[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2358-S2360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 702. 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 2007. 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 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 certification program at all. It is critical that 
we protect the

[[Page S2359]]

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, 19 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 ten 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. 
In recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy 
described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can 
understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding 
when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness's 
testimony. Justice Kennedy agrees 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 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 perfect example 
of that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using 
State money and 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 and includes 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 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, 
so I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical 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. 702

       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) 36 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) 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

[[Page S2360]]

       (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 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 2008 through 2012 to carry out this 
     Act.
                                 ______