Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute be agreed to, as amended, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senator Frist has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of calendar No. 393, H.R. 1702.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any Statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment be agreed to; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 460, S. 512.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 471, S. 1134.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read and agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 231, S. 53.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I now renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his very eloquent description of the legislation, which makes it entirely unnecessary for me to go further. I appreciate the kind comments he made. As he pointed out, this is an example of bipartisanship as well. Senator Wellstone and Senator Kennedy, on the other side of the aisle, participated always in a constructive way and allowed us to come up with an excellent piece of legislation. On the House side, Congressman Goodling, my good friend and colleague for many years, as chairman of the committee, and Congressman Clay, whom I also worked with in the past and to the present, Congressman McKeon of California, and Congressman Kildee of Michigan--all participated in this conference report. It could not have been done without the fantastic help of our staff. The committee personnel, CRS, and legislative counsel, and DOL, Department of Education, the White House--all participated in bringing to fruition a piece of legislation which has been struggling for 4 years to be able to get there.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be adopted, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and other statements relating to this conference report be printed in the Record. Before you proceed, Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Ohio would like to make some comments, and I invite him to do so.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1385 to consolidate, coordinate, and improve employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs in the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, August 15, 1998, will be a great day for Vermont as we celebrate the centennial of the Proctor Fire Department/Sutherland Falls Hose Company. On behalf of all Vermonters, I want to wish the department a very happy birthday. For a century, the Proctor Fire Department has been a vital part of its community. The firefighters continually risk their lives to protect the welfare of their neighbors. One such person was Firefighter Maurice ``Sonny'' Wardwell, a twenty-three year veteran of the department. He gave his life on January 23, 1994, while at the scene of a mutual aid fire in Pittsford, Vermont. Mr. Wardwell is a true hero and his sacrifice serves as a reminder to us all of dedication and selflessness of this profession. Mr. President, the 100th birthday of the Proctor Fire Department/ Sutherland Falls Hose Company is a monumental occasion. The department is a vital part of the town and provides prompt and reliable service to people in the most distressing situations. This tribute recognizes the importance of the Proctor Fire Department/Sutherland Falls Hose Company and, more importantly, the courageous firefighters who commit their time and service to the community.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 477, H.R. 1085.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join Senator Moynihan in offering legislation that would reduce the sulfur content of gasoline. Current levels of sulfur in gasoline lead to high nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions by weakening catalytic converter emission controls. These emissions elevate ground-level ozone and particulate matter pollution. As we all have learned, long-term exposure to ozone pollution can have significant health impacts, including asthma attacks, breathing and respiratory problems, loss of lung function, and lowered immunity to disease. The EPA has compared breathing ozone to getting a sunburn in your lungs. Children, including Vermont's approximately 10,000 asthmatic children, are at special risk for adverse health effects from ozone pollution. Children playing outside in the summer time, the season when concentrations of ground-level ozone are the greatest, may suffer from coughing, decreased lung function, and have trouble catching their breath. Exposure to particulate matter pollution is similarly dangerous causing premature death, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, decreased lung function, and alterations in lung tissue. These pollutants also result in adverse environmental effects such as acid rain and visibility impairment. Mr. President, this bill will reduce these pollutants in our communities, and more importantly it will reduce these pollutants cost- effectively. To reduce the sulfur content of gasoline, refineries can use currently available technology. These measures will not break the bank. California has already adopted the measures in this bill on a statewide basis. So have Japan and the members of the European Union. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's clean up our air so we can all breathe just a little bit easier.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 1998, a bill that will result in a reduction in the capital gains tax for landowners who sell property for conservation purposes. This bill creates a new incentive for private, voluntary land protection. This legislation is a cost-effective non- regulatory, market-based approach to conservation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it. The tax code's charitable contribution deduction currently provides an incentive to taxpayers who give land away for conservation purposes. That is, we already have a tax incentive to encourage people to donate land or conservation easements to government agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service or to citizens' groups like the Vermont Land Trust. This incentive has been instrumental in the conservation of environmentally significant land across the country. Not all land worth preserving, however, is owned by people who can afford to give it away. For many landowners, their land is their primary financial asset, and they cannot afford to donate it for conservation purposes. While they might like to see their land preserved in its underdeveloped state, the tax code's incentive for donations is of no help. The Conservation Tax Incentives Act will provide a new tax incentive for sales of land for conservation by reducing the amount of income that landowners would ordinarily have to report--and pay tax on--when they sell their land. The bill provides that when land is sold for conservation purposes, only one half of any gain will be included in income. The other half can be excluded from income, and the effect of this exclusion is to cut in half the capital gains tax the seller would otherwise have to pay. The bill will apply to land and to partial interests in land and water. It will enable landowners to permanently protect a property's environmental value without forgoing the financial security it provides. The bill's benefits are available to landowners who sell land either to a government agency or to a qualified conservation nonprofit organization, as long as the land will be used for such conservation purposes as protection of fish, wildlife or plant habitat, or as open space for agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation or scenic beauty. Land is being lost to development and commercial use at an alarming rate. By Department of Agriculture estimates, more than four square miles of farmland are lost to development every day, often with devastating effects on the habitat wildlife need to thrive. Without additional incentives for conservation, we will continue to lose ecologically valuable land. A real-life example from my home state illustrates the need for this bill. A few years ago, in an area of Vermont known as the Northeast Kingdom, a large well-managed forested property came on the market. The land had appreciated greatly over the years and was very valuable commercially. With more than 3,000 acres of mountains, forests, and ponds, with hiking trails, towering cliffs, scenic views and habitat for many wildlife species, the property was very valuable environmentally. Indeed, the State of Vermont was anxious to acquire it and preserve it for traditional agricultural uses and habitat conservation. After the property had been on the market for a few weeks, the seller was contacted by an out-of-state buyer who planned to sell the timber on the land and to dispose of the rest of the property for development. After learning of this, the State quickly moved to obtain appraisals and a legislative appropriation in preparation for a possible purchase of the land by the State. Subsequently, the State and The Nature Conservancy made a series of purchase offers to the landowner. The out- of-state buyer however, prevailed upon the landowner to accept his offer. Local newspaper headlines read, ``State of Vermont Loses Out On Northeast Kingdom Land Deal.'' The price accepted by the landowner was only slightly higher than the amount the State had offered. Had the bill I'm introducing today been on the books, the lower offer by the State may well have been as attractive--perhaps more so--than the amount offered by the developer. This bill provides an incentive-based means for accomplishing conservation in the public interest. It helps tax dollars accomplish more, allowing public and charitable conservation funds to go to higher-priority conservation projects. Preliminary estimates indicate that with the benefits of this bill, nine percent more land could be acquired, with no increase in the amount governments currently spend for conservation land acquisition. At a time when little money is available for conservation, it is important that we stretch as far as possible the dollars that are available. State and local governments will be important beneficiaries of this bill. Many local communities have voted in favor of raising taxes to finance bond initiatives to acquire land for conservation. My bill will help stretch these bond proceeds so that they can go further in improving the conservation results for local communities. In addition, because the bill applies to sales to publicly-supported national, regional, State and local citizen conservation groups, its provisions will strengthen private, voluntary work to save places important to the quality of life in communities across the country. Private fundraising efforts for land conservation will be enhanced by this bill, as funds will be able to conserve more, or more valuable, land. Let me provide an example to show how I intend the bill to work. Let's suppose that in 1952 a young couple purchased a house and a tract of adjoining land, which they have maintained as open land. Recently, the county where they lived passed a bond initiative to buy land for open space, as county residents wanted to protect the quality of their life from rampant development and uncontrolled sprawl. Let's further assume that the couple, now contemplating retirement, is considering competing offers for their land, one from a developer, the other from the county, which will preserve the land in furtherance of its open- space goals. Originally purchased for $25,000, the land is now worth $250,000 on the open market. If they sell the land to the developer for its fair market value, the couple would realize a gain of $225,000 ($250,000 sales price minus $25,000 costs), owe tax of $45,000 (at a rate of 20% on the $225,000 gain), and thus net $205,000 after tax. Under my bill, if the couple sold the land for conservation purposes, they could exclude from income one half of any gain they realized upon the sale. This means they would pay a lower capital gains tax; consequently, they would be in a position to accept a lower offer from a local government or a conservation organization, yet still end up with more money in their pockets than they would have had if they had accepted the developer's offer. Continuing with the example from the preceding paragraph, let's assume the couple sold the property to the county, for the purpose of conservation, at a price of $240,000. They would realize a gain of $215,000 ($240,000 sales price minus $25,000 cost). Under my bill, only half of this gain $107,500, would be includible in income. The couple would pay $21,500 in capital gains tax (at a rate of 20% on the $107,500 gain includible in income) and thus net $218,500 ($240,000 sales price minus $21,500 tax). Despite having accepted a sales price $10,000 below the developer's offer, the couple will keep $13,000 more than they would have kept if they had accepted his offer. The end result is a win both for the landowners, who end up with more money in their pocket than they would have had after a sale to an outsider, and for the local community, which is able to preserve the land at a lower price. This example illustrates how the exclusion from income will be especially beneficial to middle-income, ``land rich/cash poor'' landowners who can't avail themselves of the tax benefits available to those who can afford to donate land. As this bill also applies to partial interests in land, the exclusion from income--and the resulting reduction in capital gains tax--will, in certain instances, also be available to landowners selling partial interests in their land for conservation purposes. A farmer could, for example, sell a conservation easement, continuing to remain on and farm his land, yet still be able to take advantage of the provisions in this bill. The conservation easement must meet the tax code's requirements i.e., it must serve a conservation purpose, such as the protection of fish or wildlife habitat or the preservation of open space (including farmland and forest land). There are some things this bill does not do. It does not impose new regulations or controls on people who own environmentally-sensitive land. It does not compel anyone to do anything; it is entirely voluntary. Nor will it increase government spending for land conservation. In fact, the effect of this bill will be to allow better investment of tax and charitable dollars used for land conservation. The estimated cost of this bill is just $50 million annually. This modest cost, however, does not take into account the value of the land conserved. It is estimated that for every dollar foregone by the Federal treasury, $1.76 in land will be permanently preserved. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of the Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 1998.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join Senator Moynihan in offering legislation that would reduce the sulfur content of gasoline. Current levels of sulfur in gasoline lead to high nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions by weakening catalytic converter emission controls. These emissions elevate ground-level ozone and particulate matter pollution. As we all have learned, long-term exposure to ozone pollution can have significant health impacts, including asthma attacks, breathing and respiratory problems, loss of lung function, and lowered immunity to disease. The EPA has compared breathing ozone to getting a sunburn in your lungs. Children, including Vermont's approximately 10,000 asthmatic children, are at special risk for adverse health effects from ozone pollution. Children playing outside in the summer time, the season when concentrations of ground-level ozone are the greatest, may suffer from coughing, decreased lung function, and have trouble catching their breath. Exposure to particulate matter pollution is similarly dangerous causing premature death, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, decreased lung function, and alterations in lung tissue. These pollutants also result in adverse environmental effects such as acid rain and visibility impairment. Mr. President, this bill will reduce these pollutants in our communities, and more importantly it will reduce these pollutants cost- effectively. To reduce the sulfur content of gasoline, refineries can use currently available technology. These measures will not break the bank. California has already adopted the measures in this bill on a statewide basis. So have Japan and the members of the European Union. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's clean up our air so we can all breathe just a little bit easier.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 1998, a bill that will result in a reduction in the capital gains tax for landowners who sell property for conservation purposes. This bill creates a new incentive for private, voluntary land protection. This legislation is a cost-effective non- regulatory, market-based approach to conservation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it. The tax code's charitable contribution deduction currently provides an incentive to taxpayers who give land away for conservation purposes. That is, we already have a tax incentive to encourage people to donate land or conservation easements to government agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service or to citizens' groups like the Vermont Land Trust. This incentive has been instrumental in the conservation of environmentally significant land across the country. Not all land worth preserving, however, is owned by people who can afford to give it away. For many landowners, their land is their primary financial asset, and they cannot afford to donate it for conservation purposes. While they might like to see their land preserved in its underdeveloped state, the tax code's incentive for donations is of no help. The Conservation Tax Incentives Act will provide a new tax incentive for sales of land for conservation by reducing the amount of income that landowners would ordinarily have to report--and pay tax on--when they sell their land. The bill provides that when land is sold for conservation purposes, only one half of any gain will be included in income. The other half can be excluded from income, and the effect of this exclusion is to cut in half the capital gains tax the seller would otherwise have to pay. The bill will apply to land and to partial interests in land and water. It will enable landowners to permanently protect a property's environmental value without forgoing the financial security it provides. The bill's benefits are available to landowners who sell land either to a government agency or to a qualified conservation nonprofit organization, as long as the land will be used for such conservation purposes as protection of fish, wildlife or plant habitat, or as open space for agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation or scenic beauty. Land is being lost to development and commercial use at an alarming rate. By Department of Agriculture estimates, more than four square miles of farmland are lost to development every day, often with devastating effects on the habitat wildlife need to thrive. Without additional incentives for conservation, we will continue to lose ecologically valuable land. A real-life example from my home state illustrates the need for this bill. A few years ago, in an area of Vermont known as the Northeast Kingdom, a large well-managed forested property came on the market. The land had appreciated greatly over the years and was very valuable commercially. With more than 3,000 acres of mountains, forests, and ponds, with hiking trails, towering cliffs, scenic views and habitat for many wildlife species, the property was very valuable environmentally. Indeed, the State of Vermont was anxious to acquire it and preserve it for traditional agricultural uses and habitat conservation. After the property had been on the market for a few weeks, the seller was contacted by an out-of-state buyer who planned to sell the timber on the land and to dispose of the rest of the property for development. After learning of this, the State quickly moved to obtain appraisals and a legislative appropriation in preparation for a possible purchase of the land by the State. Subsequently, the State and The Nature Conservancy made a series of purchase offers to the landowner. The out- of-state buyer however, prevailed upon the landowner to accept his offer. Local newspaper headlines read, ``State of Vermont Loses Out On Northeast Kingdom Land Deal.'' The price accepted by the landowner was only slightly higher than the amount the State had offered. Had the bill I'm introducing today been on the books, the lower offer by the State may well have been as attractive--perhaps more so--than the amount offered by the developer. This bill provides an incentive-based means for accomplishing conservation in the public interest. It helps tax dollars accomplish more, allowing public and charitable conservation funds to go to higher-priority conservation projects. Preliminary estimates indicate that with the benefits of this bill, nine percent more land could be acquired, with no increase in the amount governments currently spend for conservation land acquisition. At a time when little money is available for conservation, it is important that we stretch as far as possible the dollars that are available. State and local governments will be important beneficiaries of this bill. Many local communities have voted in favor of raising taxes to finance bond initiatives to acquire land for conservation. My bill will help stretch these bond proceeds so that they can go further in improving the conservation results for local communities. In addition, because the bill applies to sales to publicly-supported national, regional, State and local citizen conservation groups, its provisions will strengthen private, voluntary work to save places important to the quality of life in communities across the country. Private fundraising efforts for land conservation will be enhanced by this bill, as funds will be able to conserve more, or more valuable, land. Let me provide an example to show how I intend the bill to work. Let's suppose that in 1952 a young couple purchased a house and a tract of adjoining land, which they have maintained as open land. Recently, the county where they lived passed a bond initiative to buy land for open space, as county residents wanted to protect the quality of their life from rampant development and uncontrolled sprawl. Let's further assume that the couple, now contemplating retirement, is considering competing offers for their land, one from a developer, the other from the county, which will preserve the land in furtherance of its open- space goals. Originally purchased for $25,000, the land is now worth $250,000 on the open market. If they sell the land to the developer for its fair market value, the couple would realize a gain of $225,000 ($250,000 sales price minus $25,000 costs), owe tax of $45,000 (at a rate of 20% on the $225,000 gain), and thus net $205,000 after tax. Under my bill, if the couple sold the land for conservation purposes, they could exclude from income one half of any gain they realized upon the sale. This means they would pay a lower capital gains tax; consequently, they would be in a position to accept a lower offer from a local government or a conservation organization, yet still end up with more money in their pockets than they would have had if they had accepted the developer's offer. Continuing with the example from the preceding paragraph, let's assume the couple sold the property to the county, for the purpose of conservation, at a price of $240,000. They would realize a gain of $215,000 ($240,000 sales price minus $25,000 cost). Under my bill, only half of this gain $107,500, would be includible in income. The couple would pay $21,500 in capital gains tax (at a rate of 20% on the $107,500 gain includible in income) and thus net $218,500 ($240,000 sales price minus $21,500 tax). Despite having accepted a sales price $10,000 below the developer's offer, the couple will keep $13,000 more than they would have kept if they had accepted his offer. The end result is a win both for the landowners, who end up with more money in their pocket than they would have had after a sale to an outsider, and for the local community, which is able to preserve the land at a lower price. This example illustrates how the exclusion from income will be especially beneficial to middle-income, ``land rich/cash poor'' landowners who can't avail themselves of the tax benefits available to those who can afford to donate land. As this bill also applies to partial interests in land, the exclusion from income--and the resulting reduction in capital gains tax--will, in certain instances, also be available to landowners selling partial interests in their land for conservation purposes. A farmer could, for example, sell a conservation easement, continuing to remain on and farm his land, yet still be able to take advantage of the provisions in this bill. The conservation easement must meet the tax code's requirements i.e., it must serve a conservation purpose, such as the protection of fish or wildlife habitat or the preservation of open space (including farmland and forest land). There are some things this bill does not do. It does not impose new regulations or controls on people who own environmentally-sensitive land. It does not compel anyone to do anything; it is entirely voluntary. Nor will it increase government spending for land conservation. In fact, the effect of this bill will be to allow better investment of tax and charitable dollars used for land conservation. The estimated cost of this bill is just $50 million annually. This modest cost, however, does not take into account the value of the land conserved. It is estimated that for every dollar foregone by the Federal treasury, $1.76 in land will be permanently preserved. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of the Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 1998.