Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is the precedent that the presenter of the amendment has the last minute?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I offer an amendment that ensures that small businesses which are hit with Y2K problems will not be penalized by the Federal Government for activities they are unable to deal with as a result of the Y2K problem. An overzealous Federal Government bearing down on a small business can be a very serious problem. I know all Members have constituents who have had small businesses that have found the Federal Government to be overbearing. It would therefore be uniquely ironic and inappropriate if the overzealousness of the Federal Government were to be thrown on top of a situation which a small business had no control over, which would be the failure of their computer system as a result of a Y2K problem. This does not get into the issue of liability, which may be the underlying question in this bill. It doesn't raise the question of whether or not the computer company should be exempt from liability, which I know has been a genuine concern of the Senator from South Carolina. Rather, it simply addresses the need for equity and fairness when we are dealing with small businesses which, through no fault of their own, have suddenly been hit with a Y2K problem and therefore fail to comply with a Federal requirement or Federal regulation and end up getting hit with a huge fine, all of which they had no control over. This amendment is tightly drafted so a small business cannot use it as an excuse not to meet a Federal obligation or Federal regulation. It does not allow a small business to take the Y2K issue and use it to bootstrap into avoiding an obligation which it has in the area of some Federal regulatory regime. Rather, it is very specific. It says, first off, this must be an incident of a first-time regulatory violation, so no small business which has any sort of track record of violating that Federal regulation could qualify for this exemption. So it has to be a first-time event. Second, the small business has to prove it made a good-faith effort to remedy the Y2K problem before it got hit with it. So it cannot be a situation where the small business said: I have this Y2K problem coming at me, I have this Federal regulation problem coming at me, I am going to let the Y2K problem occur and then I will say that is my reason for not complying. Small business must have made a good-faith attempt to remedy the Y2K problem. Third, the Y2K problem cannot be used if the violation was to avoid or resulted from efforts to prevent disruption of a critical function or service. Fourth, the small business has to demonstrate the actions to remediate the violation were begun when the violation was discovered. So the small business has to show it attempted to address the problem as soon as it realized it had a Y2K problem, and it cannot allow the fact it has a Y2K problem, again, to go unabated and use that lack of correction of a problem as an excuse for not meeting the obligations of the Federal regulation. Fifth, that notice was submitted to the appropriate agency when the small business became aware of the violation and therefore knew it had a Y2K problem. The practical effect of this will be small businesses throughout this country, which are inadvertently and beyond their own capacity to control a hit with a Y2K problem, will not be doubled up with a penalty for not meeting a Federal regulatory requirement that they could not meet as a result of the Y2K problem kicking in. It is a simple amendment. It is a reasonable amendment. It really does not get into the overall contest that has been generated around this bill which is: Should there be an exemption of liability for manufacturers of the product which creates the Y2K problem? Rather, it is trying to address the innocent bystander who gets hit, that small businessperson who suddenly wakes up, realizes he has a Y2K problem, tries to correct the Y2K problem, can't correct the Y2K problem, and as a result fails to comply with a Federal regulation, and then the Federal Government comes down and hits him with a big fine and there was nothing the small business could do. It gets hit with a double whammy: Its systems go down and they get hit with a fine. This just goes to civil remedy, to remedies which involve monetary activity, so it does not address issues where a business would be required to remedy through action. An example here might be OSHA. If they had to correct a workplace problem, they would still have to correct the workplace problem whether or not they had the Y2K failure. If they had an environmental problem which required remedial action, such as a change in their water discharge activities, again they would have to meet the remedial action. All this amendment does, it is very limited in scope, it just goes to the financial liability the company might incur as a result of failing to meet a regulation. It is a proposal which is strongly supported by the small business community. The NFIB is a supporter of this proposal and will be scoring this vote as one of its primary votes as it puts together its assessment of Members of Congress, and their support for small business. It is a reasonable proposal. I certainly hope it will end up being accepted. In any event, I understand under the unanimous consent agreement which has been generated there will be a vote on it Tuesday. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe my amendment is in sync with the opinions expressed by the chairman. I ask that my amendment be set aside.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. Yes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment, which I will agree to have set aside whenever the chairman decides to do so, is to address the issue of the reconstruction of Kosovo and funds that might be spent in Kosovo for reconstruction. The concept of reconstruction, of course, is something that is going to have to be dealt with by the Congress and the President over the next few months, no matter what happens relative to the air war. One of the concerns I have, and I think many Americans have, is that America will end up paying a disproportionate cost of the reconstruction of Kosovo and potentially Yugoslavia. It is my opinion that no American funds should be spent for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia until Milosevic is removed as its leader. It is further my view that America's participation in the cost of long-term reconstruction of Kosovo should be extremely limited, that our cost should be minor, a fraction of the amount of the cost of reconstruction, and that the vast majority of the burden of reconstruction should be borne by the European nations. As a nation, the United States has borne a disproportionate amount of the cost of the war that has gone on in Yugoslavia. It is, after all, a European issue more than an American issue. The United States had no national strategic interest in this part of the world. Not until the hundreds of thousands of refugees were created did we really have any significant interest at all in this part of the world; the refugees, of course, being a function of part of the diplomacy of this administration, which, in my opinion, has been a gross blunder in this region of the world. In any event, this is a European issue which should be addressed by the European nations. Certainly, the reconstruction issue is a European issue which should be addressed by the European nations, and American taxpayers should not be asked to bear the cost of it. What my amendment does is simply state that the emergency appropriations, which we eventually pass for purposes of fighting the war in Kosovo, will be limited in their application so they cannot be used for long-term structural reform of the economy or the capital needs of Kosovo, without the President coming to Congress and requesting those funds be used in that way and without him putting forward a strategic plan which reflects how much it is going to cost us as a nation to reconstruct the Kosovo infrastructure. Until we receive that plan and it is approved by the Congress, these funds would not be made available for that sort of effort. It does not limit these funds being used for humanitarian purposes. It does not limit these funds being used for the immediate needs of our own military, should our own military be interjected into Kosovo for some reason. It does not limit the funds being used for things such as replacing wells and getting people back in their homes with electricity temporarily. What it does limit is any long-term attempt to rebuild Kosovo's infrastructure, which would be part of an overall plan for reconstruction, without us first getting such a plan and knowing how much it is going to cost the American taxpayers. I do think the administration has an obligation to be honest with the taxpayers and tell us exactly what they are really thinking we are going to have to pay in terms of costs. I have read news reports coming out of the European Union that suggested the European Union position is that the U.S. taxpayer should pay for half of the cost of the reconstruction of Kosovo. To me, that would be unacceptable. I have read other news reports from folks who work for our agencies saying the United States may be willing to pay up to 25 percent of the long-term cost of the reconstruction of Kosovo. We are talking about, potentially, 5, 10, 15 years, with significant capital expenditures in that region of the world, and 25 percent would be a huge number. If that is the administration's position, we need to know what that number is before we start down that road. This amendment is a minor attempt to keep us from starting down that road and to get the administration to be forthright as to what are these costs.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I send a modification to the desk to amendment No. 548.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, America is struggling with a disturbing and growing trend of youth violence. While it is true that crime is generally down in many urban and suburban areas, it is equally true that crime committed by teens has risen sharply over the past few years and it is expected to continue to rise. Crime experts who study demographics warn of a coming crime wave based on the number of children who currently are younger than 10 years old. These experts warn that if current trends are not changed, we might someday look back at our current juvenile crime epidemic as ``the good old days.'' Thirty years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then an official of the Johnson Administration, wrote that when a community's families are shattered, crime, violence and rage ``are not only to be expected, they are virtually inevitable.'' He wrote those words in 1965. Since then, arrests of violent juvenile criminals have tripled. If we have learned anything from this debate and from all the research that has been done on juvenile violence, it is that there is no magic bullet, no single solution or panacea to the problem of rising juvenile crime. Juvenile crime is a complex problem that demands a myriad of responses. It is a problem that demands a partnership solution involving family, community, religious institutions, the media, the schools and law enforcement. The amendment I am offering today with Senator Lieberman is a multi- tiered approach. First, the proposal targets youth who are at the highest risk of leading lives that are unproductive and negative; youth who have been or are likely to be incarcerated. Second, it brings together representatives of local government, juvenile detention providers, local law enforcement, probation officers, youth street workers, local educational agencies, and religious institutions to provide highly intensive, coordinated, and effective intervention services to high risk youth. We provide seed money ($4 million a year with a 30% match) to enable the establishment of a collaborative partnership in 12 cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Denver, Seattle, Cleveland, San Francisco, Austin, Memphis, and Indianapolis. We also provide grants to grass roots entities in 8 cities to fund intervention models that establish violence-free zones through mediation, mentoring, coordination with law enforcement and local agency partnerships and the development of long term intervention strategies. Research has documented that this is the approach that yields sustainable results. According to Public Private Ventures, Inc., which has been engaged in the study of programs for children, youth and families, interventions for seriously at-risk older youth and youth who have already become involved with the juvenile justice system require an innovative joining of youth development and crime reduction strategies. This amendment does just that. At the same time we must recognize that government solutions are limited. Government is ultimately powerless to form the human conscience that chooses between right and wrong. Locking away juveniles might prevent them from committing further crimes, but it does not address the fact that violence is symptomatic of a much deeper, moral and spiritual void in our Nation. In the battle against violent crime, solid families are America's strongest line of defense. But government can be an effective tool if it joins private institutions (families, churches, schools, community groups, and non-profit organizations) in preventing and confronting juvenile crime with the moral ideals that defeat despair and nurture lives. This amendment is a step in that direction and I urge its adoption. ``PARTNERSHIPS FOR HIGH-RISK YOUTH''

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much, as the ranking member of the committee, for cosponsoring the amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the amendment, which has been offered graciously by the Senator from Utah on my behalf, is an amendment which reflects action which this Senate has already taken which has been extremely positive in the area of dealing with the issue of how we protect our schools and our children who are in school. Last year, this Senate, with great foresight, in the appropriations bill from the committee which I chair passed a funding proposal which I called the safe school proposal, which was bipartisanly agreed to and which was worked out through our subcommittee. Senator Hollings, my ranking member, worked very hard on this. Senator Campbell had a special role in this. Senator Kohl from Wisconsin had a special role in this. We produced this piece of legislation, which is a step in the right direction, funded at the level of $210 million, for the purposes of setting up a grant program to allow schools to apply to the Justice Department for grants in order to address the issue of safety in schools. Basically the grants were broken into three main goals. The first was for allowing police officers to work with schools as resource officers or as actual security officers within the school systems so there could be a merger of the law enforcement atmosphere and the teaching community in a way that was constructive and reinforced the positive nature of law enforcement within the school community. The second function of this language was to fund technology basically to allow schools to put in place technology in order to identify hazardous things that might come into the schools such as weapons. The third was to initiate prevention programs, which schools might come up with, which they felt would positively respond to the needs of the school community. This program, which a fair amount of work went into, was part of a larger program which our subcommittee has been undertaking to try to address the issue of safety and children. In fact, our subcommittee has been aggressively funding the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Innocent Image Program the FBI has been running to catch child predators, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Parents Anonymous, violence against women programs, safe school programs, Big Brother, Big Sister. We have been funding a large number of initiatives. Programs which we found were working well we have tried to put money into, rather than reinventing the wheel. The amendment I have offered today basically takes the ideas that we put into last year's appropriation bills, codifies them, authorizes them, and expands them to some degree, but basically works on the same framework, the initiative here, the Safe Schools Initiative. The concept of it is not for us at the Federal Government level to tell the local communities how they should protect their schools and how they should do a better job of addressing the issue of safety in schools. Rather, we wanted the local communities to come to us, the Federal Government, and say here is an idea we have. This is a creative, imaginative idea. We need some money to run it. Can you help us out with it? Basically, it is a philosophy of giving flexibility to the local school districts in applying for these grants. We anticipated that these grants will be used for a lot of different things. There will be a lot of different ideas that come forward. We expect there will be proposals where money will be used to assist in training of parents, teachers, and law enforcement personnel in order to recognize early warning signs relative to the children who may have violent dispositions. We expect there will be funding that will be used for the basis of innovative research-based initiatives relative to delinquency and violence prevention in school programs. We expect there will be programs to assist schools, for example, if they decide to put in a uniform code. That is a local school district's decision. Where this grant will be of assistance is if a local school decides to go to a uniform code and it needs money in order to help folks in the school system who can't afford those uniforms, they can apply for these grants. It will also support collaborations between community-based organizations, including faith-based organizations, which are doing a good job and have a demonstrated success rate of dealing with troubled youth. This is an area where we think there is tremendous fertile ground. We, of course, already are funding aggressively the Girls and Boys Clubs and Parents Anonymous and Violence Against Women and initiatives such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters, but there are a lot of other great ideas out there. There are people in Boston who have good ideas. There are people in New York who have good ideas, people out in California and the Midwest who have good ideas. These local community initiatives --grants have to come in through a school system--are tied into the school systems and are going to be assisting the school systems. Those are proposals which we think will be very, very positive, and here is a place where they can get some funding to make them successful. We actually, in this proposal, also give preference to proposals that come forward that are a joint effort between the law enforcement community in the town and the school system in the town. I think it is very important when we can join those two mainstays of the community together in a joint effort to try to address the issue of violence in our schools and especially how we deal with troubled children. Those types of programs we would expect to be funded and, in fact, get preference. We also would expect that you will see funding for training people, people who work in the school systems, like teachers, bus drivers, janitors, to identify potential threats they might come across in the school system. We would expect that money might be used here for the purposes of hiring officers who would be resource individuals, police officers, resource individuals within the schools in order to help out and in order to bring safety into the classroom and into the hallways. We also expect that money would be used for assessing security needs or for the cost of making improvements within school systems in order to address their security needs. There are a lot of different initiatives which can result from this proposal. The point is that we already have the money in place. This is not a pie-in-the-sky, theoretical proposal. This is not something that is going to be authorized and not be funded. We have already funded this program to the tune of $210 million. I regret, quite honestly, that the administration so far has not been able to get that money out to the communities. In fact, at last check, none of the $210 million which was appropriated last year and which was specifically addressed to safe school issues, such as putting police officers in the classroom, getting equipment to make sure schools are more secure, helping out with prevention programs, has actually been distributed. This is too bad. It reflects maybe a lack of attention to this issue by the administration. However, with the horrendous events that occurred in Littleton, we are now seeing that a lot of applications are forthcoming. Maybe there will be a higher level of awareness of this problem. Basically, this is a proposal which I think obviously makes a lot of sense. This Senate actually already thought it made a lot of sense, because we voted for the money to be spent on this type of proposal. This authorizing language now makes the money that is already in the pipeline more specifically directed and puts in place authorization which properly accounts for how we proceed relative to the appropriations process. It is obviously, in my opinion, a good step, an appropriate step, and something that should not be at all controversial. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. I would be honored to have the Senator from California as a cosponsor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes of debate on my amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This bill improves the administration of the Lamprey River in the State of New Hampshire by adding a twelve-mile segment to its Wild and Scenic Designation. In so doing, New Hampshire residents and visitors to my state will enjoy the many benefits associated with the Wild and Scenic River program, which is administered by the National Park Service. It has been four years since I proudly sponsored the designation of the Lamprey River in Lee, Durham and Newmarket, New Hampshire into the National Wild and Scenic River Program. I am greatly pleased to welcome the Town of Epping into the partnership, and I am honored to offer this bill which will make this possible. Contrary to concerns which are sometimes raised by other rivers' towns, Lee, Durham and Newmarket have told me that the Wild and Scenic program has stimulated a plethora of meaningful benefits to the Lamprey River and to the residents of the towns by which it flows. I applaud the extent to which this work has occurred through volunteer efforts and through monies solicited from towns, the State of New Hampshire and private foundations. As a result, groups like the Lamprey River Advisory Committee have been able to leverage a relatively small federal investment into substantial benefits. Within the past month, the Board of Selectmen from the Town of Epping, New Hampshire, the Epping Conservation Commission, and the Lamprey River Advisory Committee have contacted me to request that I introduce this legislation which will increase the designated area from eleven and a half to twenty-three and a half miles. The Lamprey River is situated in coastal New Hampshire and is the largest of the rivers that discharge into Great Bay, a designated National Estuarine Research Reserve consisting of 4,500 acres of tidal waters and wetlands and 800 acres of upland. Both in physical dynamics and biological productivity, the Great Bay estuary contributes immeasurable economic value to the Northeast and clearly constitutes one of New Hampshire's prime natural areas. The Lamprey's size alone marks its importance to Great Bay. Its good water quality and intact riparian habitat throughout the watershed create an important link between the estuary and inland areas. The Lamprey is considered New Hampshire's most significant river for all species of anadromous fish and it contains every type of stream and river fish you could expect to find in New England. Botanical studies have documented 329 species of vascular plants of which 252 are restricted to wetlands and floodplain communities. In addition, according to the State Architectural Historian, the Lamprey is one of New Hampshire's most historic streams. Perhaps what is most important about this bill is that it will help to assure that future generations will enjoy recreational opportunities on this great river. Undeveloped along most of its entire length, it is a beautiful river to be on and fish. For a quiet retreat into the woods the Lamprey is superb--where one can expect quiet canoe or kayak paddling past densely forested banks of hemlocks and hardwoods. In upstream reaches, people most often use the river recreationally for fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and swimming in the summer. In the winter, people trade in their boats and fishing poles for cross-country skis. This is a truly exceptional river offering a vast variety of activities for anyone who cares for the outdoors and I am pleased to offer this legislation to assure that it will remain in the same condition for generations to come. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This bill improves the administration of the Lamprey River in the State of New Hampshire by adding a twelve-mile segment to its Wild and Scenic Designation. In so doing, New Hampshire residents and visitors to my state will enjoy the many benefits associated with the Wild and Scenic River program, which is administered by the National Park Service. It has been four years since I proudly sponsored the designation of the Lamprey River in Lee, Durham and Newmarket, New Hampshire into the National Wild and Scenic River Program. I am greatly pleased to welcome the Town of Epping into the partnership, and I am honored to offer this bill which will make this possible. Contrary to concerns which are sometimes raised by other rivers' towns, Lee, Durham and Newmarket have told me that the Wild and Scenic program has stimulated a plethora of meaningful benefits to the Lamprey River and to the residents of the towns by which it flows. I applaud the extent to which this work has occurred through volunteer efforts and through monies solicited from towns, the State of New Hampshire and private foundations. As a result, groups like the Lamprey River Advisory Committee have been able to leverage a relatively small federal investment into substantial benefits. Within the past month, the Board of Selectmen from the Town of Epping, New Hampshire, the Epping Conservation Commission, and the Lamprey River Advisory Committee have contacted me to request that I introduce this legislation which will increase the designated area from eleven and a half to twenty-three and a half miles. The Lamprey River is situated in coastal New Hampshire and is the largest of the rivers that discharge into Great Bay, a designated National Estuarine Research Reserve consisting of 4,500 acres of tidal waters and wetlands and 800 acres of upland. Both in physical dynamics and biological productivity, the Great Bay estuary contributes immeasurable economic value to the Northeast and clearly constitutes one of New Hampshire's prime natural areas. The Lamprey's size alone marks its importance to Great Bay. Its good water quality and intact riparian habitat throughout the watershed create an important link between the estuary and inland areas. The Lamprey is considered New Hampshire's most significant river for all species of anadromous fish and it contains every type of stream and river fish you could expect to find in New England. Botanical studies have documented 329 species of vascular plants of which 252 are restricted to wetlands and floodplain communities. In addition, according to the State Architectural Historian, the Lamprey is one of New Hampshire's most historic streams. Perhaps what is most important about this bill is that it will help to assure that future generations will enjoy recreational opportunities on this great river. Undeveloped along most of its entire length, it is a beautiful river to be on and fish. For a quiet retreat into the woods the Lamprey is superb--where one can expect quiet canoe or kayak paddling past densely forested banks of hemlocks and hardwoods. In upstream reaches, people most often use the river recreationally for fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and swimming in the summer. In the winter, people trade in their boats and fishing poles for cross-country skis. This is a truly exceptional river offering a vast variety of activities for anyone who cares for the outdoors and I am pleased to offer this legislation to assure that it will remain in the same condition for generations to come. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Forestland Preservation Tax Act of 1999. This bill amends several key tax provisions to help landowners keep their lands in long-term private forest ownership and management. Without these changes, many landowners will continue to be forced to sell or change the use of their land. This bill derives from four years of work by the Northern Forest Lands Council (NFLC). The NFLC was created in 1990 to seek ways for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York to maintain the ``traditional patterns of land ownership and use'' in the forest that covers this nation's Northeast. The Northern Forest is a 26-million- acre stretch of land, home to one million residents and within a two- hour drive of 70 million people. Nearly 85% of the Forest is privately owned. Times have changed, however, and social and economic forces have begun to affect the traditional patterns of land use with more and more land being marketed for development. This bill will help maintain traditional patterns and, thus, preserve the forest by adjusting several estate tax provisions. This bill would allow heirs to make postmortem donations of conservation easements on undeveloped estate land and allow the valuation of undeveloped land at current use value for estate tax purposes if the owner or heir agrees to maintain the land in its current use for a period of twenty-five years. This bill also would establish a partial inflation adjustment for timber sales by allowing a tax credit not to exceed 50%. This will encourage landowners to maintain their timberland for long-term stewardship, which is both economically and environmentally desirable. Also, the bill would eliminate the requirement that landowners generally must work 100-hours-per-year in forest management on their forest properties to be allowed to deduct normal management expenses from timber activities against nonpassive income. Currently, landowners are required to capitalize these losses until timber is harvested. This legislation, though prompted by the NFLC's work, will benefit not only the four states that make up the Northern Forest, but also all states with forestland and all who enjoy the multiple uses of forestland. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will not only protect the historic current use patterns, but also allow the rustic beauty of our forests to be enjoyed by all. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Forestland Preservation Tax Act of 1999. This bill amends several key tax provisions to help landowners keep their lands in long-term private forest ownership and management. Without these changes, many landowners will continue to be forced to sell or change the use of their land. This bill derives from four years of work by the Northern Forest Lands Council (NFLC). The NFLC was created in 1990 to seek ways for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York to maintain the ``traditional patterns of land ownership and use'' in the forest that covers this nation's Northeast. The Northern Forest is a 26-million- acre stretch of land, home to one million residents and within a two- hour drive of 70 million people. Nearly 85% of the Forest is privately owned. Times have changed, however, and social and economic forces have begun to affect the traditional patterns of land use with more and more land being marketed for development. This bill will help maintain traditional patterns and, thus, preserve the forest by adjusting several estate tax provisions. This bill would allow heirs to make postmortem donations of conservation easements on undeveloped estate land and allow the valuation of undeveloped land at current use value for estate tax purposes if the owner or heir agrees to maintain the land in its current use for a period of twenty-five years. This bill also would establish a partial inflation adjustment for timber sales by allowing a tax credit not to exceed 50%. This will encourage landowners to maintain their timberland for long-term stewardship, which is both economically and environmentally desirable. Also, the bill would eliminate the requirement that landowners generally must work 100-hours-per-year in forest management on their forest properties to be allowed to deduct normal management expenses from timber activities against nonpassive income. Currently, landowners are required to capitalize these losses until timber is harvested. This legislation, though prompted by the NFLC's work, will benefit not only the four states that make up the Northern Forest, but also all states with forestland and all who enjoy the multiple uses of forestland. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will not only protect the historic current use patterns, but also allow the rustic beauty of our forests to be enjoyed by all. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.