[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 40 (Monday, April 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2732-S2735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. COLEMAN:
S. 2490. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for
a real estate stock index investment option under the Thrift Savings
Plan; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. COLEMAN. 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. 2490
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Real
Estate Investment Thrift Savings Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REAL ESTATE STOCK INDEX INVESTMENT FUND.
(a) Definition.--Section 8438(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) the term `Real Estate Stock Index Investment Fund'
means the Real Estate Stock Index Investment Fund established
under subsection (b)(1)(F).''.
(b) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Section 8438(b)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) a Real Estate Stock Index Investment Fund as provided
in paragraph (5).''.
(2) Fund requirements.--Section 8438(b) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) The Board shall select an index which is a
commonly recognized index comprised of common stock the
aggregate market value of which is a reasonably complete
representation of the United States real estate equity
markets.
``(B) The Real Estate Stock Index Investment Fund shall be
invested in a portfolio designed to replicate the performance
of the index selected under subparagraph (A). The portfolio
shall be designed such that, to the extent practicable, the
percentage of the Real Estate Stock Index Investment Fund
that is invested in each stock is the same as the percentage
determined by dividing the aggregate market value of all
shares of that stock by the aggregate market value of all
shares of all stocks included in such index.''.
(c) Acknowledgment of Risk.--Section 8439(d) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or the Small Capitalization Stock Index
Investment Fund,'' and inserting ``the Small Capitalization
Stock Index Investment Fund, or the Real Estate Stock Index
Investment Fund,''; and
(2) by striking ``and (10),'' and inserting ``(10), and
(11),''.
______
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2494. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction for the payment of premiums for high deductible health plans,
to allow a credit for certain employment taxes paid with respect to
premiums for high deductible health plans and contributions to health
savings accounts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
help provide more affordable health coverage to millions of Americans.
This legislation makes commonsense changes that will create tax parity
between employer-sponsored insurance and insurance purchased in the
individual market.
As we are well aware, the Federal tax code's treatment of medical
care has shaped the development of the private third-party system of
financing health care in the United States. The tax code treats the
self-employed, unemployed, and workers at companies that do not offer
health insurance, most of which are small businesses, less generously
than it treats workers at companies that do offer health insurance.
Employer-sponsored insurance receives a tax subsidy that individually-
purchased insurance does not, and as a result two-thirds of non-elderly
Americans receive health insurance through their own or a family
member's employer.
Of equal concern, the percent of employer-sponsored insurance has
dropped from 69 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2005 due mainly to the
rapid rise in health insurance premiums, which have increased more than
60 percent in real terms over the past 5 years alone. The percent of
the non-elderly population with employer-sponsored insurance has
correspondingly dropped, from 68 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2004.
Consequently, more Americans must look to the non-group market for
their health insurance needs.
To help rectify this disparity, the legislation I am introducing
today would permit premiums for high-deductible plans purchased in
conjunction with a qualifying health savings accounts (HAS) on the
individual market to be deductible from income taxes. In addition, an
income tax credit would offset payroll taxes paid on these premiums. As
such, people who purchase their health benefits in the individual
market would receive the same tax treatment as those who receive
employer-sponsored insurance.
Perhaps one of the most widespread criticisms of HSA plans is that
they are only helpful to those who are young, healthy, and wealthy.
However, a recent survey conducted by America's Health Insurance Plans
reveals this not to be the case. In that survey, it was shown that 50
percent of all people covered by HSA plans in the individual market are
40 years of age or older. Moreover, 31 percent of new enrollees in HSA
plans were previously uninsured.
My legislation would provide substantial savings to middle and low
income families. For example, a family in the 15 percent income tax
bracket, and 15.3 percent payroll tax bracket, would receive a tax
subsidy of over $1,500 towards the purchase of a $5,000 family
insurance HSA-qualified policy.
Moreover, the income tax credit to offset payroll taxes is designed
to help lower income workers. These hard-working Americans are more
likely to work for firms that do not offer health insurance, and many
have low enough incomes that they are paying no income taxes, but still
must pay payroll taxes. My bill helps to give them the affordable and
quality health benefits they deserve.
Since being enacted in the Medicare Modernization Act, health savings
accounts have helped to provide millions of Americans with an
additional option in meeting their health care needs. It is simply not
fair that the law does not provide these plans with the same tax
treatment provided to employer-sponsored insurance. If we are to
seriously begin addressing the rapidly rising cost of health care, it
is imperative that we take steps now to ensure that available health
care plans are as affordable as possible.
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. 2494
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEDUCTION OF PREMIUMS FOR HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH
PLANS.
(a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional
itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by
redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting
after section 223 the following new section:
[[Page S2733]]
``SEC. 224. PREMIUMS FOR HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLANS.
``(a) Deduction Allowed.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year
the aggregate amount paid by such individual as premiums
under a high deductible health plan with respect to months
during such year for which such individual is an eligible
individual with respect to such health plan.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual'
has the meaning given such term by section 223(c)(1).
``(2) High deductible health plan.--The term `high
deductible health plan' has the meaning given such term by
section 223(c)(2).
``(c) Special Rules.--
``(1) Deduction limits.--
``(A) Deduction allowable for only 1 plan.--For purposes of
this section, in the case of an individual covered by more
than 1 high deductible health plan for any month, the
individual may only take into account amounts paid for such
month for the plan with the lowest premium.
``(B) Plans covering ineligible individuals.--If 2 or more
individuals are covered by a high deductible health plan for
any month but only 1 of such individuals is an eligible
individual for such month, only 50 percent of the aggregate
amount paid by such eligible individual as premiums under the
plan with respect to such month shall be taken into account
for purposes of this section.
``(2) Group health plan coverage.--
``(A) In general.--No deduction shall be allowed to an
individual under subsection (a) for any amount paid for
coverage under a high deductible health plan for a month if
that individual participates in any coverage under a group
health plan (within the meaning of section 5000 without
regard to section 5000(d)).
``(B) Exception for plans only providing contributions to
health savings accounts.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
an individual if the individual's only coverage under a group
health plan for a month consists of contributions by an
employer to a health savings account with respect to which
the individual is the account beneficiary.
``(C) Exception for certain permitted coverage.--
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an individual if the
individual's only coverage under a group health plan for a
month is coverage described in clause (i) or (ii) of section
223(c)(1)(B).
``(3) Medical and health savings accounts.--Subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to any amount which is paid or
distributed out of an Archer MSA or a health savings account
which is not included in gross income under section 220(f) or
223(f), as the case may be.
``(4) Coordination with deduction for health insurance of
self-employed individuals.--Any amount taken into account by
the taxpayer in computing the deduction under section 162(l)
shall not be taken into account under this section.
``(5) Coordination with medical expense deduction.--Any
amount taken into account by the taxpayer in computing the
deduction under this section shall not be taken into account
under section 213.''.
(b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Individual Itemizes
Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code
is amended by inserting before the last sentence at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(21) Premiums for high deductible health plans.--The
deduction allowed by section 224.''.
(c) Coordination With Section 35 Health Insurance Costs
Credit.--Section 35(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
``or 213'' and inserting ``, 213, or 224''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
redesignating the item relating to section 224 as an item
relating to section 225 and by inserting before such item the
following new item:
``Sec. 224. Premiums for high deductible health plans.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT TAXES PAID WITH RESPECT
TO PREMIUMS FOR HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLANS
AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
(a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by
redesignating section 36 as section 37 and by inserting after
section 35 the following new section:
``SEC. 36. EMPLOYMENT TAXES PAID WITH RESPECT TO PREMIUMS FOR
HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLANS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to the
product of--
``(1) the sum of the rates of tax in effect under sections
3101(a), 3101(b), 3111(a), and 3111(b) for the calendar year
in which the taxable year begins, multiplied by
``(2) the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate amount paid by such individual as
premiums under a high deductible health plan which is allowed
as a deduction under section 224 for the taxable year, and
``(B) the aggregate amount paid to a health savings account
of such individual which is allowed as a deduction under
section 223 for the taxable year.
``(b) Credit Limited to Certain Employment Taxes.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
with respect to any individual for any taxable year shall not
exceed the specified employment taxes with respect to such
individual for such taxable year.
``(2) Specified employment taxes.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `specified employment taxes' means, with
respect to any individual for any taxable year, the sum of--
``(A) the taxes imposed under sections 3101(a), 3101(b),
3111(a), 3111(b), 3201(a), 3211(a), and 3221(a) (taking into
account any adjustments or refunds under section 6413) with
respect to wages and compensation received by such individual
during the calendar year in which such taxable year begins,
and
``(B) the taxes imposed under subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1401 with respect to the self-employment income of
such individual for such taxable year.
``(c) Special Rule for Employment Compensation in Excess of
Social Security Contribution Base.--
``(1) In general.--If the aggregate amount of employment
compensation received by any individual during the calendar
year in which the taxable year begins exceeds the
contribution and benefit base (as determined under section
230 of the Social Security Act), the amount of the credit
determined under subsection (a) (determined before
application of subsection (b)) shall be equal to the sum of--
``(A) the amount determined under subsection (a) by only
taking into account so much of the amount determined under
subsection (a)(2) as does not exceed such excess and by only
taking into account the rates of tax in effect under section
3101(b) and 3111(b), and
``(B) the amount determined under subsection (a) by only
taking into account so much of the amount determined under
subsection (a)(2) as is not taken into account under
subparagraph (A) and by taking into account each of the rates
of tax referred to in subsection (a)(1).
``(2) Employment compensation.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `employment compensation' means, with
respect to any individual for any taxable year, the sum of--
``(A) the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) and
compensation (as defined in section 3231(e)) received by such
individual during the calendar year in which such taxable
year begins, and
``(B) the self-employment income (as defined in section
1402(b)) of such individual for such taxable year.''.
(b) Increase in Additional Tax on Distributions Not Used
for Qualified Medical Expenses.--Paragraph (4) of section
223(f) of such Code (relating to additional tax on
distributions not used for qualified medical expenses) is
amended to read as follows:
``(4) Additional tax on distributions not used for
qualified medical expenses.--
``(A) In general.--The tax imposed by this chapter on the
account beneficiary for any taxable year in which there is a
payment or distribution from a health savings account of such
beneficiary which is includible in gross income under
paragraph (2) shall be increased by 30 percent of the amount
which is so includible.
``(B) Exception for disability or death.--In the case of
payments or distributions made after the account beneficiary
becomes disabled within the meaning of section 72(m)(7) or
dies, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting `15
percent' for `30 percent'.
``(C) Exception for distributions after medicare
eligibility.--In the case of payments or distributions made
after the date on which the account beneficiary attains the
age specified in section 1811 of the Social Security Act,
subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting `15
percent' for `30 percent'.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or section 36'' after
``section 35''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking the item relating to section 36
and by inserting after the item relating to section 35 the
following new items:
``Sec. 36. Employment taxes paid with respect to premiums for high
deductible health plans and contributions to health
savings accounts.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2496. A bill to expand the definition of immediate relative for
purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to
introduce the Family Reunification Act, a
[[Page S2734]]
measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration
laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and
likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently
able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do
not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family
Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor
siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate
relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can
better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them--
the goal of strengthening the family unit.
Congress took an important first step in promoting family
reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By
qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers
parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain
immigrant visas to enter the country legally.
We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately,
a ``glitch'' in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the
important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of
families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they
cannot take full advantage of this family reunification provision.
Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted
to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that
is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that
simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises because
minor siblings of U.S. citizens do not qualify as an ``immediate
relative'' under current law. So, a young man or woman can bring his
parents into the country, but not his or her 5-year-old brother or
sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind,
the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United
States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are
effectively prevented from coming as well. The result, then, is that we
are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings
from the definition of immediate relative.
For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a
textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekon Okon,
both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were
living in Nigeria, be admitted as ``immediate relatives.'' The law
clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in
Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready
to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her
husband and sons in the United States because their 6-year-old
daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.''
Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child,
Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of
her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish.
It is difficult to determine the exact scope of this problem. Because
minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS, does not keep track of how many families have been
adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my
home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large,
DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the
number reaching into the hundreds each year.
If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest
that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous
cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue
now, so we can avoid tearing even more families apart.
Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of
repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different.
Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to
obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the
unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has
interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The
legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate
relatives'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing
so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to
reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution
to an unthinkable problem that too many families have already had to
face, so I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 2496
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE RELATIVE.
Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``For
purposes of this subsection, a child of a parent of a citizen
of the United States shall be considered an immediate
relative if the child is accompanying or following to join
the parent.'' after ``at least 21 years of age.''.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2497. 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 and
Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program
Act of 2006. 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, helping to
ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.
States are 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.
Currently, 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
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, 18 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 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.
[[Page S2735]]
This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million
per year, for the next five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant
Program. 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 testament to
that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State
money along with a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were
scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters.
Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the
State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The
list of provisional interpreters--those who have received training and
passed written tests--is much longer, including individuals trained in
Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in
only two 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 face this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires
them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them are failing.
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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 2497
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) 34 States have developed, or are developing, 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) an identification of each State court in that State
which would receive funds from the grant;
(B) the amount of funds each State court identified under
subparagraph (A) would receive from the grant; and
(C) the procedures the highest State court would use to
directly distribute grant funds to State courts identified
under subparagraph (A).
(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 a total of $5,000,000 to the highest State
court of States that have extraordinary needs that must 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.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2010 to carry out this
Act.
____________________