[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15881-15888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand):
  S. 1321. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a credit for property labeled under the Environmental Protection Agency 
Water Sense program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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

[[Page 15882]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1321

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Water Accountability Tax 
     Efficiency Reinvestment Act of 2009'' or as the ``WATER Act 
     of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR WATERSENSE LABELED PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 30E. WATERSENSE LABELED PROPERTY.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall
        allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 30 percent of 
     the amounts paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such 
     taxable year for certified WaterSense labeled property.
       ``(b) Lifetime Limitation.--The aggregate amount of the 
     credits allowed under this section with respect to any 
     taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess (if 
     any) of $1,500 over the aggregate credits allowed under this 
     section with respect to such taxpayer for all prior taxable 
     years.
       ``(c) Certified WaterSense Labeled Property.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `certified WaterSense labeled 
     property' means any property--
       ``(1) which is certified by a licensed independent third 
     party as meeting specifications of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency WaterSense program, and
       ``(2) the original use of which commences with the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(d) Application With Other Credits.--
       ``(1) Business credit treated as part of general business 
     credit.--So much of the credit which would be allowed under 
     subsection (a) for any taxable year (determined without 
     regard to this subsection) that is attributable to property 
     of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation shall 
     be treated as a credit listed in section 38(b) for such 
     taxable year (and not allowed under subsection (a)).
       ``(2) Personal credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this title, the credit 
     allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year (determined 
     after application of paragraph (1)) shall be treated as a 
     credit allowable under subpart A for such taxable year.
       ``(B) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a 
     taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the 
     credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
     (determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall not 
     exceed the excess of--
       ``(i) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(ii) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A 
     (other than this section and sections 23, 25D, 30, and 30D) 
     and section 27 for the taxable year.
       ``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons treated as a single 
     employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52, or 
     subsection (m) or (o) of section 414, shall be treated as a 
     one person.
       ``(2) Basis reduction.--For purposes of this subtitle, the 
     basis of any property for which a credit is allowable under 
     subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of such credit 
     so allowed (determined without regard to subsection (d)).
       ``(3) No double benefit.--The amount of any deduction or 
     other credit allowable under this chapter with respect to any 
     property for which credit is allowable under subsection (a) 
     shall be reduced by the amount of credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) with respect to such property (determined 
     without regard to subsection (d)).
       ``(4) Property used outside united states not qualified.--
     No credit shall be allowable under subsection (a) with 
     respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1).
       ``(f) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     property placed in service after December 31, 2010.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1)(A) Section 24(b)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``and 30D'' and inserting ``30D, 
     and 30E''.
       (B) Section 25(e)(1)(C)(ii) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``30E,'' after ``30D,''.
       (C) Section 25B(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and 30D'' and inserting ``30D, and 30E''.
       (D) Section 26(a)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and 30D'' and inserting ``30D, and 30E''.
       (E) Section 904(i) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and 30D'' and inserting ``30D, and 30E''.
       (F) Section 1400C(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and 30D'' and inserting ``30D, and 30E''.
       (2) Section 1016(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (36), by striking the period 
     at the end of

[[Page 15883]]

     paragraph (37) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(38) to the extent provided in section 30E(e)(2).''.
       (3) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 30E. WaterSense labeled property.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1322. A bill to provide for the Captain James A. Lovell Federal 
Health Care Center in Lake County, Illinois, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1322

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Captain James A. Lovell 
     Federal Health Care Center Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Executive Agreement Required.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, and 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall execute a signed 
     executive agreement for the joint use by the Department of 
     Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs of the 
     following:
       (1) A new Navy ambulatory care center (on which 
     construction commenced in July 2008), parking structure, and 
     supporting structures and facilities in North Chicago, 
     Illinois, and Great Lakes, Illinois.
       (2) Medical personal property and equipment relating to the 
     center, structures, and facilities described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Scope.--The agreement required by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) be a binding operational agreement on matters under the 
     areas specified in section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 
     110-417; 122 Stat. 4500); and
       (2) contain additional terms and conditions as required by 
     the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

       (a) Transfer.--
       (1) Transfer authorized.--The Secretary of Defense, acting 
     through the Administrator of General Services, may transfer, 
     without reimbursement, to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     jurisdiction over the center, structures, facilities, and 
     property and equipment covered by the executive agreement 
     under section 2.
       (2) Date of transfer.--The transfer authorized by paragraph 
     (1) may not occur before the earlier of--
       (A) the date that is five years after the date of the 
     execution under section 2 of the executive agreement required 
     by that section; or
       (B) the date of the completion of such specific benchmarks 
     relating to the joint use by the Department of Defense and 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Navy ambulatory 
     care center described in section 2(a)(1) as the Secretary of 
     Defense (in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy) and 
     Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall jointly 
     establish for purposes of this section not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Delay of transfer for completion of construction.--If 
     construction on the center, structures, and facilities 
     described in paragraph (1) is not complete as of the date 
     specified in subparagraph (A) or (B) of that paragraph, as 
     applicable, the transfer of the center, structures, and 
     facilities under that paragraph may occur thereafter upon 
     completion of the construction.
       (4) Discharge of transfer.--The Administrator of General 
     Services shall effectualize and memorialize the transfer as 
     authorized by this subsection not later than 30 days after 
     receipt of the request for the transfer.
       (5) Designation of facility.--The center, structures, 
     facilities transferred under this subsection shall be 
     designated and known after transfer under this subsection as 
     the ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center''.
       (b) Reversion.--
       (1) In general.--If any of the real and related personal 
     property transferred pursuant to subsection (a) is 
     subsequently used for purposes other than those specified in 
     the executive agreement required by section 2, or is 
     otherwise jointly determined by the Secretary of Defense and 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be excess to the needs 
     of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall offer to transfer 
     jurisdiction over such property, without reimbursement, to 
     the Secretary of Defense. Any such transfer shall be carried 
     out by the Administrator of General Services not later than 
     one year after the acceptance of the offer of such transfer, 
     plus such additional time as the Administrator may require to 
     effectuate and memorialize such transfer.
       (2) Reversion in event of lack of facilities integration.--
       (A) Within initial period.--During the five-year period 
     beginning on the date of the transfer of real and related 
     personal property pursuant to subsection (a), if the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and 
     the Secretary of Navy jointly determine that the integration 
     of the facilities transferred pursuant to that subsection 
     should not continue, jurisdiction over such real and related 
     personal property shall be transferred, without 
     reimbursement, to the Secretary of Defense. The transfer 
     under this subparagraph shall be carried out by the 
     Administrator of General Services not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the determination by the Secretaries, plus 
     such additional time as the Administrator may require to 
     effectuate and memorialize such transfer.
       (B) After initial period.--After the end of the five-year 
     period described in subparagraph (A), if the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs or the Secretary of Defense determines that 
     the integration of the facilities transferred pursuant to 
     subsection (a) should not continue, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall transfer, without reimbursement, to the 
     Secretary of Defense jurisdiction over the real and related 
     personal property described in subparagraph (A). Any transfer 
     under this subparagraph shall be carried out by the 
     Administrator of General Services not later than one year 
     after the date of the determination by the applicable 
     Secretary, plus such additional time as the Administrator may 
     require to effectuate and memorialize such transfer.
       (C) Reversion procedures.--The executive agreement required 
     by section 2 shall provide the following:
       (i) Specific procedures for the reversion of real and 
     related personal property, as appropriate, transferred 
     pursuant to subsection (a) to ensure the continuing 
     accomplishment by the Department of Defense and the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs of their missions in the event 
     that the integration of facilities described transferred 
     pursuant to that subsection (a) is not completed or a 
     reversion of property occurs under subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (ii) In the event of a reversion under this paragraph, the 
     transfer from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the 
     Department of Defense of associated functions including 
     appropriate resources, civilian positions, and personnel, in 
     a manner that will not result in adverse impact to the 
     missions of Department of Defense or the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 4. TRANSFER OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE.

       (a) Transfer of Functions.--The Secretary of Defense and 
     the Secretary of the Navy may transfer to the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs functions necessary for the effective 
     operation of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care 
     Center. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may accept any 
     functions so transferred.
       (b) Terms.--
       (1) Executive agreement.--Any transfer of functions under 
     subsection (a) shall be carried out as provided in the 
     executive agreement required by section 2. The functions to 
     be so transferred shall be identified utilizing the 
     provisions of section 3503 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Elements.--In providing for the transfer of functions 
     under subsection (a), the executive agreement required by 
     section 2 shall provide for the following:
       (A) The transfer of civilian employee positions of the 
     Department of Defense identified in the executive agreement 
     to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and of the incumbent 
     civilian employees in such positions, and the transition of 
     the employees so transferred to the pay, benefits, and 
     personnel systems that apply to employees of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (to the extent that different systems 
     apply).
       (B) The transition of employees so transferred to the pay 
     systems of the Department of Veterans Affairs in a manner 
     which will not result in any reduction in an employee's 
     regular rate of compensation (including basic pay, locality 
     pay, any physician comparability allowance, and any other 
     fixed and recurring pay supplement) at the time of 
     transition.
       (C) The continuation after transfer of the same employment 
     status for employees so transferred who have already 
     successfully completed or are in the process of completing a 
     one-year probationary period under title 5, United States 
     Code, notwithstanding the provisions of section 7403(b)(1) of 
     title 38, United States Code.
       (D) The extension of collective bargaining rights under 
     title 5, United States Code, to employees so transferred in 
     positions listed in subsection 7421(b) of title 38, United 
     States Code, notwithstanding the provisions of section 7422 
     of title 38, United States Code, for a two-year period 
     beginning on the effective date of the executive agreement.

[[Page 15884]]

       (E) At the end of the two-year period beginning on the 
     effective date of the executive agreement, for the following 
     actions by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to 
     the extension of collective bargaining rights under 
     subparagraph (D):
       (i) Consideration of the impact of the extension of such 
     rights.
       (ii) Consultation with exclusive employee representatives 
     of the transferred employees about such impact.
       (iii) Determination, after consultation with the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, whether the 
     extension of such rights should be terminated, modified, or 
     kept in effect.
       (iv) Submittal to Congress of a notice regarding the 
     determination made under clause (iii).
       (F) The recognition after transfer of each transferred 
     physician's and dentist's total number of years of service as 
     a physician or dentist in the Department of Defense for 
     purposes of calculating such employee's rate of base pay, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 7431(b)(3) of title 
     38, United States Code.
       (G) The preservation of the seniority of the employees so 
     transferred for all pay purposes.
       (c) Retention of Department of Defense Employment 
     Authority.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the 
     Department of Defense may employ civilian personnel at the 
     Captain James Lovell Federal Health Care Center if the 
     Secretary of the Navy, or a designee of the Secretary, 
     determines it is necessary and appropriate to meet mission 
     requirements of the Department of the Navy.

     SEC. 5. JOINT FUNDING AUTHORITY FOR THE CAPTAIN JAMES A. 
                   LOVELL FEDERAL HEALTH CARE CENTER.

       (a) In General.--The Department of Veterans Affairs/
     Department of Defense Health-Care Resources Sharing Committee 
     under section 8111(b) of title 38, United States Code, may 
     provide for the joint funding of the Captain James A. Lovell 
     Federal Health Care Center in accordance with the provisions 
     of this section.
       (b) Health Care Center Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established on the books of 
     the Treasury under the Department of Veterans Affairs a fund 
     to be known as the ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 
     Care Center Fund'' (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Fund'').
       (2) Elements.--The Fund shall consist of the following:
       (A) Amounts transferred to the Fund by the Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, from 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department of 
     Defense.
       (B) Amounts transferred to the Fund by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs from amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (C) Amounts transferred to the Fund from medical care 
     collections under paragraph (4).
       (3) Determination of amounts transferred generally.--The 
     amount transferred to the Fund by each of the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), as applicable, of paragraph (2) 
     each fiscal year shall be such amount, as determined by a 
     methodology jointly established by the Secretary of Defense 
     and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for purposes of this 
     subsection, that reflects the mission-specific activities, 
     workload, and costs of provision of health care at the 
     Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center of the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     respectively.
       (4) Transfers from medical care collections.--
       (A) In general.--Amounts collected under the authorities 
     specified in subparagraph (B) for health care provided at the 
     Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center may be 
     transferred to the Fund under paragraph (2)(C).
       (B) Authorities.--The authorities specified in this 
     subparagraph are the following:
       (i) Section 1095 of title 10, United States Code.
       (ii) Section 1729 of title 38, United States Code.
       (iii) Public Law 87-693, popularly known as the ``Federal 
     Medical Care Recovery Act'' (42 U.S.C. 2651 et seq.).
       (5) Administration.--The Fund shall be administered in 
     accordance with such provisions of the executive agreement 
     required by section 2 as the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly include in the 
     executive agreement. Such provisions shall provide for an 
     independent review of the methodology established under 
     paragraph (3).
       (c) Availability.--
       (1) In general.--Funds transferred to the Fund under 
     subsection (b) shall be available to fund the operations of 
     the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, 
     including capital equipment, real property maintenance, and 
     minor construction projects that are not required to be 
     specifically authorized by law under section 2805 of title 
     10, United States Code, or section 8104 of title 38, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Limitation.--The availability of funds transferred to 
     the Fund under subsection (b)(2)(C) shall be subject to the 
     provisions of section 1729A of title 38, United States Code.
       (3) Period of availability.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     funds transferred to the Fund under subsection (b) shall be 
     available under paragraph (1) for one fiscal year after 
     transfer.
       (B) Exception.--Of an amount transferred to the Fund under 
     subsection (b), an amount not to exceed two percent of such 
     amount shall be available under paragraph (1) for two fiscal 
     years after transfer.
       (d) Financial Reconciliation.--The executive agreement 
     required by section 2 shall provide for the development and 
     implementation of an integrated financial reconciliation 
     process that meets the fiscal reconciliation requirements of 
     the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs. The process shall permit 
     each of the Department of Defense, the Department of Navy, 
     and the Department of Veterans Affairs to identify their 
     fiscal contributions to the Fund, taking into consideration 
     accounting, workload, and financial management differences.
       (e) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly provide for an 
     annual independent review of the Fund for at least three 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such 
     review shall include detailed statements of the uses of 
     amounts of the Fund and an evaluation of the adequacy of the 
     proportional share contributed to the Fund by each of the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (f) Termination.--The authorities in this section shall 
     terminate on September 30, 2015.

     SEC. 6. ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES FOR 
                   CARE AND SERVICES AT THE CAPTAIN JAMES A. 
                   LOVELL FEDERAL HEALTH CARE CENTER.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of eligibility for health 
     care under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, the 
     Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center may be 
     treated as a facility of the uniformed services to the extent 
     provided under subsection (b) in the executive agreement 
     required by section 2.
       (b) Additional Elements.--The executive agreement required 
     by section 2 may include provisions as follows:
       (1) To establish an integrated priority list for access to 
     health care at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 
     Care Center, which list shall--
       (A) integrate the respective health care priority lists of 
     the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs; and
       (B) take into account categories of beneficiaries, 
     enrollment program status, and such other matters as the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     jointly consider appropriate.
       (2) To incorporate any resource-related limitations for 
     access to health care at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal 
     Health Care Center that the Secretary of Defense may 
     establish for purposes of administering space-available 
     eligibility for care in facilities of the uniformed services 
     under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.
       (3) To allocate financial responsibility for care provided 
     at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center for 
     individuals who are eligible for care under both chapter 55 
     of title 10, United States Code, and title 38, United States 
     Code.
       (4) To waive the applicability to the Captain James A. 
     Lovell Federal Health Care Center of any provision of section 
     8111(e) of title 38, United States Code, that the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     jointly specify.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF DOD-VA HEALTH CARE SHARING INCENTIVE 
                   FUND.

       Section 8111(d)(3) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2015''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1325. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend and modify the section 45 credit for refined coal 
from steel industry fuel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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

[[Page 15885]]

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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1328. A bill to provide for the exchange of administrative 
jurisdiction over certain Federal land between the Forest Service and 
the Bureau of Land Management, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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

[[Page 15886]]

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.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1328

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Shasta-Trinity National 
     Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION TO THE BUREAU 
                   OF LAND MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Administrative jurisdiction over the 
     Federal land described in subsection (b) is transferred from 
     the Chief of the Forest Service (referred to in this Act as 
     the ``Chief'') to the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management (referred to in this Act as the ``Director''), to 
     be administered by the Director, subject to the laws 
     (including regulations) applicable to land administered by 
     the Director.
       (b) Description of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal land referred to in subsection 
     (a) is the land within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in 
     California, Mount Diablo Meridian, as depicted on the map 
     entitled ``H.R. 689, Transfer from Forest Service to BLM, Map 
     1'' and dated April 21, 2009.
       (2) Exclusion.--The land within the Shasta Dam Reclamation 
     Zone shall--
       (A) be excluded from the transfer of administrative 
     jurisdiction under subsection (a); and
       (B) continue to be administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior (acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation).

     SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION TO THE FOREST 
                   SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Administrative jurisdiction over the 
     Federal land described in subsection (b) is transferred from 
     the Director to the Chief, to be administered by the Chief, 
     subject to the laws (including regulations) applicable to 
     National Forest System land.
       (b) Description of Land.--The Federal land referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the land administered by the Director in 
     the Mount Diablo Meridian, California, as depicted on the map 
     entitled ``H.R. 689, Transfer from BLM to Forest Service, Map 
     2'' and dated April 21, 2009.
       (c) Withdrawal.--The Federal land described in subsection 
     (b) is--
       (1) withdrawn from the public domain; and
       (2) reserved for administration as part of the Shasta-
     Trinity National Forest.
       (d) Wilderness Administration.--The transfer of 
     administrative jurisdiction from the Director to the Chief of 
     certain land previously designated as part of the Trinity 
     Alps Wilderness shall not affect the wilderness status of the 
     wilderness land.
       (e) Land and Water Conservation Fund.--For the purposes of 
     section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-9), the boundaries of the Shasta-Trinity 
     National Forest, as adjusted under this section, shall be 
     considered to be the boundaries of the Shasta-Trinity 
     National Forest as of January 1, 1965.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Corrections.--
       (1) Minor adjustments.--The Director and the Chief, may, by 
     mutual agreement, make minor corrections and adjustments to 
     the transfers under this Act to facilitate land management, 
     including corrections and adjustments to any applicable 
     surveys.
       (2) Publications.--Any corrections or adjustments made 
     under subsection (a) shall be effective on the date of 
     publication of a notice of the corrections or adjustments in 
     the Federal Register.
       (b) Hazardous Substances.--
       (1) Notice.--The Chief and Director shall, with respect to 
     the land described in sections 2(b) and 3(b), respectively--
       (A) identify any known sites containing hazardous 
     substances; and
       (B) provide to the head of the Federal agency to which the 
     land is being transferred notice of any sites identified 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Cleanup obligations.--The cleanup of hazardous 
     substances on land to which administrative jurisdiction is 
     transferred by this Act shall be the responsibility of the 
     head of the agency with jurisdiction over the affected land 
     on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Effect on Existing Rights and Authorizations.--Nothing 
     in this Act affects--
       (1) any valid existing rights; or
       (2) the validity or term and conditions of any existing 
     withdrawal, right-of-way, easement, lease, license, or permit 
     on the land to which administrative jurisdiction is 
     transferred under this Act, except that beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the head of the agency to which 
     administrative jurisdiction over the land is transferred 
     shall be responsible for administering the interests or 
     authorizations (including reissuing the interests or 
     authorizations in accordance with applicable law).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 1329. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to award grants to 
State courts to develop and implement state courts interpreter 
programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. 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

[[Page 15887]]

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 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1329

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``State Court Interpreter 
     Grant Program Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the fair administration of justice depends on the 
     ability of all participants in a courtroom proceeding to 
     understand that proceeding, regardless of their English 
     proficiency;
       (2) 19 percent of the population of the United States over 
     5 years of age speaks a language other than English at home;
       (3) only qualified court interpreters can ensure that 
     persons with limited English proficiency comprehend judicial 
     proceedings in which they are a party;
       (4) the knowledge and skills required of a qualified court 
     interpreter differ substantially from those required in other 
     interpretation settings, such as social service, medical, 
     diplomatic, and conference interpreting;
       (5) the Federal Government has demonstrated its commitment 
     to equal administration of justice regardless of English 
     proficiency;
       (6) regulations implementing title VI of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964, as well as the guidance issued by the Department 
     of Justice pursuant to Executive Order 13166, issued August 
     11, 2000, clarify that all recipients of Federal financial 
     assistance, including State courts, are required to take 
     reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their 
     proceedings for persons with limited English proficiency;
       (7) 40 States have developed, or are developing, qualified 
     court interpreting programs;
       (8) robust, effective court interpreter programs--
       (A) actively recruit skilled individuals to be court 
     interpreters;
       (B) train those individuals in the interpretation of court 
     proceedings;
       (C) develop and use a thorough, systematic certification 
     process for court interpreters; and
       (D) have sufficient funding to ensure that a qualified 
     interpreter will be available to the court whenever 
     necessary; and
       (9) Federal funding is necessary to--
       (A) encourage State courts that do not have court 
     interpreter programs to develop them;
       (B) assist State courts with nascent court interpreter 
     programs to implement them;
       (C) assist State courts with limited court interpreter 
     programs to enhance them; and
       (D) assist State courts with robust court interpreter 
     programs to make further improvements and share successful 
     programs with other States.

     SEC. 3. STATE COURT INTERPRETER PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Administrator'') shall make grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to State courts to develop and implement programs 
     to assist individuals with limited English proficiency to 
     access and understand State court proceedings in which they 
     are a party.
       (2) Technical assistance.--The Administrator shall 
     allocate, for each fiscal year, $500,000 of the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to section 4 to be used to establish a 
     court interpreter technical assistance program to assist 
     State courts receiving grants under this Act.
       (b) Use of Grants.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) may 
     be used by State courts to--
       (1) assess regional language demands;
       (2) develop a court interpreter program for the State 
     courts;
       (3) develop, institute, and administer language 
     certification examinations;
       (4) recruit, train, and certify qualified court 
     interpreters;
       (5) pay for salaries, transportation, and technology 
     necessary to implement the court interpreter program 
     developed under paragraph (2); and
       (6) engage in other related activities, as prescribed by 
     the Attorney General.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--The highest State court of each State 
     desiring a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Administrator at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
     Administrator may reasonably require.
       (2) State courts.--The highest State court of each State 
     submitting an application under paragraph (1) shall include 
     in the application--
       (A) a demonstration of need for the development, 
     implementation, or expansion of a State court interpreter 
     program;
       (B) an identification of each State court in that State 
     which would receive funds from the grant;
       (C) the amount of funds each State court identified under 
     subparagraph (B) would receive from the grant; and
       (D) the procedures the highest State court would use to 
     directly distribute grant funds to State courts identified 
     under subparagraph (B).
       (d) State Court Allotments.--
       (1) Base allotment.--From amounts appropriated for each 
     fiscal year pursuant to section 4, the Administrator shall 
     allocate $100,000 to each of the highest State court of each 
     State, which has an application approved under subsection 
     (c).
       (2) Discretionary allotment.--From amounts appropriated for 
     each fiscal year pursuant to section 4, the Administrator 
     shall allocate $5,000,000 to be distributed among the highest 
     State courts of States which have an application approved 
     under subsection (c), and that have extraordinary needs that 
     are required to be addressed in order to develop, implement, 
     or expand a State court interpreter program.
       (3) Additional allotment.--In addition to the allocations 
     made under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Administrator shall 
     allocate to each of the highest State court of each State, 
     which has an application approved under subsection (c), an 
     amount equal to the product reached by multiplying--
       (A) the unallocated balance of the amount appropriated for 
     each fiscal year pursuant to section 4; and
       (B) the ratio between the number of people over 5 years of 
     age who speak a language other than English at home in the 
     State and the number of people over 5 years of age who speak 
     a language other than English at home in all the States that 
     receive an allocation under paragraph (1), as those numbers 
     are determined by the Bureau of the Census.
       (4) Treatment of district of columbia.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       (A) the District of Columbia shall be treated as a State; 
     and
       (B) the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall act as 
     the highest State court for the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to carry out this 
     Act.

[[Page 15888]]



                          ____________________