have to 
wonder a bit about our priorities. I understand why it was important to 
adjust the archaic income threshold from $50 a quarter to $1,000 a 
year. I appreciate the fact that it will relieve all those who hire 
maids, housekeepers, and nannies of needless paperwork and 
administrative burdens.
  But I still find it faintly amusing that Congress decided to favor 
this particular group of people first with legislative relief from 
bureaucratic tax laws. Of all the groups in America who are crying out 
for help with time-consuming, irrational--not to mention expensive--tax 
requirements, we have decided to put the employers of nannies, maids, 
and housekeepers at the top of our list.
  Of course, you don't necessarily have to be rich to employ domestic 
help; in fact, many financially disadvantaged families rely on such 
services because the parents absolutely must work. But in considering 
this legislation, I am reminded of many other deserving individuals and 
groups who desperately need relief from the tangle of tax and reporting 
requirements foisted upon them by their Federal Government.
  So let me urge my colleagues, as they cast their votes on this bill, 
to make this the start of a careful reassessment of our tax laws and 
their consequences on all American citizens.
  In particular, I hope we can focus some effort in the next Congress 
on the employment-related tax burden that is placed on America's 
farmers. As fewer and fewer people earn a livelihood from farming, 
there is an increasing need for seasonal help to harvest crops. This is 
true in Kentucky, where farmers rely on large numbers of seasonal 
workers to plant, pick, and process a variety of crops, including 
tobacco. Some of these workers are migrants; others are local college 
students in need of a summer job.
  Nevertheless, the tremendous paperwork and expense involved in hiring 
seasonal workers is making this option more and more difficult for 
small farmers in my State. In the long run, this will mean a loss of 
farm productivity, higher prices for food, and fewer jobs for those who 
depend on seasonal employment for income.
  To put it in a context related to the legislation before us, if we 
cannot easily use seasonal labor in the agriculture sector, then the 
food served by the housekeepers and maids now protected under this 
legislation would soon become prohibitively expensive.
  It simply does not make sense that those who employ maids and nannies 
should be given what amounts to a $850 annual tax exclusion, while 
farmers must comply with a much lower earnings threshold of $150 per 
year. In the next Congress, I intend to work with my colleagues to 
ensure that farmers receive the same kind of tax relief accorded by 
this legislation to that group of Americans who employ nannies and 
maids and housekeepers. Until that time, this legislation can be 
considered only a partial victory for tax fairness and simplification.
  The respected chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said earlier 
that we have decriminalized baby sitting. I share that view, but we 
need to decriminalize the use of seasonal labor in farming as well.
  Mr. President, you may recall that the position of Secretary of 
Agriculture is currently vacant. Wouldn't it be ironic if the 
President's nominee was a farmer who had inadvertently neglected to 
file the proper paperwork and taxes for temporary farm labor? Perhaps 
that would be a blessing in disguise. My guess is that farmers would 
finally get the necessary attention they deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________