[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6706-6710]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              THE CONSERVATION TAX INCENTIVES ACT OF 1999

  Mr. Jeffords. Mr. President, on this day when Americans must file 
their tax returns, I am introducing the Conservation Tax Incentives Act 
of 1999, 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.
  Our tax code already has a tax incentive to encourage people to 
donate land for conservation purposes or to donate conservation 
easements. The charitable contribution deduction provides this 
incentive, and this deduction has been instrumental in the conservation 
of environmentally significant land across the country.
  Not all land worth preserving, however, is owned by people who are 
able to give it away. For many landowners, their land is their primary 
financial asset, and they simply cannot afford to donate it for 
conservation purposes. While they might like to see their land 
preserved in its undeveloped state, the tax code's incentive for 
donations is of no help to them.
  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; the effect of this 
exclusion is to cut in half the capital gains tax the seller would 
otherwise have to pay. The bill will enable

[[Page 6707]]

landowners to permanently protect their 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 nonprofit conservation 
organization. They are also available when landowners sell partial 
interests in land for conservation. Thus owners of farms and forests 
may be able to take advantage of the bill's benefits, yet still 
continue to harvest crops or timber from their land, if they sell a 
conservation easement on the property. The purchaser must provide the 
seller with a letter of intent manifesting the purchaser's intent that 
the land acquisition will serve such conservation purposes as 
protection of fish, wildlife or plant habitat, or provision of 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.
  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 live 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 offer comes from the county, which 
will preserve the land in furtherance of its open-space goals. The 
other offer has been made by an individual who does not plan to 
conserve the land. Originally purchased for $25,000, the land is now 
worth $250,000 on the open market. If they sell the land at its fair 
market value to the individual, the couple would realize a gain of 
$225,000 ($250,000 sales price minus $25,000 cost), 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 to the county for 
conservation purposes, they would be able to exclude from income one 
half of the gain 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 individual'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.
  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 also 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. 
Upon learning of this, the State moved to obtain appraisals and a quick 
legislative appropriation in preparation for a possible State purchase. 
Indeed, the State and The Nature Conservancy subsequently 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 offered by the State. Had the bill I'm introducing 
today been on the books, the lower State offer may well have been as 
attractive--perhaps more so--than the amount offered by the individual.
  In drafting the bill's language, I was careful to ensure that the tax 
incentive applies to lands that truly serve conservation purposes. 
First, only publicly-supported conservation charities and governmental 
entities qualify as purchasers for transactions that make use of this 
tax incentive. Conservation organizations and governmental natural 
resource and environmental agencies have a long and respected record of 
serving the public interest in acquiring and managing land for 
conservation purposes. This bill builds on that record of trust and 
responsible stewardship, without imposing new and administratively 
cumbersome requirements to ensure that the public purpose is served. 
The tax code already provides for adequate oversight to guard against a 
potential breach of the public trust by a conservation organization.
  Second, the bill requires a statement of intent from the purchaser 
reflecting the purchaser's intent that the acquisition will serve one 
of the specified conservation purposes. This language was crafted to 
protect the public's conservation investment by establishing the 
purchaser's intent, but not creating a tax-driven land use restriction. 
In essence, I wanted to make sure that the purchaser's intent to 
conserve the land does not rob the land of commercial value, for which 
the landowner must be justly compensated if this conservation incentive 
is to work effectively. The purchaser's letter of intent should not be 
construed to impose new restrictions on the property or covenants 
running with the land; to do so would create an appraisal problem that

[[Page 6708]]

would defeat the very purpose that this bill is designed to address. 
Thus, the property being acquired should be appraised at its 
unencumbered, full fair market value. Furthermore, the value of the 
property in the hands of the purchasing conservation entity should be 
its full fair market value, notwithstanding both the purchaser's 
intended conservation use of the property and the required statement of 
intent. This principle would apply even when the original conservation 
purchaser, like a land trust, subsequently conveys the property to 
another cooperating conservation purchaser (e.g., a governmental 
agency) on behalf of which the land trust may have pre-acquired the 
property.
  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 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.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of the Conservation 
Tax Incentives Act of 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 809. A bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe 
regulations to protect the privacy of personal information collected 
from and about private individuals who are not covered by the 
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 on the Internet, to 
provide greater individual control over the collection and use of that 
information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                 online privacy protection act of 1999

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, in introducing a very 
important piece of legislation, the Online Privacy Protection Act of 
1999. Last year, Congress worked together to protect our most 
vulnerable citizens from unprincipled information gathering online by 
passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. That law 
provided online privacy protection for children up through age 13. 
Although teens and adults have a greater ability to identify the risks 
associated with online shopping and browsing, some guidance and 
protection is needed to ensure that web sites treat information in a 
fair and uniform way.
  Before I tell you what this bill does, let me first tell you what 
this bill does not do. It does not bury online companies with 
regulatory paperwork. It does not impose a congressional mandate on 
privacy policies. It does not force compliance with arcane rules. It 
does not regulate the internet.
  I want to be clear. We are trying to pilot the ship of internet 
commerce with a very light hand while trying to encourage the efforts 
currently underway within the online industry.
  This bill sets very general guidelines for how an online company 
treats information it gathers from people interacting with their web 
sites. First of all, there must be a clear and conspicuous posting of 
the companies information collection policy. They must note what 
information is collected, and what they do with it. There must be a 
clear means for people to opt out of providing this information, if the 
data collected is not relevant to the web transaction. In fairness, we 
do allow the web site host to cancel the online transaction if the site 
visitor doesn't provide all of the needed information. For example, if 
a person buys a product, but won't give a mailing address, the company 
can terminate the sale.
  A key provision of this bill allows people access to information that 
was collected and shared with outside companies. We recognize that 
there are many web sites that collect information to better serve their 
visitors. Amazon.com keeps track of book requests to help identify 
other potential books of interest to the customer. We appreciate the 
prosperity of that data and its use and want to protect and encourage 
that creativity. As long as the company discloses up front what 
information it is collecting and keeps that data internal, it won't be 
forced into disclosure and lose its competitive edge. However, all 
companies are required to establish and maintain procedures to protect 
the information that it collects.
  To the uninformed listener, this may sound like a lot of regulation 
and paperwork for online companies to follow. The good news is that 
this bill recognizes the continuing progress being made in the 
commercial sector in providing secure and private transactions for 
customers. Concerns about misuse of information can drive many 
customers away, and many companies are recognizing the need for 
establishing some type of privacy rules. It's telling that 60 percent 
of Fortune 500 Chief Information Officers in a recent poll stated that 
they wouldn't divulge personal information online.
  Fortunately, we finally got the right balance in crafting privacy 
policy on the internet. It isn't through congressional or FTC mandates. 
It's by encouraging private industry to band together to establish 
minimum requirements for a safe haven for consumer information. 
Companies can meet the intent of this bill by showing that their 
privacy policy complies with the Safe Haven requirements established in 
industry. Congress and the FTC are only there to give the Safe Haven 
some teeth by providing incentives and ensuring compliance with these 
self-established regulations. We also allow states to use existing law 
to challenge and remove irresponsible online privacy behavior. A strong 
team of business, Congress, States, and regulators will bring a 
balanced and fair approach to the needs of consumers.
  The Online Privacy Protection Act of 1999 is an important effort to 
shape the future of online commerce. By getting out front and then 
staying out of the way, we can create an electronic medium free from 
big-brother mentality that allows people to move freely through 
commercial sites without fearing for the data trail they leave behind. 
This bill is good for industry and good for consumers. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Kennedy, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 810. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
alternatives for families with children, to establish incentives to 
improve the quality and supply of child care, to increase the 
availability and affordability of professional development for child 
care providers, to expand youth development opportunities, to ensure 
the safety of children placed in child care centers in Federal 
facilities, to ensure adequate child care subsidies for low-income 
working families, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 


                   caring for america's children act

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. 
        Kohl):
  S. 811. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
alternatives for families with children, to establish incentives to 
improve the quality and supply of child care, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


               tax relief for families with children act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 812. A bill to provide for the construction and renovation of 
child care

[[Page 6709]]

facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


               child care construction and renovation act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 813. A bill to ensure the safety of children placed in child care 
centers in Federal facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.


                    federal employees child care act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 814. A bill to establish incentives to improve the quality and 
supply of child care providers, to expand youth development 
opportunities, to ensure adequate child care subsidies for low-income 
working families, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pension.


   creating healthy opportunities and improving child education and 
                         support (choices) act

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a 
comprehensive child care bill, the ``Caring for America's Children 
Act''. This legislation recognizes that quality child care is a shared 
responsibility that ultimately benefits government, communities, and, 
most importantly, families and their children.
  Parents know best how to care for their children, and will choose the 
best if it is affordable and accessible. This legislation increases the 
opportunities for American children and their parents to choose the 
best care for their children, including the choice to forgo a second 
income to stay home with their children.
  But for many families, staying home is simply not an option. Today, 
more than 12 million children under the age of five--including half of 
all infants under one year of age--spend at least part of their day 
being cared for by someone other than their parents. In Vermont alone, 
there are approximately 22,000 children, under the age of 6, in state-
regulated child care.
  There are millions of school-aged children who are in some form of 
child care at the beginning and end of the school day as well as during 
school holidays and vacations. And just as many six to twelve year olds 
are latchkey kids--returning home from school with no supervision until 
their parents get home from work. Far too many of these children spend 
that time in front of the television with a soda and a bag of chips.
  Child care is a necessity for most working parents and high quality 
child care is a critical investment in our country's future. In the 
first three years of life, the brain either makes the connections it 
needs for learning or it atrophies, making later efforts at remediation 
in learning, behavior, and thinking difficult, at best. The experiences 
and stimulation that a caretaker provides to a child are the 
foundations upon which all future learning is built.
  The brain's greatest and most critical growth spurt is between birth 
and ten years of age--precisely the time when non-parental child care 
is most frequently utilized. A Time magazine special report on ``How a 
Child's Brain Develops'' (February 3, 1997) said it best, ``. . . Good, 
affordable day care is not a luxury or a fringe benefit for welfare 
mothers and working parents but essential brain food for the next 
generation.''
  The ``Caring for Children Act'' embodies two important goals. First, 
to expand the choices available to parents--including the most basic 
choice--to stay at home and care for their children. And second, to 
move child care from babysitting to early childhood education and 
positive youth development.
  How does the ``Caring for Children Act'' accomplish this? By 
increasing the tax benefits for all families with children we provide 
more opportunities for families, whether they stay at home or place 
their children in the care of others. We provide families with 
additional income to spend on child care or to manage the household 
budget without a second income.
  Through state incentives to improve the quality and remove barriers 
to higher quality care the legislation provides the opportunity to 
improve child care for everyone. By creating more after school 
activities that promote positive youth development and making them more 
affordable for low-income families, the bill increases gives parents 
and their children the opportunity to choose activities that will be 
fun and help in the acquisition of the skills necessary to become a 
productive, happy adult.
  The ``Caring for Children Act'' is good for families. The legislation 
creates more equity between the tax benefits received by working 
parents who pay others to care for their children, and parents who stay 
home to care for their children. It increases the Dependent Care Tax 
Credit (DCTC) for low- and middle-income families who use child care 
while they work. It increases current $500 Child Tax Credit to $900 per 
child. It increases the Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP) for two 
or more dependents and permits DCAP funds to be used to reimburse a 
parent or grandparent who provides full-time care for a child under the 
age of mandatory school attendance. Taxpayers are given the opportunity 
to select the best tax benefit option for each of their children, based 
on the individual family's economic and child care circumstances.
  The ``Caring for Children Act'' expands current consumer education 
services so that parents have better access to information on high-
quality child care and can feel more confident as they make decisions 
about who will care for their children. It creates new opportunities to 
meet the needs of school-aged children and their parents during the 
non-school hours.
  The ``Caring for America's Children Act'' is good for child care 
providers. Almost every child care provider that I have talked with 
over the past few years wants the opportunity to expand their services, 
increase their skills, and improve their facilities. But the child care 
business is a financially unstable endeavor.
  Child care centers and home-based providers are finding it 
increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, to buy the supplies 
and equipment that will promote healthy child development, and even to 
keep their doors open.
  The Shelburne Children's Center in Vermont closed earlier this year 
because it could not afford to stay open. Nearly forty percent of all 
family-based child care and ten percent of the center-based care close 
each year. Parents can only pay what they can afford, and far too often 
that is barely enough to keep the child care provider in business.
  The ``Caring for America's Children Act'' creates the opportunities 
that will help keep current providers afloat and encourage more people 
to enter the business. It creates a high-tech infrastructure for the 
training of child care providers --and makes that training more 
accessible for providers in every community. It establishes a block 
grant to help states improve the quality of child care.
  Funds can be used to provide salary subsidies and more training for 
providers, to improve the enforcement of state regulations, to help 
providers better care for children with special needs, or to increase 
the supply of infant care. States will have the opportunity to try 
innovative approaches designed to improve the quality of child care.
  The legislation also creates financing mechanisms to support the 
renovation and construction of child care facilities.
  The ``Caring for America's Children Act'' is good for business. Child 
care is a growing concern for businesses, large and small. In my home 
state of Vermont, companies have learned that being ``family friendly'' 
is good for business. It increases employee retention, improves job 
satisfaction, and lowers absenteeism. The legislation encourages 
businesses to take an active role in the child care needs of their 
employees and in the community-at-large. It provides a tax credit to 
employers who contribute to child care arrangements for their 
employees.

[[Page 6710]]

  The legislation expands the charitable deduction to encourage 
businesses to donate equipment, materials, transportation services, 
facilities, and staff time to public schools and child care providers. 
In short, it creates the opportunity for companies to make an 
investment in their future, by becoming involved in child care.
  I have divided the ``Caring for America's Children Act'' into four 
smaller, more narrowly focused bills, which I also am introducing 
today. The ``Tax Relief for Families with Children Act'' combines all 
of the tax provisions (Title I and Subtitle A of Title II) of the 
``Caring for America's Children Act.''
  The ``Child Care Construction and Renovation Act'' focuses 
exclusively on the financing of child care facilities contained in 
Title VII of the larger bill. ``The ``Federal Employees Child Care 
Act'' deals exclusively with ensuring the safety and quality of child 
care facilities operated for employees of the federal government.
  The ``Creating Healthy Opportunities and Improving Child Education'' 
or ``CHOICE'' Act combines the remainder of the ``Caring for America's 
Children Act.'' It focuses on improving the quality of child care, 
expanding non-school hours care for older children, increasing 
professional development for child care providers, and helping low-
income families who will not benefit from the tax provisions.
  As we all know, quality child care costs money. It costs money to 
parents who bear the biggest burden for the expense of child care. It 
costs businesses both through the direct assistance that they provide 
to employees to help with the expense of child care, and through their 
ability to hire and retain a skilled workforce. It costs government 
through existing tax provisions, direct spending, and discretionary 
spending targeted at child care.
  But we must remember that the costs of not making this investment are 
even higher. Those costs can be measured in the expense of remedial 
education, the cost of having an unskilled labor force, the increase in 
prison populations, and most importantly, the blunted potential of 
millions of children.
  Not only must we engage in a public debate on ``who cares for our 
children,'' but we also must take action to better support families in 
doing their most important work----raising our nation's children. Last 
year, child care legislation held a prominent place on the 
Congressional agenda. This year, little has been said, although the 
needs have not diminished. I hope that these bills can put child care 
back on the Congressional agenda where it belongs---because our 
children and families cannot wait much longer.
  As I said on Tuesday night during the debate on the Budget 
Resolution, I am not going to let the issue of child care go away. All 
of us here today, and all of the co-sponsors of this legislation are 
committed to whatever it takes to help our children maximize their 
opportunities. That is what this legislation is about--Opportunities.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me and Senators Dodd, Landrieu, 
Kennedy, and Kohl, as well as with Congressman Gilman and his House 
colleagues, in co-sponsoring and supporting this important legislation. 
To do nothing to improve the quality of child care and provide parents 
with more opportunities to choose the best care for their children is 
grossly unfair to the children and far too costly for our nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a section by section description of the 
``Caring for America's Children Act'' be placed in the Congressional 
Record.
  There being no objection, the item was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                          ____________________