The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINTS RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S2764-S2767 on March 30, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINTS RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 1879. A bill to provide for the permanent extension of income averaging for farmers; to the Committee on Finance.
FARMERS' LEGISLATION
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I introduced an amendment to the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 back in 1997. It extended to our agriculture producers--farmers and ranchers--the ability to average their income over a 3-year period. The amendment was included and made part of the U.S. Tax Code, but only after further negotiations, sunset the provision after 3 year which would make it run out in 2001.
Today, I would like to introduce a bill that would make income averaging for our agriculture producers permanent in the U.S. Tax Code. This bill will give our agriculture producers--farmers and ranchers--a fair tool to offset the unpredictable nature of their business.
Our man in the chair this morning from the great agricultural State of Nebraska, and the rest of us in the breadbasket of this country understand what farmers and ranchers go through. It has always been a good business and at times it is a great business. But we are going through some times now that are very stressful. As a friend of mine said the other day, there is nothing wrong down on the farm except the price. That is what we have now.
There are not very many segments of the American economy that are taking in the same amount of money for their commodity today as they were taking when World War II ended, some 50 years ago. However, they are expected to keep producing food not only in generous proportions but also the safest, the best quality and nutritious food in the world.
What makes this Nation unique is, we not only produce it, but we have the infrastructure that allows distribution--our processors, purveyors, transportation, grocery stores, everything from the breakfast table of America all the way back to the first seed that goes into the ground is unmatched anywhere in the world. It is something of a great marvel in this country. And it is also true that every one of us alive today in this country goes about our daily business of feeding the Nation. Somewhere along the line, we are participants in this great infrastructure to deal with our own subsistence.
But basically, I want to talk about--the production level, I don't think there is a commodity today that is not hurting when it comes to the marketplace and to the whims of Mother Nature's elements that she rains down on agriculture. Agriculture production is a 7-day-a-week job as anybody that has ever worked on a dairy farm knows. I assumed that most Americans knew that, but I am finding out that I was wrong. They think milk cows take off the weekend, too, but they don't. Farming is an ongoing situation--7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Farmers and ranchers take pride in their work. They produce as economically as they possibly can, knowing that they fall under the old philosophy that they although they sell wholesale, they have to buy retail, and they pay the freight both ways, knowing that agriculture has always been in that kind of a predicament.
Not only do they take great pride in what they produce, but probably no other segment of the American public has a greater understanding of land stewardship and the environmental problems that face our country today. Yet, very few of them are ever asked their advice on how to deal with an environmental problem. Several colleagues that serve in this body, who grew up on a farm or a ranch, certainly understand the frustration of the business. They only get paid about two, maybe three times a year. So it is a crucial time for the farm families across this country when we take a look at the situation we find ourselves in now. With the financial collapse of many Asian markets in the Pacific rim, we see wheat at an all-time low. Our corn and soybeans will suffer. As far as export trade is concerned, we export a lot more than we receive. We also see a time when we fall whim to the psychology of the market more than the market itself.
With the recent passage of the freedom to farm bill, we told farmers that subsidies were going to go away, that they were going to have to stand on their own. We also said that we would give them the tools with which to operate their farms.
Market forces are unique. We still fall victim to flood and drought, disease, new infestations which are far, far beyond the control of the producer himself. Farmers make money one year, but may break even the next year, and then lose money the next two years. If you take market elements and Mother Nature into consideration, farmers fall outside of the business of control. So, at best, they are lucky to break even 2 years in a row, and if they have done that, they think they are really ahead.
The business is capital intensive, and labor intensive. To give you an idea just why this is an important thing, many young people right now due to death taxes--in other words, estate taxes--agriculture producers usually find themselves in the situation where they are land rich but they are cash poor. Passing the farm and ranch on to the next generation is hard when the tax situation is where they cannot do it. They may have exceeded the limit and heavy estate taxes prevent that. With increases in the top marginal tax and with a record of high commodity taxes, it is time to allow some of that income that goes back to the farm to be retained and to allow them to average their income over 3 years at those marginal tax rates.
We made a deal with agriculture when we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. We made a deal with them that there would be no more subsidies, but we would give them income averaging and all the tools that it would take to hang on to their money so that they could invest in next year's crop. If you want to really measure a man's faith, have him take his money, his time, his efforts, and his investment and have him put a seed in the ground in hopes that it will just sprout, let alone harvesting a crop.
That is faith, we have always had it in agriculture, and it has always been the backbone of every State economy and it still is. When things are good in agriculture, they are usually good for the rest of the country. But I would say this economy right now, the one we are experiencing that everybody raves about is still riding the backs of those who are in the business of producing a raw commodity.
So, Mr. President, I offer this bill to put in a permanent place for income averaging for agriculture producers.
Mr. President, there will be letters coming out to my colleagues explaining what we have done here. I think it is very important. It is important to my State. It is important to all of us. It is important to the smaller communities of America, because if agriculture is not healthy, those communities suffer also. That is why we work very hard on communications infrastructure, and that is why we work awfully hard on power infrastructure. Smaller communities that rely so heavily on agricultural income must find ways to attract other economic opportunities and those two other parts are very important to their infrastructure in the future.
I appreciate the time from my friend from Wyoming. I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank the Senator from Montana for his comments with respect to income averaging and agricultural activity. I certainly support that. I think, as evidenced by its passage last year, it is generally supported.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Joint Committee on Taxation,
Washington, DC, March 19, 1998.Hon. Conrad Burns,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: This is in response to your letter of March 16, 1998, requesting a revenue estimate for a permanent extension of income averaging for farmers.
Under present law, an individual taxpayer generally is allowed to elect to compute current year tax liability by averaging, over the prior three-year period, all or a portion of the individual's taxable income from the trade or business of farming. The election applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1997, and before January 1, 2001.
Under your proposal, the election to average farm income over a three-year period would be extended permanently. The proposal would become effective on the date of enactment.
For the purpose of preparing a revenue estimate for your proposal, we have assumed that enactment will occur during calendar year 1998. Estimated changes in Federal fiscal year budget receipts are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998-2002 1998-2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent extension of income averaging for farmers.......... ........... ........... ........... -2 -21 -23 -138
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Lindy L. Paull.
______
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 1880. A bill to provide States with the authority to permit certain employers of domestic workers to make annual wage reports; to the Committee on Finance.
domestic workers legislation
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation which will remove a significant tax filing burden currently imposed on employers of domestic workers.
In 1994, Congress adopted legislation reforming the imposition of Social Security and Medicare taxes on domestic employees. These new rules introduced more rationality into the tax system, and relieved reporting requirements of domestic employers.
Unfortunately, the legislation did not go as far as needed. By not fully reforming the federal unemployment tax (FUTA), Congress left in place a significant burden on domestic employers which previously existed. Today I urge you to consider my legislation which would amend FUTA as well by removing the burden of filing quarterly state employment tax returns for employers of domestic workers.
The Social Security Domestic Employment Reform Act of 1994, Public Law 103-387, changed the Social Security and Medicare tax rules. The new law provides that domestic employers (employing maids, gardeners, babysitters, and the like) no longer owe these taxes for any domestic employee who earned less than $1,000 per year from the employer.
In addition, the Act aimed to ease reporting requirements. Under the act, domestic employers need no longer file quarterly returns regarding Social Security and Medicare taxes nor the annual FUTA return. Rather, all federal reporting is now consolidated on an annual Schedule H filed at the same time as the employer's personal income tax return.
Nevertheless, the goal of the 1994 act--to substantially reduce reporting requirements for domestic employers--has not been fully accomplished for employers who endeavor to comply with all aspects of the law. Under FUTA, employers must make quarterly reports and payments to state unemployment agencies, then pay an additional sum of federal tax (now once a year, as part of schedule H). In addition, The Social Security Act continues to require that employers report wages quarterly to the states regarding all employees. In other words, despite the 1994 act, a domestic employer who abides by the law must still keep track of all domestic employees, and must still fill out forms and send tax payments on a quarterly basis to his or her state employment agency.
Congress was not unaware of the relationship of FUTA to Social Security taxes at the time it passed the 1994 act. Besides eliminating the separate FUTA return for domestic employers, the act also added a provision which permits the Secretary of the Treasury to enter agreements with States to permit the federal government to collect unemployment taxes on behalf of the States, along with all other domestic employee taxes, once a year. That statute, if used, would eliminate the need for domestic employers to report to state unemployment agencies. However, to date no state has entered such an agreement. Undoubtedly, that is because the Social Security Act continues to require quarterly reports anyway.
The primary justification cited for the quarterly reporting requirement is that it makes information more accessible to state agencies that investigate unemployment claims. However the burden of this provision far outweighs its benefit. The number of household employer tax filings is relatively small. Representatives from the Georgia Department of Labor and their counterparts in other states are confident that the investigation of unemployment claims will not be hindered by annual rather than quarterly reporting requirements.
I suppose one could argue that the change this legislation proposes is unnecessary, since few people even bother to comply with the FUTA requirements for domestic employees. I believe that avoiding a change for that reason is an insult to citizens who endeavor to comply with all tax laws. For example, one Pennsylvania resident paid a 12 year old girl $4 per hour during one quarter for her babysitting services. This resident was then required by law to record, then pay eight cents in tax on her behalf. Needless to say, this is ridiculous. The young babysitter would never claim unemployment compensation.
In short, the federal requirement of quarterly state employment tax reports for purely domestic employers should be eliminated. To ease the reporting burden on domestic employers, my legislation proposes that states be allowed to provide for annual filing of household employment taxes. Under my bill, any state which so chooses could retain quarterly reporting, but I believe few states would opt for such an unnecessary burden on its taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to finish the job of rationalizing the taxpayer obligations for domestic employment taxes by supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1880
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR STATE TO PERMIT ANNUAL WAGE
REPORTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1137(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(a)(3)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, and except that in the case of wage reports with respect to domestic service employment, a State may permit employers (as so defined) that make returns with respect to such service on a calendar year basis pursuant to section 3510 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make such reports on an annual basis.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to wage reports required to be submitted on and after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
S. 1881. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the installation of emergency locator transmitters on aircraft; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
THE AIRPLANE EMERGENCY LOCATOR ACT
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Airplane Emergency Locator Act. This important legislation would require most small aircraft to have emergency locator transmitters. A similar bill was introduced in the House by Representative Christopher Shays.
On Tuesday December 24, 1996 a Learjet with Pilot Johan Schwartz, 31, of Westport, Connecticut and Patrick Hayes, 30, of Clinton, Connecticut lost contact with the control tower at the Lebanon, New Hampshire airport. The crash occurred in poor weather and after an aborted landing. Despite efforts by the federal government, New Hampshire state and local authorities, and Connecticut authorities, extremely well organized ground searches failed to locate the two gentlemen or the airplane. The thick pines of the NH countryside have hampered the effort. This plane did not have an emergency locator transmitter, a device which could have made a difference in saving the lives of these two men.
The legislation I am introducing today is straightforward--the only aircraft that would be exempt from having emergency locator transmitter's would be planes used by manufacturers in development exercises and agricultural planes used to spread chemicals over crops. It is my strong belief that these devices will play a vital role in search efforts, where timing is so critical in any rescue mission.
I applaud my colleague Christopher Shays for introducing similar legislation in the House and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of the Airplane Emergency Locator Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1881
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 ``Airplane Emergency Locator Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) on December 24, 1996, a plane piloted by Johan Schwartz and Patrick Hayes disappeared near Lebanon, New Hampshire;
(2) an extensive search was conducted by the States of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Maine, and Massachusetts, in cooperation with the Federal Government, in an unsuccessful effort to locate the plane and any survivors;
(3) the plane described in paragraph (1) was not required under law to carry an emergency locator transmitter; and
(4) emergency locator transmitters have been found to be very helpful in locating downed aircraft and saving lives.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENT.
Section 44712(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) does not apply to aircraft when used in--
``(1) flight operations related to the design and testing, manufacture, preparation, and delivery of aircraft; or
``(2) the aerial application of a substance for an agricultural purpose.''.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Coats, and Mr.
Dodd):
S. 1882. A bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
The Higher Education Amendments of 1998
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be introducing a bill today in relation to the changes that we have worked on with members, of course, of both parties in our committee with respect to the higher educational programs.
There is nothing more important to this Nation than maintaining our international superiority as the country with the best higher education. That is the reason this Nation is where it is today. And if we allow that to sink, as we have allowed our k-12 to sink, then, Mr. President, we will be sliding down, in the next century, to a position of lesser importance.
I am introducing the bill today--with Senators Kennedy, Coats, and Dodd--the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. This legislation is a product of work begun by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources over a year ago.
The Higher Education Act is among the most significant statutes under the jurisdiction of the committee. Since its inception in 1965, the act has been focused on enhancing the opportunities of students to pursue postsecondary education. The grant, loan, and work-study assistance made available by this act has made the difference for the countless millions in pursuing their dreams for a better life.
At the start of the reauthorization process, we set out to achieve a number of important goals designed to strengthen these programs. I am pleased to say that this legislation achieves the five major objectives identified at the beginning of our efforts.
First, the bill preserves the focus on students, who are the prime reason we have a Higher Education Act in the first place. Students now in school will be assured of receiving a lower interest rate on their loans and will see less of their own earnings penalized with respect to the Pell grant awards they receive. Students now in high school who aspire to a college education will continue to benefit from early intervention programs, including the National Early Intervention Scholarship Program--NEISP--and TRIO. Students who have graduated and are faced with exceptionally high loan burdens will be able to take advantage of extended repayment options under the Guaranteed Student Loan Program.
Second, the bill takes a two-pronged approach to helping our Nation's elementary and secondary school teachers. They will be thoroughly prepared to offer the quality of instruction needed to assure that students achieve the standards we need and expect. Working at both the State level to promote system-wide reforms and at the local level to develop partnerships to enhance the quality of teacher training, the bill offers a comprehensive and systematic approach to this pressing national need. No longer will the Higher Education Act contain a collection of small, unfunded teacher training programs. Rather, the good ideas represented in these proposals--along with the many useful suggestions made by members of the committee--have been shaped into a broad approach. It is an approach which I hope will command the attention and support of Congress when we turn to the appropriations bill.
Third, the bill reflects a strong commitment to the maintenance of two viable loan programs--the guaranteed or Federal Family Education Loan Program, known as FFELP, and the Direct Loan Program. To the extent possible within budgetary constraints, the bill levels the playing field to assure the continuation of fair and healthy competition between the two programs.
Fourth, the bill takes important steps to improve the delivery of student assistance programs. In cooperation with the administration, we have developed a performance-based organization--a PBO--designed to strengthen the management of key systems with the Department of Education. A number of provisions in the legislation also pave the way toward taking advantage of efficiencies made possible through electronic processing and other technological advances.
Finally, we have made every attempt to streamline programs, including the streamlining of the act itself. This bill takes nearly 50 programs off the books--off the books--and cuts in half the number of titles in the act. We have also attempted to relieve the regulatory burden on program participants while protecting the strong and effective integrity provisions included in the 1992 reauthorization.
Perhaps one of the most difficult issues to resolve has been the change in the student loan interest rate scheduled to take effect on July 1 of this year. This has, of course, been a strong concern of the Budget Committee. This legislation adopts the proposal approved a few weeks ago by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. For several months, Members of the House and the Senate have grappled with the issue. The dilemma has been to balance the desire to offer students the lowest possible interest rate while assuring an uninterrupted flow of loan capital so that borrowing will be possible.
All analysts have concluded that allowing the scheduled rate to go into effect will mean the demise of the FFEL program. That outcome is unacceptable, given the substantial likelihood of program disruption.
The Direct Loan Program, which now handles only 30 percent of total loan volume, simply is not in a position to pick up the slack. To do anything to interrupt the ability of our young people to participate in the FFEL program would be a disaster at this time. The solution offered by the House committee included in the bill is by no means perfect. Like Winston Churchill's comments about democracy, however, I say: This proposal is the worst possible option, except for all others.
I am extremely appreciative of the hard work which my colleagues on the committee put into the development of this bipartisan bill. The committee will be considering this measure on Wednesday, and I hope that the full Senate will have the opportunity to debate it in the near future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
____________________
