WATER Act of 2009

Mr. President, the Senate is considering many issues now of great importance, but none more important to the American people than the future of health care in this great Nation.

This weekend, a new poll was released by the New York Times and CBS. Eighty-five percent of the people surveyed said the health care systems in America need fundamental change or to be completely rebuilt--85 percent. So people sense all across this country that though we have great hospitals and doctors, there is something fundamentally flawed with our system, and we can understand why. We are spending more money than any other country on Earth and we are not getting the medical results we want; and there is real uncertainty that average people won't be able to keep up with the costs of health insurance, the battles with health insurance companies over coverage, and whether at the end of the day they can have the quality health care every single person wants for themselves and their family.

They asked the American people which party they trusted to deal with health care reform, and 18 percent said they trusted the party on the other side of the aisle--the Republicans, while 57 percent trusted the Democratic majority. Even one out of every four Republicans said that the Democrats would do a better job in creating a better health care system.

People on this side of the aisle want a bill that works with the current system and fixes what is broken. We not only want to respond to the 85 percent of people who want change, we are listening to 77 percent of the people who say they are satisfied at this moment with the quality of their own care. So the starting point is if you have health insurance you like and it is good for your family, you can keep it. We are not going to change that. It is a tricky balance but one we have to address: how to preserve what is good but fix what is broken.

One of the foundations is the so-called public option. A lot of people don't know what that means, but it basically says there should be an option to private health insurance companies that is basically public in nature. We have a lot of public health now in America. Medicare is the obvious example. Forty million people count on Medicare to provide affordable, quality care in their elderly years and during their disabilities. The Medicaid Program is another one for the poor people in our society. We have veterans health care. There are ways that we involve the government in health care that have been proven to be successful--not just for years but for decades.

Many folks on the other side of the aisle come to the floor warning us about government involvement in health care. I have not heard a single one of them call for the end of Medicare or the end of veterans' care, not a one of them. We asked the American people: What do you think about a government health care plan as an option--a choice--for you so that you can choose from the well-known names in health insurance, private companies, but then you also have one other choice; you can pick the public plan, the public interest plan, the government plan. This poll taken by the New York Times and CBS found that there was broad bipartisan backing for a public option. Half of those who call themselves Republican say they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-quarters of Independents. This chart here shows the question: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan such as Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans? All respondents--72 percent--said they favored it. Only 20 percent were opposed.

So three to one favor the idea of a public health care plan. Fifty percent of Republicans do, 87 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of Independents.

Then we asked the harder question: Are you willing to pay more or higher taxes so that all Americans can have health insurance that they can't lose no matter what happens? Look at this number: Fifty-seven percent of all who responded said they are willing to pay higher taxes if it means that everybody has peace of mind that health insurance would be there. Those making less than $50,000, 64 percent of those folks support it, and those with incomes over $50,000, 52 percent supported it as well.

Many of the people coming to the floor on the other side of the aisle don't agree with the vast majority of Americans when it comes to this issue. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for at least coming to engage us in this debate, but we do see things a lot differently. We have heard a lot of Republicans coming to the floor discussing health care. Many of them have been critical of change. Maybe it has been made clear to a majority of the American people that those who are waiting on Congress to act may see some on the other side of the aisle reluctant and slow, while those on our side of the aisle are trying to follow President Obama to a solution. Regardless of the reason, it seems that most of the Republicans' approach to this can be summarized in three words: deny, delay, and ration. That is what we have heard from the Republicans on health care reform.

The Republican leader started it 2 weeks ago. We heard it from him again last week, and no doubt we will hear it from him again this week, as well as from the Republican whip. Perhaps they think if they keep drilling home these three words--deny, delay, and ration--that people will lose their appetite for change in our health care system.

When our economy was in a deep freeze earlier this year with the recession that President Obama inherited, he called on us to enact landmark legislation to try to get this economy moving forward. It was an effort that was resisted by the other side of the aisle. We ended up with three Republicans at the time who supported us, even though the President asked them personally to be engaged, to be involved, and to help us solve this problem. But they denied that the problem was as great as it was. They wanted to delay consideration of the legislation, drag it out as long as possible, and then they wanted to limit, or ration, the dollars we put into recovery. They thought the economy would get well all by itself. If we had given in to their view, I am afraid unemployment figures today would be even higher, economic output anemic, and many of our States facing bankruptcy today would be faced with even worse circumstances. So we went forward. We would not allow the Republican approach when it came to recovery and reinvestment in the American economy.

We see the strategy now repeatedly from the Republican side of the aisle. It seems to be their approach to governing or not governing. They want to deny requests on the floor to move to legislation. Last night was the most recent. Here is a bill which nobody argues against to increase tourism in the United States, bring in more foreign visitors who will spend more money, who will help hotels and restaurants and airlines and businesses, large and small. Eleven Republicans cosponsored it. Last night we said, OK, let's pass it. Let's get it done. Let's move on. This is the type of thing that is good, but it shouldn't take all of this time to do. Only 2 of the 11 Republicans who cosponsored the tourism bill were willing to vote for it last night. They wanted to delay this again. They want us to end up this week accomplishing little or nothing. At the end of the week, if they get us to do nothing, they consider it a successful week. I don't see how it can be. This bill we are talking about on tourism is designed to help create jobs in this country--something we desperately need.

Health care is a serious issue which we need to move on and not delay. Democrats believe the role of the Federal Government is to keep the best interests of the American people in mind. Half of those questioned in the New York Times-CBS poll said they thought the government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers. Incidentally, that number is up from 30 percent a couple of years ago. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down the costs, up from 47 percent.

The American people know the government doesn't want to deny people health care, delay their services, or ration, but it is no surprise the Republican leaders still use these words. That is their playbook. It is a playbook that was written by a pollster, an adviser and counselor whom I know--Frank Luntz. Mr. Luntz has been around a long time. He is the guru, the go-to guy, the great thinker on the Republican side of the aisle. He calls himself in his own publications Dr. Frank Luntz. Well, it looks as though when it comes to strategy on health care reform, the Republicans are more focused on Dr. Frank than they are on the realities that doctors and patients face in America every single day. Dr. Frank give them a 28-page memo on how to stop health care reform before we had even put a bill on the table.

There are those who want to stop health care reform before they know what is in it. Do you know who they are? They are the people who are today making a fortune on the current health care system. They see their profitability at risk if there is health care reform.

It is no wonder that you hear Dr. Frank come up with proposals for the Republican side of the aisle, which are then repeated here on the floor of the Senate. On page 15 of his marching orders, Frank Luntz wrote:

It is essential that ``deny'' and ``denial'' enter the

conservative lexicon immediately.

On page 24, he said:

Of the roughly 30 distinct messages we tested, nothing

turns people against what Democrats are trying to do more

immediately than the specter of having to wait.

On page 23 of the memo of Dr. Frank Luntz, he wrote:

The word ``rationing'' does induce the negative response

you want. . . .

He says that to his Republican followers.

. . . ``rationing'' tests very well against the other health

care buzzwords that frighten Americans.

That last phrase caught my attention, because more and more of what we hear from the other side of the aisle in criticizing President Obama's agenda is fear--be afraid, very afraid, be afraid of change.

The American people weren't afraid of change last November; they voted for it. They asked for change in the White House. I think they said it overwhelmingly. We have seen change. What we hear from the Republican side is to be afraid of change. That is their mantra, whether it is a question of changing the economy as it was under the Bush administration, changing health care as it has been for years, changing education so that we get better results, the Republicans say be afraid of this, be frightened.

I think that is, unfortunately, their motto. They have used it time and again. I don't think it is what Americans feel. We are a hopeful nation, not a fearful nation. We want to be careful but not afraid. We want to make the right decisions and make them on a cooperative basis and bring everybody in a room and try to come up with a reasonable answer. But we should not be afraid to tackle these things and not frightened by the prospect that it might be hard work. As the President said about health care reform, if it were easy, it would have been done a long time ago. That is something we all need to look at and understand.

I can tell you that Democrats recognize the status quo, the way we have been doing things forever, isn't working for millions of Americans when it comes to health care. The idea of having the public insurance plan option is a course to make sure that we keep the private profitable health insurance companies honest, and see that they have some competition; otherwise, we are stuck with the current system, where they can make a blanket decision that people with preexisting conditions have no coverage or they can decide what your doctor thinks is the best procedure is something they won't pay for.

American families deserve health insurance that does not force families to face limitless out-of-pocket expenses.

Americans want real health insurance reform. This public option is going to promote that kind of choice.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to assault this idea of public insurance, insisting it is too much government. The minority leader on the Republican side said Americans don't deserve a health care system that forces them into government bureaucracy that delays or denies their care and forces them to navigate a web of complex rules and regulations. Of course they don't.

Raising that fear, as suggested by Dr. Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist, is what they want to do--plant the seeds in the minds of people that any change will be bad. I don't think the American people feel that way. If you want to see a bureaucracy, try getting through a call to your health insurance company after you get the letter that says they won't cover the $1,500 charge for the procedure your doctor ordered. Talk to someone who can no longer get health insurance because of an illness they had years ago, a preexisting condition, or because they are too old in the eyes of health insurance companies. Ask them how streamlined or efficient conversations are with insurance companies today.

If you want to see a bureaucracy, talk to a small businessman in Springfield, a friend of mine, who had to jump through a series of hoops to find a way to continue health care coverage for his employees and keep his business going. Plain and simple, health insurance today is a bureaucracy. It is one most people know firsthand. Americans and small business owners face it every day.

We need to move to a new idea, an idea not based on the health insurance companies' model. Frankly, they are the ones who are profiting.

Last year was a bad year for most American businesses. According to CNN and Fortune Magazine, only 24 Fortune 500 companies' stocks generated a positive return last year. Among those that didn't have that were GM, United Airlines, Time-Warner, Ford, CBS, and Macy's. All these companies lost billions in what financial analysts tell us was the fortune 500's ``worst year ever.''

There were two sectors of the economy that did well--the oil industry and the health insurance industry. The top four health insurance companies in America--UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, and Humana--made more than $7.5 billion in combined profit last year, while the bottom fell out for virtually every other company, short of the oil industry, across the board.

The goal with the Democratic health reform bill is to create health care that values patients over profits and quality more than bottom line take-home pay and bonuses.

Republicans want to preserve a broken system, one with escalating costs and no guarantee the policy will be there when you need it. Rather than help insurance companies, Democrats want to put American families first and help those struggling with high health care costs.

This is a moment of truth for us in this Congress. This isn't an easy issue. Right now, the Finance Committee and HELP Committee are working hard to put together health care reform. Without it, things are going to get progressively worse. The cost of health care will continue to rise to unsupportable levels. Even if individuals have a good health insurance plan today, it may cost too much tomorrow. Even if they think their health insurance covers them well today, they may be denied coverage tomorrow. Businesses that want to keep insuring their employees worry over whether they can be competitive and still pay high health insurance premiums. Individuals worry about this as well.

The last point I want to make is that I think the President is right to say to us that we have to get this job done. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Don't deny the obvious. Don't come to the floor and deny the need for health care reform. It is real. We need it in this country, and 85 percent of the American people know it. The Republican leadership should come to know it in the Senate.

Second, don't dream up ways to delay this important deliberation. That isn't serving our country well. If justice delayed is justice denied, the same is true regarding health care reform. Delaying this into another Congress and another year doesn't solve the problem. It makes it worse. We need to face it today, and we need a handful of Republicans who will step away from the Republican leadership and say they are willing to talk, that if this is a good-faith negotiation to find a reasonable compromise, they are willing to do it. It has happened in the past--even a few months ago; it can happen again. It will take real leadership on their side.

The President said his door is open. The same thing is true on the Democratic side. The door is open for those who want to, in good faith, try to solve the biggest domestic challenge we have ever faced in the Senate. We have that chance to do it. We honestly can do it if we work in good faith.

But denying the problem, delaying efforts to get to the problem, and deciding we are only going to do a tiny bit of it so we can move on to something else is, unfortunately, a recipe for disaster. It is one the American people don't deserve and one we should avoid.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, 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