Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act

Mr. President, there is an old saying that ``you don't know what you've got until it's gone.'' It is true, especially when you are talking about water. We have a tendency to take water for granted when we turn on our faucets or showers and when we want to water our yards. We tend to use it inefficiently. We let the faucet run when we are brushing our teeth, or we water our lawns in the middle of the day when evaporation rates are at their highest.

When you grow up in the desert, as I did, you learn to treasure water. Everything in the West is shaped by it, and you know that it might not always be there when you need it. This will become-- particularly in my part of the country, but also in the Presiding Officer's State as well--more apparent as we see lower snowpack and decreasing precipitation in the Southwest. Because of climate change dynamics and drought cycles, we are already experiencing those situations.

Water is the lifeblood of the West. Recent droughts in the Southeast of our country remind us that no one is immune from water shortages. It is with an eye to those experiences that I rise today to introduce legislation that would take a measured and practical step toward conserving it.

The Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment Act of 2009-- that is a mouthful, but if you boil it down to its acronym, it is the WATER Act--creates a tax incentive for individuals and businesses to purchase products and services that use water at least 20 percent more efficiently than comparable technology.

It is very similar to the existing tax credit we receive now for purchasing energy-efficient Energy Star products. Certainly, you see Energy Star products all over homes, and increasingly customers are purchasing them.

I thank my friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Coffman, for introducing this measure in the House. I am pleased to work with him in a bipartisan way, as he is a Republican, and in a bicameral way.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. Why? The more we can conserve today, the more we can decrease the demands on existing water resources. Better yet, we can save our constituents and ourselves literally hundreds of dollars in the process.

What would the WATER Act do? It would create a 30-percent tax credit on the purchase of products that have earned the EPA's WaterSense label, with a maximum lifetime cap of $1,500. That is a handsome incentive for us as consumers.

Like the Energy Star label awarded by the EPA and Department of Energy, the WaterSense label would be reserved for those products that consume at least 20 percent less water than comparable items. These products are becoming much more common. They include many brands of faucets, toilets, shower heads, even irrigation services.

The predictions are that soon entire homes would become WaterSense certified.

Not only is it a bonus for the environment when we conserve water, but it is helpful to our wallets. The cheapest gallon of water, frankly, like the cheapest barrel of oil, is the one we don't use.

It is estimated by the EPA that with some simple adjustments in the way we use water, the average household can save close to $200 a year on their water and sewer bills.

There is an interesting nexus as well between energy and water use. If we conserve energy water, we use less energy. Less water means less energy to heat the water in our showers, our sinks, our dishwashers, and the energy that is used to supply and treat public water. EPA estimates if 1 percent of American households used WaterSense-certified toilets, each year we could save enough electricity to power 43,000 homes for a month, lower water bills, and reduce demands on the environment. That is something we ought to be striving to accomplish.

Numerous groups already support this legislation as it is written. I focus in particular on my home State of Colorado where industry groups, water authorities, and local leaders in Colorado have signed on to this concept.

I wanted to also say that moving forward on this legislation gained added importance for me last month when I attended a briefing that the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research held. This particular briefing was focused on the ways we will have to adapt our management of water resources in response to the effects of climate change. I know the Presiding Officer and I share a real concern about climate change.

I used to think any discussion of adapting to climate change was misguided because we were giving in to the problem. We were saying we are going to let climate change occur. I have come to believe adapting to climate change is a recognition of reality. It is having impacts all across our country. If we do not act now, we will not be meeting our responsibilities to not only our constituents today but our children and their children in the future.

In my State, all you have to do is look, for example, at the Colorado River. Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, and the country of Mexico have an agreement that was reached about 80 years ago on how to divide up the Colorado River. When that agreement was reached, I believe, in 1922, we thought there were 16.5 million acre feet of water we could divide among all those States and communities. We now believe that time period, when we took those numbers interest account, was a particularly wet period in the history of the Colorado River Basin. Our best guess now is there is only about 14.5 million acre feet available, and 16.5 million versus 14.5 million--there is a 2-million-acre-foot deficit there, and it is causing increasing concern.

So these water shortages that are possible because of climate change, combined with drought cycles that are normal, have the potential to cause great political tension and controversy. The river levels in the Colorado basin most likely are going to get lower, and that means serious impacts for businesses, homes, and farmers in seven States and two counties. The longer we wait to take practical steps to adjust the steps of climate change, the harder it will become to deal with them.

The good news is we have options that will do more than help address global climate change. These are policies we ought to be adopting anyway. They simply have added significance now, and they make perfect common sense.

To return to the Water Act, which I came to the Senate floor to discuss, this is a prime example of how we can adapt and take some steps today that benefit all of us. If consumers in the Colorado River Basin install WaterSense products, they will decrease the demand on the overallocated Colorado River Basin, reduce their water and energy bills, and help head off an impending problem as a result of climate change. This is a win-win-win across the board.

Again, I come to the Senate floor to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting what is a commonsense, bipartisan, bicameral effort to save taxpayers money and take a big practical step toward greater water conservation.

As I close, I also add once again that we would be leading the world as it develops and the demand for water around the world increases. These products would be available in the marketplaces in China, India, Brazil, and the developing world, which would help our economy and help create jobs as well, which we are focused on singularly as Senators. I know that is important in the Presiding Officer's home State as well.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to make permanent a tax credit for the production of Steel Industry Fuel, SIF. SIF is used by the domestic steel industry as a feedstock for the manufacture of coke, which is coal that has been carbonized and is used as a fuel in steel making.

Last fall, Congress enacted a new tax credit under the refined coal provision of section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code for the production of this fuel product made from coal waste sludge and coal. This tax credit supports SIF projects that may not otherwise be viable due to materials, process, technology and other transaction costs. As originally enacted, the SIF credit provides for a one-year credit period.

There are numerous reasons that favor extending the tax incentives for SIF: it has significant energy, environmental, and economic benefits. First, SIF recaptures the BTU content of coal waste sludge; second, its production is the preferred method of coal waste sludge disposal and is done so in a manner approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA; and third, it provides the economic and financial benefits of making our domestic steel industry more competitive by lowering production and operational costs.

The production of SIF is the most favorable method of disposing of coal waste sludge from an energy resource and environmental perspective. The disposal of coal waste sludge would otherwise be treated as a hazardous waste under applicable Federal environmental rules. The alternative methods of disposal are to transport the coal waste sludge off-site for incineration or to foreign countries for land-filling. Both options require the physical conveyance of a waste product, which is a dangerous, cumbersome, and expensive undertaking. The more obvious drawback is the failure to recapture the energy content of the coal waste sludge.

An extension of the SIF tax incentive is of critical importance in the current economic downturn, and its sunset would have a negative impact on the industry. Steel companies and coke plant operators are incurring losses as the demand for their product has dried up. There have been significant layoffs at the major domestic integrated steel producers, impacting thousands of workers in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and elsewhere. Domestic steel manufacturers have been forced to operate at low capacity utilization rates and coke batteries have been placed on ``hot idle,'' a holding pattern to prevent the bricks that comprise the coke battery from cooling and damaging the battery. An extension of the SIF credit will enable these manufacturers to mitigate their losses while the economy recovers.

The current 1-year period for the SIF credit has been a significant hindrance in attracting the outside investment needed to finance SIF projects, especially in light of the prevailing economic conditions since the enactment of the credit. Steel industry fuel projects often involve lengthy negotiations to implement the transaction structure necessary to claim the SIF credit, which has effectively reduced the 1- year credit period to a lesser period for many projects. For this reason, the subsidy intended to be provided by the credit for the development of SIF projects requires a longer credit period.

Included in this legislation is an important clarification on an issue that has slowed negotiations with respect to SIF projects. It is expected that, for the convenience of the parties and for environmental safety, facilities producing SIF will typically be located on land leased from a steel company or other owner of a coking operation. Such a lessor will not be treated as having an ownership interest in the SIF facility because it leases land and related facilities, sells coal waste sludge or coal feedstock, and/or buys SIF so long as such person's entitlement to rent and/or other net payments is measured by a fixed dollar amount or a fixed dollar amount per ton, or otherwise determined without reference to the profit or loss of the facility. Similarly, a licensor of technology will not be treated as having an ownership interest in the SIF facility because it is entitled to a royalty and/or other payment that is a fixed amount per ton or otherwise determined without regard to the profit or loss of the facility. Such arrangements may also cause facilities that produce SIF to operate at a loss before the credit is taken into account; however, it is intended that the occurrence of such a ``pre-tax loss'' will not affect entitlement to this credit, regardless of whether such ``pre-tax loss'' is caused by the terms of the lease, license, supply or sales contracts between the parties. To that end, the bill provides necessary flexibility for varying circumstances of ownership interests and clarifies that the existence of such arrangements will not prevent the equity owner of a facility from receiving tax credits for its sales of SIF. This provision provides greater tax certainty to potential investors in SIF projects.

SIF is typically produced at facilities that are located on the premises of coke plants that are owned by integrated steel companies that are unrelated to the producer of such SIF. The

SIF production facility is situated on or near conveyor belts that may be leased from the integrated steel company and production of SIF may occur while coal, and coal blended with petroleum coke, as described below, is transported on the conveyor belts. For commercial, liability, safety, environmental and other business reasons germane to the integrated steel companies that consume the SIF, SIF producers may purchase coal from the integrated steel producer, taking title and having risk of loss while such coal is transported on the conveyor belt, rather than directly purchasing the coal from the mine. The bill provides a safe harbor that establishes that the SIF producer shall be treated as the producer and seller of SIF that it manufactures from coal to which it has taken title. The bill further clarifies that the sale of SIF shall not fail to qualify as a sale to an unrelated party for purposes of the SIF credit solely because the sale is to a party that is also a ground lessor, supplier, and/or customer.

The bill also establishes that SIF may also be made using coal or coal that is mixed with some petroleum coke. Such ``pet coke'' has traditionally been used by steel companies/coke operators in a blend with coal as a feedstock for coke. The bill provides that its presence in SIF does not invalidate or otherwise reduce the credit.

SIF projects will expand our domestic energy resources by using what would otherwise be a hazardous waste of the coking process in a fuel product. The availability of the tax credit will attract outside investment to the steel and coke production industries and promote job growth in the domestic steel production industry and in related industries that service the steel and coke production industries. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cardin to introduce the state Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2009. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective state court interpreter programs. This would help to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.

States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no interpreter certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding state court interpreter programs.

Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters.

Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 20 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was 10 years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million.

The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the state Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed.

Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In Ohio, a woman was wrongly placed on suicide watch after an unqualified interpreter mistranslated her words. In February 2007 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness' testimony. Justice Kennedy agreed that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system, and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.

This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year, over 5 years, for a state Court Interpreter Grant Program. The bill does not merely send Federal dollars to States to pay for court interpreters. It will provide much needed ``seed money'' for States to start or bolster their court interpreter programs to recruit, train, test, and certify court interpreters. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home.

Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's court interpreter program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, 5 years later, it has certified 48 interpreters. Most of those are certified in Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and German. The list of provisional interpreters--those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained in Russian, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only 5 years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance.

This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators and state supreme court justices around the country. Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

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

There geing no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 28, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the current and expected impacts of climate change on units of the National Park System.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, October 29, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 555, to provide for the exchange of certain land located

in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in the State of

Colorado, and for other purposes;

S. 607, to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of

1986 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture

regarding additional recreational uses of National Forest

System land that are subject to ski area permits, and for

other purposes;

S. 721, to expand the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in the State

of Washington, to designate the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River

and Pratt River as wild and scenic rivers, and for other

purposes;

S. 1122, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the

Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative

agreements with State foresters authorizing State foresters

to provide certain forest, rangeland, and watershed

restoration and protection services;

S. 1328 and H.R. 689, to interchange the administrative

jurisdiction of certain Federal lands between the Forest

Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and for other

purposes;

S. 1442, to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to

expand the authorization of the Secretaries of Agriculture,

Commerce, and the Interior to provide service-learning

opportunities on public lands, establish a grant program for

Indian Youth Service Corps, help restore the Nation's

natural, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational,

and scenic resources, train a new generation of public land

managers and enthusiasts, and promote the value of public

service; and

H.R. 129, to authorize the conveyance of certain National

Forest System lands in the Los Padres National Forest in

California.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller at (202) 224- 5488 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to improve the administration of Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway Vehicle area by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and aiding in proper enjoyment of these Federal lands.

This bill is simple. It interchanges the administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California.

This legislation consolidates BLM's jurisdiction and management of the Off-Highway-Vehicle area while, in exchange, the Forest Service benefits by receiving small tracts of wilderness areas that are currently managed by the BLM but are contiguous to Forest Service land.

This exchange only affects land already controlled by the Federal government and will not change the designation of these lands. Furthermore, it will be beneficial to the local community which has supported this jurisdictional change.

These Federal lands, near Redding, California, have long been used by off-highway-vehicle enthusiasts. However, overlapped management of these areas by both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management has caused unnecessary burden to these recreational opportunities.

It means users need two permits, often at substantial and unnecessary cost. Likewise, the overlapping management has resulted in different opening dates for the same area of land, frustrating the local off- highway-vehicle community and the thousands of tourists who travel there every year.

This jurisdictional exchange will reduce bureaucracy to ease recreational access as well as provide for better Federal management of these areas.

The bill was developed in a collaborative manner, with input and agreement at the local level by the Forest Service and BLM, in conjunction with the local off-highway-vehicle community. The bill is also supported by the local community and the County Board of Supervisors.

This effort represents a sensible, common sense approach to problem solving and better government.

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