[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2455-S2457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold)
S. 567. A bill to amend the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of
1983 to ensure that all persons who benefit from the dairy promotion
and research program contribute to the cost of the program; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
THE DAIRY PROMOTION FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Feingold to
introduce the ``Dairy Promotion Fairness Act.'' This measure will
further our nation's dairy marketing board's efforts to promote the
consumption of healthy dairy products produced by family dairy farms
and to fund research critical to the development of new dairy products.
This effort is needed as a matter of fairness to our nation's dairy
farmers. When enacted, our legislation will require that all dairy
producers whose products are sold in the United States contribute to
the promotional effort. Currently, domestic producers of dairy products
like cheese, butter, and yogurt, all pay a promotional fee to help
promote the dairy products produced in this country. Importers do not
pay this fee.
[[Page S2456]]
I was extremely surprised to find out that dairy producers can import
these goods into the United States and not contribute to the
promotional sales efforts sponsored by our domestic industry. This
change will require those selling incoming products to contribute the
same assessment as the domestic dairy farmers do.
This bill supports the dairy marketing board's efforts to educate
consumers on the nutritional value of dairy products. It also treats
our farmers fairly--by asking them not to bear the entire financial
burden for a promotional program that benefits importers and domestic
producers alike. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 567
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 ``Dairy Promotion Fairness
Act''.
SEC. 2. FUNDING OF DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) Declaration of Policy.--Section 110(b) of the Dairy
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501(b)) is
amended in the first sentence--
(1) by inserting after ``commercial use'' the following:
``and on imported dairy products''; and
(2) by striking ``products produced in the United States.''
and inserting ``products.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 111 of the Dairy Production
Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4502) is amended--
(1) in subsection (k), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subsection (l), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(m) the term `imported dairy product' means any dairy
product that is imported into the United States, including
dairy products imported into the United States in the form
of--
``(1) milk and cream and fresh and dried dairy products;
``(2) butter and butterfat mixtures;
``(3) cheese; and
``(4) casein and mixtures; and
``(n) the term `importer' means a person that imports an
imported dairy product into the United States.''.
(c) Contingent Representation of Importers on Board.--
Section 113(b) of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of
1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``National Dairy Promotion and Research
Board.--'' after ``(b)'';
(2) by designating the first through ninth sentences as
paragraphs (1) through (5) and paragraphs (7) through (10),
respectively, and indenting appropriately;
(3) in paragraph (2) (as so designated), by striking
``Members'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph
(6), the members''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so designated) the
following:
``(6) Importers.--
``(A) In general.--If representation of importers of
imported dairy products is required on the Board by another
law or a treaty to which the United States is a party, the
Secretary shall appoint not more than 2 members who are
representatives of importers.
``(B) Additional members; procedures.--The members
appointed under this paragraph--
``(i) shall be in addition to the members appointed under
paragraph (2); and
``(ii) shall be appointed from nominations submitted by
importers under such procedures as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate.''.
(d) Importer Assessment.--Section 113(g) of the Dairy
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(g)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``Assessments.--'' after ``(g)'';
(2) by designating the first through fifth sentences as
paragraphs (1) through (5), respectively, and indenting
appropriately; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Importers.--
``(A) In general.--The order shall provide that each
importer of imported dairy products shall pay an assessment
to the Board in the manner prescribed by the order.
``(B) Rate.--The rate of assessment on imported dairy
products shall be determined in the same manner as the rate
of assessment per hundredweight or the equivalent of milk.
``(C) Value of products.--For the purpose of determining
the assessment on imported dairy products under subparagraph
(B), the value to be placed on imported dairy products shall
be established by the Secretary in a fair and equitable
manner.''.
(e) Records.--Section 113(k) of the Dairy Production
Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(k)) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ``person receiving'' and
inserting ``importer of imported dairy products, each person
receiving''.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of legislation
introduced by the senior Senator from my home State of Wisconsin.
Today, Senator Kohl has introduced a measure important not only to
Wisconsin's dairy farmers but to dairy farmers all over the country.
The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program collects roughly
$225 million every year from American dairy farmers, who each pay a
mandatory 15 cents into the program for every 100 pounds of milk they
produce. This program is designed to promote dairy products to
consumers and to conduct research relating to milk processing and
marketing.
While 15 cents may appear to be a small amount of money, multiplied
by all the millions of pounds of milk marketed in this country, it adds
up to thousands of dollars each year for the average domestic producer.
Given the magnitude of this program, it is critical that Congress take
seriously the concerns producers have about the way their promotion
program is run. This legislation addresses one of the most important of
those concerns: importers reap the same promotional benefits as their
U.S. counterparts, yet they don't pay a dime into the program.
The National Dairy Promotion and Research Board conducts generic
promotion and general product research. Domestic farmers and importers
alike benefit from these actions. This bill, Mr. President, provides
equity to domestic producers who have been footing the bill for this
promotion program all by themselves for over 10 years.
The Dairy Promotion Fairness Act requires that all dairy product
importers contribute to the Dairy Promotion Program at the same rate as
domestic dairy farmers. This is not an unusual proposal, Mr. President.
Many of our largest generic promotion programs for other commodities
already assess importers for their fair share of the program, including
programs for pork, beef, and cotton.
This legislation is particularly important in light of the 1994
passage of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT has
boosted imports of dairy products in the past several years. A dairy
promotion assessment on importers would also be allowed under GATT
since our own milk producers are already paying the same assessment.
We have put our own producers at a competitive disadvantage for far
too long. It's high time importers paid for their fair share of this
program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to end
the subsidization of foreign farmers on the backs of our own.
______
By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 568. A bill to allow the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture to establish a fee system for commercial
filming activities in a site or resource under their jurisdictions; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
legislation to establish a fee system for commercial filming activities
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
which would allow the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture to charge a fee when commercial filming activities take
place on public lands in their jurisdiction. This legislation is
another important part of our efforts to preserve and protect the
pristine beauty of our national parks and other public lands. A similar
version of this legislation was included in S. 1693, the Vision 2020,
National Parks Restoration Act, when that bill passed the Senate.
Unfortunately, the language was removed from that bill when it passed
the House of Representatives.
The purpose of this measure is very simple. When commercial film
companies use our nation's public lands, they should pay for that
privilege. Our nation's parks and other lands provide an outstanding
backdrop for the commercial film industry and we should ensure that
these areas are not negatively impacted by that use.
This legislation is not designed as a ``bash Hollywood'' bill. I want
to comment the commercial film industry for their efforts to work with
me and other members of Congress to find a reasonable solution to this
matter. Although there are those in the industry who do not want to pay
for the use of these lands, by and large the film industry is willing
to pay a fee for filming on public lands as long as it is reasonable,
understandable and fair. I believe the bill I am introducing today
meets all of those criteria.
Let me take a few moments to outline this measure. The legislation
[[Page S2457]]
would authorize both the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of
Agriculture to charge a reasonable fee for commercial filming
activities on federal lands in their jurisdiction. The fee will be
based on a number of criteria including; the number of days the filming
takes place within the areas, the size of the film crew and the amount
and type of equipment used. The agencies would also be directed to
recover any costs incurred as a result of filming activities such as
administrative and personnel costs. All of the fees charged for film
activities would stay at the site where they are collected.
We have also included language in this bill to address the issue of
still photography on public lands. As we worked to craft the parks bill
last year, we heard from a large number of still photographers who were
worried about the impact this legislation would have on them. In order
to address those concerns, we have included language in our bill
exempting still photography unless the agency determines that this
activity will disrupt the public's use and enjoyment of the resource. I
believe this is a fair way to address this question.
Mr. President, the time has come to establish a film fee system on
our nation's public lands that is sensible and understandable. Once
again, I want to stress that this bill is not designed to punish the
film industry. Instead, this measure will benefit both the public and
the film industry by establishing simple and understandable system for
operating on federal lands. Establishing a sound fee system for filming
on public lands can be a ``win-win'' for the public and the film
industry and I hope the Senate will take quick action on this important
measure.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Grams):
S. 569. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
certain farm rental income from net earnings from self-employment if
the taxpayer enters into a lease agreement relating to such income; to
the Committee on Finance.
The Farm Independence Act of 1999
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Conrad and
Grams of Minnesota, I am introducing a bill to exempt certain farm
rental income from the self-employment tax.
The self-employment tax has been applied equally to farmers and other
business people for the last 40 years. Our bill would ensure equality
in the future. It states that farm landlords should be treated the same
as small business people and other commercial landlords, and they
should not have to pay self-employment tax on cash rent income.
The current law is drafted to ensure that self-employment tax applies
to income from labor or employment. Farm landlords were only taxed when
they participated in the operation of the farm. Income from cash rent
represents the value of ownership or equity in land, not labor or
employment. Therefore, the self-employment tax should not apply to
income from cash rent. Yet, this is not they way that the Internal
Revenue Service drafted its technical advice memorandum on this matter.
This has resulted in farmers and retired farmers now paying a 15.3
percent self-employment tax on cash rent.
The IRS has gone too far. The law should be what people have counted
on for 40 years. Unless there is an act of Congress, history should be
respected. The test of time will prove that the taxpayer was right and
that the IRS was wrong, particularly now that there is a difference
between the farm and city sector. Therefore, we are introducing this
bill so that farmers and retired farmers will not be singled out
unfairly by the IRS.
Specifically, this legislation would remove the code's ambiguity and
recapture its original intent. The legislation would clarify that when
the IRS is applying the self-employment tax to cash rent farm leases,
it would limit its applicability to the lease agreement. This is not an
expansion of the law of taxpayers. Rather, it would limit the anti
taxpayer expansion initiated by the Internal Revenue Service. The tax
law does not require cash rent landlords in cities to pay the self-
employment tax. Indeed cash rent farm landlords are the only ones
required to pay the tax. This is due to a 40-year-old exception that
allowed the retired farmers of the late 1950's to become vested in the
Social Security system.
The law originally imposed the tax on farm landlords only when their
lease agreements with the renters required them to participate in the
operation of the farm and in the farming of the land.
Forty years later, the IRS has expanded the application of self-
employment tax for farmland owners. The tax court told the IRS that in
one particular instant they could look beyond the lease agreement. On
this very limited authority, the IRS has expanded one tax court case
into national tax policy.
Our legislation will bring fairness between farmer landlords and
urban landlords. It will clarify that the IRS should examine only the
lease agreement. It would preserve the pre-1996 status quo. It would
preserve the historical self-employment tax treatment of farm rental
agreements, equating them with landlords in small businesses and
commercial properties. The 1957 tax law was designed to benefit retired
farmers of that generation so they would qualify for Social Security.
Congress does not intend that farm owners be treated differently from
other real estate owners, other than they have been historically. We
need clarity provided in our legislation in order to turn back an
improper, unilateral, and targeted IRS expansion of settled tax law.
I urge my colleagues to join us in addressing this unfair position
taken by the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 569
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 ``Farm Independence Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. WRITTEN AGREEMENT RELATING TO EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN
FARM RENTAL INCOME FROM NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-
EMPLOYMENT.
(a) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 1402(a)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to net earnings from
self-employment) is amended by striking ``an arrangement''
and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
(b) Social Security Act.--Section 211(a)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act is amended by striking ``an arrangement''
and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.
____________________