American Family Farm and Ranchland Protection Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise to discuss bipartisan legislation coauthored by my friend and fellow New Englander, Olympia Snowe, to establish a national endowment for the preservation, conservation, and restoration of our Nation's oceans, our coasts, and our Great Lakes. I also wish to take a moment and say a particular thank-you to an original cosponsor of this legislation, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia.

The National Endowment for the Oceans, along with the President's recent Executive order establishing our country's first ever national ocean policy, represent a long overdue and badly needed commitment to our great waters. While the President's national ocean policy specifies national objectives and outlines processes and government structures to restore, protect, and maintain our ocean and coastal resources, the National Endowment for the Oceans will provide the funding to actually achieve those public purposes. The endowment would make grants available to coastal and Great Lakes States, local government agencies, regional planning bodies, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations so these entities could embark on projects to learn more about and do a better job of protecting our precious natural resources.

Author C. Clarke once said:

How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is

quite clearly ocean.

Oceans cover three-quarters of our planet's surface, contain 90 percent of our planet's water, and produce more than two-thirds of our planet's oxygen. For as long as mankind has lived on the lands of this planet, oceans have sustained our survival and been part of our identity.

Speaking at a dinner in Newport, RI, in 1961, President Kennedy said:

We are tied to the ocean . . . and when we go back to the

sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it, we are going back

from whence we came.

My State, and indeed our country, always have kept a special bond with those great waters.

As a practical matter, my State's economy, as do many others, relies on Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island Sound to provide the jobs for fishing, shipbuilding, tourism, and soon, we hope, wind farming. Across America, coastal waters generate over 50 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and support more than 28 million jobs.

So we don't call Rhode Island the Ocean State just because of its beautiful coasts and beaches. Although as a sailor and proud ambassador for Rhode Island's tourism industry, I will tell my colleagues that Rhode Island's coast is one of the most beautiful places on Earth. We are the Ocean State because from our earliest days we have relied on the ocean and our beloved Narragansett Bay for trade, for food, for jobs, for recreation, and for solace and inspiration.

In part, it is Americans' love of the oceans that drives the need now to protect and restore them. Coastal America is experiencing a huge population boom, leading to more and more construction that puts significant pressure on our natural coastline and our wetlands. Worldwide demand for seafood grows at a pace that our fish stocks cannot keep pace with, and our demand for energy leads us deeper and deeper into the ocean in search of fuel.

For too long, we have been takers from our oceans rather than caretakers of our oceans, and the evidence of our peril is mounting.

From the Arctic Ocean, where ice sheets that have been part of Inuit lore as far back as memory and oral tradition go, are now disappearing, to the tropic seas, where coral reefs that serve as nurseries for ocean life are bleaching and dying, warnings are ringing.

From the far-off waters of the Pacific, where a garbage gyre of accumulated marine litter has grown larger than the State of Texas, to our near coasts such as Rhode Island's own Narragansett Bay where the water temperature has risen 4 degrees in the winter in the last 40 years, an ecosystem shift displacing our historic fisheries, warnings are ringing.

From the top of the oceanic food chain, where pollutants are turning our marine mammals into swimming toxic waste and major pelagic species have suffered a 90-percent population crash, to the very bottom of the food chain where greenhouse gases change the fundamental chemistry of our oceans until they may become too acidic to support the plankton base of the food chain, real warnings are ringing.

Our present day ocean is more acidic today than it has been in 8,000 centuries. A change in ocean chemistry

happening so quickly, we don't know if species will be able to adapt in time to survive. Even if we were to act immediately to curb our carbon pollution, the stress on these ecosystems will certainly worsen for some time from what we have already put into our atmosphere.

So from the far Arctic to the warm tropics, from the far ocean to the near coasts, from the top of the food chain to the bottom, real warning bells are ringing.

We can't begin to know what the total effects on our oceans will be, but what we have observed so far must be deeply troubling to any prudent, thoughtful person.

If you have been to the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Providence, you have seen a large plaque on the wall in the lobby marking the high water mark of the great hurricane of 1938 when a massive storm surge filled downtown Providence and the hotel lobby to a depth of about 5 feet. Sea level rise, another ocean threat, could mean that future storm surges crest much higher, wreaking far worse devastation.

That is a threat that is not unique to Rhode Island. Island nations around the globe are currently preparing for the possibility--really, the inevitability--that they will literally be engulfed by the ocean.

The National Intelligence Council reports that at least 30 American military installations around the world will be underwater if sea levels rise as projected. There is a dangerous feedback loop. The more ice that melts, the greater the danger. As darker ocean water traps rather than reflects the Sun's rays, melting accelerates and leaves us with less and less time to act, less and less time to spare our grandchildren the consequences of our generation's selfishness and folly.

Even seemingly modest changes in temperature, such as the 4 degree increase in Narragansett Bay, wreak havoc on marine ecosystems, causing what amounts to a full ecosystem shift. Anybody who relies on marine life for food, recreation, or a paycheck may soon find their lives changed by the disruption of the ocean's delicate ecosystem.

As a member of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, I find myself habitually frustrated that this ``tragedy of the commons'' continues to play out, while we stand idly on the sidelines and fail to intervene.

As a source of jobs and economic opportunity, a key element of our American tradition and, truly, the origin of life on our planet, our oceans, and our responsibility for them, ought to occupy a more prominent place on our national agenda.

Yet, our commitment to ocean and coastal preservation is unreliable at best--subject to the volatility of the yearly budget and appropriations process. None other than Robert Ballard, the famed ocean explorer who discovered the Titanic and is current president of the Ocean Exploration Trust, recently lamented that available funds for ocean research often fall far short of desired goals.

As we stand here and BP's oil poisons our Gulf of Mexico, it is time to ask our political system to put the stewardship of our natural resources, our ocean resources, at the forefront of our national agenda. In the past, Congress had established lasting endowments to protect other important American priorities.

Because we believe that a great society must cherish artistic expression and study closely the lessons of history, we established-- through the wisdom of Senator Claiborne Pell--the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Because we believe that a great society must connect communities to each other, we established a national highway trust fund. Because we believe that a great society must guarantee its elders a dignified and comfortable retirement after a lifetime of work, we established Social Security. Because we are indeed tied to our great waters, we should now act to establish a national endowment for the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.

This legislation, as I said, is bipartisan. I thank Senator Olympia Snowe for joining in this effort. This legislation is science based, with much of the money made available through a competitive grant program that will award funding to research undertaken by academic institutions, on-the-ground conservation by nonprofit organizations, and local governments, and protection of critical public infrastructure.

This legislation is cost effective, coordinating existing efforts of Federal, local, and private programs, reducing duplication of research efforts, and crossing political borders to ensure that every dollar is spent with the greatest possible effect.

This legislation is appropriately paid for with revenue generated from the oilspill liability trust fund, Outer Continental Shelf drilling, offshore renewable energy development, and fines collected for violations of the Federal law off our coastline. Put simply, a small portion of the revenue extracted from our oceans and great waters must be reinvested to now protect their long-term viability.

The ocean provides us with great bounty, and we will continue to take advantage of the ocean's bounty, as we should. We will fish, we will sail, and we will trade. We will dispose of waste. We will extract fuel and construct wind farms. We will put pressure on our oceans. Navies and cruise ships, sailboats and supertankers, will plow their surface. We cannot change that part of our relationship with the sea.

What we can change is what we do in return. We can, for the first time, give back. We can become stewards of our oceans--not just takers, but caretakers.

My wife, Sandra, is a marine biologist. We have watched as the University of Rhode Island, home of the Graduate School of Oceanography, has become a world leader in understanding our oceans and how to conserve them.

We are watching GSO's researchers struggle to keep up with rapid changes reshaping the ecosystems they study. This endowment will help science keep pace with change.

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration received $167 million for coastal restoration projects under the Recovery Act last year. More than 800 proposals for shovel-ready projects came in, totaling $3 billion. But NOAA could only fund 50. This endowment will help us move forward with those projects that protect our oceans and drive our economy.

The oceans contain the potential for new discoveries, the potential for new jobs, and the potential for new solutions to the emerging crisis off our shores.

But it is time to act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in support of this legislation. Let ours be the generation that tips the increasingly troubling balance between mankind and the oceans, from whence we came, a little bit back toward the benefit of our oceans.

Mr. President, as I rise today to join Senator Whitehouse in introducing the National Endowment for the Oceans Act, our Nation continues to bear the brunt of what has now become the biggest offshore oil spill in recorded history. Since April 20, 2010, when the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana, claiming the lives of 11 men, as much as 180 million gallons of oil has spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. The ecosystem, environment, and the culture of the Gulf coast region will feel the effects of this spill for decades to come in the aftermath of an event that has focused National attention on one of our most productive, beautiful, and beloved resources: our oceans and coasts. I also want to acknowledge the support of the Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator Rockefeller for his cosponsorship of this initiative.

As Ranking Member on the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and as a Senator from a state which relies heavily on our marine and coastal resources, I have long appreciated the tremendous value of America's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Throughout my time in this body I have pursued policies that would enhance our stewardship of these treasured regions, and permit sustainable use of the bounty they provide. This legislation would ensure a brighter future for these areas that heal our souls and drive our economy.

Investment in our oceans is investment in our future. The United States' exclusive economic zone, encompassing

the area 200 miles out from our shores, covers more of the earth's surface than our land area, and ultimately what affects our coastal economy drives our Nation's economy. More than 75 percent of growth in this country from 1997 to 2007, whether measured in population, jobs, or gross domestic product, occurred in coastal States. Coastal counties, covering just 18 percent of our land area, contributed 42 percent of U.S. economic output in 2007 according to a report published last year by the National Ocean Economics Program. Tourism, inherently reliant on pristine beaches, healthy habitat to foster fish, shellfish, and marine mammals, and fishable, swimmable waters, contributed over half a trillion dollars to our national GDP.

This is why in the 2004 report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, one of that body's fundamental priorities was the creation of an ocean policy trust fund to supplement existing appropriations for ocean and coastal programs. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, comprised of members of that body and the Pew Oceans Commission, has consistently listed establishment of an ocean trust fund among its highest priorities. The National Endowment for the Oceans will at long last meet this demand and provide a consistent stream of supplemental funding to enhance our commitment to protecting and sustaining these most fragile resources.

The fact is, our oceans and coastal regions face more challenges today than at any time in our history. Global climate change is already being felt more pressingly off our shores than our scientists yet understand. In the past few years alone, ocean acidification, a threat so new it was not even mentioned in the Ocean Commission's report, has begun to change the fundamental makeup of the ocean food web and destroy coral reef structures that have for eons girded our shores and provided nursery grounds for countless species of fish. Scientists believe increasing ocean temperatures are to blame for a steep and sudden decline in the southern New England and Long Island Sound lobster populations. This problem is so grave that fishery managers are considering closing the entire fishery in this area that has been rich with lobster throughout the duration of recorded human history. Hypoxic areas known as ``dead zones'' are cropping up off our shores in areas where they never before existed, and the annual hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico regularly encompasses an area the size of the state of New Jersey. I could go on and on, but my point is abundantly clear--our oceans need our help.

This vital legislation would set aside a portion of revenues from offshore oil and gas and renewable energy development on the outer continental shelf and would apply interest generated by the oil spill liability trust fund to a dedicated National Endowment for the Oceans. This endowment would fund three targeted grant programs--one to coastal states, a second to support regional ocean partnerships, and a third to fund the activities of additional ocean research not covered by the other two programs. This money would be available at the discretion of State and Federal resource managers for activities proven to restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their habitats and ecosystems.

Funding will supplement, not replace, annual appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations, NOAA, and other Federal agencies already carrying out critical work in our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes regions. In the past I have pressed the Administration and others in this body to increase Federal support for these agencies. I will continue to call for increases in NOAA's base funding until our investment in the agency meets the requirements of its missions. In the meantime, this program would provide a significant boost to our efforts to protect, conserve, restore, and understand the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes so vital to our national heritage, culture, economy, and identity.

I would like once again to thank Senator Whitehouse for his tireless ocean advocacy and his invaluable work to introduce the National Endowment for the Oceans Act, and Senator Rockefeller for his cosponsorship of this initiative, and I look forward to working with them on this and many more ocean issues in the future.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my friend and colleague Senator Crapo, legislation to encourage further protection of our treasured lands, ranches and family farms. The American Family Farm and Ranchland Protection Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that rewards those who protect these lands through conservation easements by increasing their exemption from the estate tax. Put simply, we strongly support conservation efforts and believe we need to do more to give Americans a real incentive to protect our nation's land. It is a companion bill to similar bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives introduced by Congressman Blumenauer.

I have long made conservation of America's natural resources a core component of my public service. In my role as chair of the National Parks Subcommittee, I am continuously focused on preserving our public lands and waters, because we owe it to future generations to leave them a sustainable environment. We did not inherit the land from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children.

However, the Government can only do so much, and many of our most important landscapes are privately owned property. If we are serious about conservation, we must acknowledge the important role that private land owners play in the overall effort to preserve our natural resources for generations to come.

Estate taxes can compromise Americans' ability to conserve private property. After the death of a loved one, families are often forced to subdivide a property and sell it for development to pay the costs of estate taxes. This situation could become more common starting in 2011 when the estate tax is set to revert back to the 2001 level of 55 percent above a $1 million per spouse exemption. Nearly 15 years ago, in an effort to provide some relief and encourage conservation of family farms and ranches, Congress created an exemption from the estate tax of up to 40 percent of the value of the land, capped at $500,000, for land permanently protected by a conservation easement.

A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and the government that permanently restricts certain development and future uses of the land. It often prevents future commercialization, while still permitting historic farming and ranching operations to continue in the family. I know in Colorado, our lands are best cared for when each generation knows its stewardship will reward the next.

When Congress first created the conservation easement exemption from estate taxes in 1997, a 40 percent exemption up to a total of $500,000 made sense. Now, that exclusion is simply too small. Since 1997, average farm real estate values have more than doubled and the average farm is larger, as larger farms are more likely to be economically viable. Incidentally, larger farms are also more likely to hold resources worthy of conservation. The old cap is simply no longer much of an incentive.

My legislation is a simple solution to the inadequacy of the current exemption. It raises the exemption for land under a conservation easement to 50 percent, up to a maximum exclusion of $5 million. It also encourages more robust conservation easements: less protective easements will receive a proportionally lower exemption rate. If we can support greater conservation efforts through a simple update to our existing tax code, then to me, that sounds like a deal worth taking.

This is a small change, but it has a profound effect. Those who choose to enter into a conservation easement will leave a dramatically reduced estate tax burden on their family. This, in turn, will help keep family farms and ranches whole, preserving them for future generations.

This is just a small piece of the estate tax puzzle, but it is an important one. It is critically important for Congress to address the estate tax before the end of this year to prevent it from going back to where it was a decade ago, with an exemption of only $1 million. At that level, it would affect almost every farmer and rancher in my state and in many others, as well as many, many family businesses.

We can protect the land, respect private property, ease tax burdens, and preserve our important farming and ranching heritage with the exemption my legislation proposes. I encourage the Senate to take up and approve this common-sense bill in an expeditious manner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my friend and colleague Senator Crapo, legislation to encourage further protection of our treasured lands, ranches and family farms. The American Family Farm and Ranchland Protection Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that rewards those who protect these lands through conservation easements by increasing their exemption from the estate tax. Put simply, we strongly support conservation efforts and believe we need to do more to give Americans a real incentive to protect our nation's land. It is a companion bill to similar bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives introduced by Congressman Blumenauer.

I have long made conservation of America's natural resources a core component of my public service. In my role as chair of the National Parks Subcommittee, I am continuously focused on preserving our public lands and waters, because we owe it to future generations to leave them a sustainable environment. We did not inherit the land from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children.

However, the Government can only do so much, and many of our most important landscapes are privately owned property. If we are serious about conservation, we must acknowledge the important role that private land owners play in the overall effort to preserve our natural resources for generations to come.

Estate taxes can compromise Americans' ability to conserve private property. After the death of a loved one, families are often forced to subdivide a property and sell it for development to pay the costs of estate taxes. This situation could become more common starting in 2011 when the estate tax is set to revert back to the 2001 level of 55 percent above a $1 million per spouse exemption. Nearly 15 years ago, in an effort to provide some relief and encourage conservation of family farms and ranches, Congress created an exemption from the estate tax of up to 40 percent of the value of the land, capped at $500,000, for land permanently protected by a conservation easement.

A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and the government that permanently restricts certain development and future uses of the land. It often prevents future commercialization, while still permitting historic farming and ranching operations to continue in the family. I know in Colorado, our lands are best cared for when each generation knows its stewardship will reward the next.

When Congress first created the conservation easement exemption from estate taxes in 1997, a 40 percent exemption up to a total of $500,000 made sense. Now, that exclusion is simply too small. Since 1997, average farm real estate values have more than doubled and the average farm is larger, as larger farms are more likely to be economically viable. Incidentally, larger farms are also more likely to hold resources worthy of conservation. The old cap is simply no longer much of an incentive.

My legislation is a simple solution to the inadequacy of the current exemption. It raises the exemption for land under a conservation easement to 50 percent, up to a maximum exclusion of $5 million. It also encourages more robust conservation easements: less protective easements will receive a proportionally lower exemption rate. If we can support greater conservation efforts through a simple update to our existing tax code, then to me, that sounds like a deal worth taking.

This is a small change, but it has a profound effect. Those who choose to enter into a conservation easement will leave a dramatically reduced estate tax burden on their family. This, in turn, will help keep family farms and ranches whole, preserving them for future generations.

This is just a small piece of the estate tax puzzle, but it is an important one. It is critically important for Congress to address the estate tax before the end of this year to prevent it from going back to where it was a decade ago, with an exemption of only $1 million. At that level, it would affect almost every farmer and rancher in my state and in many others, as well as many, many family businesses.

We can protect the land, respect private property, ease tax burdens, and preserve our important farming and ranching heritage with the exemption my legislation proposes. I encourage the Senate to take up and approve this common-sense bill in an expeditious manner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the PACE Assessment Protection Act of 2010. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators Merkley, Gillibrand, and Begich.

Property Assessed Clean Energy or PACE programs allow homeowners and building owners to finance an energy efficiency upgrade to their property through a tax assessment on that property. In this way, property owners are able to spread the cost of the upgrades over several years, lower their energy costs, contribute to a cleaner environment, and create jobs.

In California, nearly half of the State's 58 counties, as well as individual cities, have developed PACE programs or plan to start one, and 23 states as well as the District of Columbia have enacted PACE legislation. The program has the strong support of the White House and the Department of Energy, and many States and cities dedicated Recovery Act funding for their PACE programs.

Despite the promise of this program, the Federal Housing Finance Agency recently ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take actions that limit the use of PACE programs in conjunction with their home mortgages, effectively killing the program. FHFA objected that PACE assessments carry a priority lien, ahead of the lenders, on participating properties.

The right of States and localities to secure property tax assessments with a senior position is well established, and in the past, Fannie and Freddie have always respected this right--such as with assessments to finance sidewalks, bridges, or parks and other projects that provide a public benefit--without raising any concerns over the impact of such priority liens. In addition, the Department of Energy issued guidance for municipalities intending to use Recovery Act funding for PACE programs that calls for strong underwriting standards. These guidelines require that the savings a property owner would see as a result of any upgrade must be greater than the cost of the assessment, leaving homeowners in a more financially secure position.

To allow PACE programs to continue, as well as protect homeowners and taxpayers, we must take immediate action to address the overreach by the FHFA. My legislation would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to: adopt sound underwriting standards for financing clean-energy upgrades, consistent with Department of Energy guidelines; treat a PACE assessment as any other property tax assessment and respect States' authority to secure such assessments with a first lien; allow homeowners to finance, refinance, or sell their home without having to repay any PACE assessment first; prohibit discrimination against communities implementing or participating in a PACE program.

The legislation also limits the assessment amount subject to foreclosure to only the unpaid delinquent amount, along with applicable penalties, interest and costs, and not the entire amount.

The current uncertainty surrounding PACE programs is jeopardizing $110 million in Federal investments for California communities, and millions more in other States, which is simply unacceptable. We must take action to protect these initiatives because they create jobs, save homeowners money on their energy bills and help our environment. I urge my colleagues to join me and to support this legislation.