[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.

                          ____________________