[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 102 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4823-S4825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 3365. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to award grants to
State courts to develop and implement State court interpreter programs;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the State Court
Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2012. 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, 21 percent of the population over age
five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2010, the number
of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was
more than 25 million, compared to 23 million in 2005. In 2010, New York
had almost 2.5 million. Texas had nearly 3.4 million. California had
almost 6.9 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 testimony before
the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly
alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the
witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter
has not accurately represented the witness' testimony. Justice Kennedy
agreed that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a
significant threat to our judicial system,
[[Page S4824]]
and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.
This legislation does just that by authorizing $10 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,
determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of 5
who speak a language other than English at home and who identify as
speaking English less than very well. This legislation also directs the
Department of Justice to prioritize funding for any State that does not
have and has not begun to develop a qualified court interpreter
program. In this way, the States most in need will benefit from the
grant program.
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, 8 years later, the court's public
registry of interpreters lists 114 certified interpreters. Most of
these are certified in Spanish, where the greatest need exists.
However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language,
French and German. The list of qualified interpreters who have received
training and attained requisite scores on an oral assessment includes
56 individuals who speak Russian, Hmong, Korean, Bulgarian, Polish and
many other languages. All of this progress in only 8 years, and with
only $250,000 of Federal assistance.
This bill includes cost saving measures to ensure funding is spent
wisely. For example, it provides for remote interpretation services to
facilitate certified court interpretations when costs prohibit in-
person interpretations. These services help cover the cost of
interpreter transportation fees. Additionally, the bill encourages
States to share successful cost saving programs with other States and
defines an effective court interpreter program as one that
``efficiently uses funding to create substantial cost savings.'' To
make certain grants are being used in the most resourceful manner, the
Department of Justice is required to submit an annual report to
Congress detailing where and how the funding was spent.
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 being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3365
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 of 2012''.
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) 21 percent of the population of the United States over
5 years of age speaks a language other than English at home;
(3) only qualified and certified 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 settings;
(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 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), 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) 43 States have developed, or are developing, qualified
court interpreter programs;
(8) a robust and effective court interpreter program--
(A) actively recruits skilled individuals to serve as court
interpreters;
(B) trains those individuals in the interpretation of court
proceedings;
(C) develops and uses a thorough, systematic certification
process for court interpreters;
(D) has sufficient funding to ensure that a qualified and
certified interpreter will be available to the court whenever
necessary; and
(E) efficiently uses funding to create substantial cost
savings; 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
cost saving 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) Use of grants.--A State court may use a grant awarded
under this subsection to--
(A) develop or enhance a court interpreter program for the
State court;
(B) develop, institute, and administer language
certification examinations;
(C) recruit, train, and certify qualified court
interpreters;
(D) pay for salaries, transportation, and technology
necessary to implement the court interpreter program
developed or enhanced under subparagraph (A);
(E) provide for remote interpretation services to
facilitate certified court interpretations when costs
prohibit in-person interpretation; or
(F) engage in other related activities, as prescribed by
the Attorney General.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--The highest State court of each State
seeking 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) Contents.--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
that would receive funds from the grant;
(C) the amount of funds that each State court identified
under subparagraph (B) would receive from the grant; and
(D) the procedures that the highest State court would use
to directly distribute grant funds to State courts identified
under subparagraph (B).
(c) State Court Allotments.--
(1) Base allotment.--From amounts appropriated for each
fiscal year pursuant to section 5, the Administrator shall
allocate $100,000 to the highest court of each State that has
an application approved under subsection (b).
(2) Additional allotment.--
(A) In general.--From amounts appropriated for each fiscal
year pursuant to section 5, the Administrator shall allocate
$5,000,000 to be distributed among the highest State courts
that--
(i) have an application approved under subsection (b); and
(ii) are located in a State with extraordinary needs that
prevent the development, implementation, or expansion of a
State court interpreter program.
(B) Determining need.--In determining whether a State has
extraordinary needs required under subparagraph (A), the
Administrator shall consider--
(i) based on data from the Bureau of the Census, the ratio
between the number of people over 5 years of age who speak a
language other than English at home and identify as speaking
English less than very well--
(I) in that State; and
(II) in all of the States that receive an allocation under
paragraph (1); and
(ii) any efficiency or substantial cost savings expected
from a State court interpreter program.
(C) Priority consideration.--In allocating amounts under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall give priority to
any State that
[[Page S4825]]
does not have and has not begun to develop a qualified court
interpreter program.
(d) Treatment of District of Columbia.--For purposes of
this section--
(1) the District of Columbia shall be treated as a State;
and
(2) the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall act as
the highest State court for the District of Columbia.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date on which the first
grant is made under section 3, the Administrator shall submit
a report to Congress that describes how each highest State
court has used the funds from each grant made under section 3
in a manner consistent with section 3(a)(2).
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017 to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. BURR:
S. 3367. A bill to deter the disclosure to the public of evidence or
information on United States covert actions by prohibiting security
clearances to individuals who make such disclosures; to the Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today for a
reason I never dreamed would be needed. Recently there has been a
series of articles published in the media that have described and in
some cases provided extensive details about highly classified
unilateral and joint intelligence operations, including covert actions.
To describe these leaks as troubling and frustrating is by all
standards an understatement. They are simply inexcusable criminal acts
that must stop and must stop now. Our intelligence professionals, our
allies and, most important, the American people deserve better than
this.
I understand there are ongoing efforts in the House and Senate of
which I am a part to address these leaks through legislation and that
the Director of National Intelligence has implemented some
administrative steps to investigate these leaks. I support those
efforts. But I also believe special attention needs to be drawn to
unauthorized disclosures relating to covert actions, so today I have
introduced the Deterring Public Disclosure of Covert Action Act of
2012.
This act will ensure that those who disclose or talk about covert
actions by the United States will no longer be eligible for Federal
Government security clearance. It is novel. It is very simple. If you
talk about covert actions you will have your clearance revoked and you
will never get another one.
This is not a bill that any Member should ever have to introduce.
Covert actions are by their very definition supposed to be kept quiet.
Those who engage in them, those who support them, and those who work to
get them authorized all know that. Yet those rules, those very laws
that are supposed to protect classified information, are being
disregarded with few repercussions, even though each one of those leaks
undermines the hard work of our intelligence officers, puts lives at
risk, and jeopardizes our relationship with overseas partners.
As I said in this Chamber last month, I strongly believe those
leakers are violating the trust of the American people. Those who are
given access to classified information, especially covert actions, are
given the same responsibility we as Members have. As long as something
is classified, you do not talk about it.
In other words, keep your mouth shut. Yet month after month, we see
articles about covert actions that quote a wide range of U.S.
officials, mostly anonymously, and often senior administration
officials. While this act focuses on covert action, it in no way
minimizes the importance of maintaining the secrecy of other types of
classified information. Those who leak any classified information
should no longer be trusted with our Nation's secrets. But I believe
the damage that is being done to our covert action programs by these
leaks deserves special attention today.
The act also ensures that any determination that an individual has
leaked information about a covert action will be made only in
accordance with the applicable law or regulation. In short, no one will
lose his clearance without appropriate due process. I believe that is
an important requirement, as losing clearance often means losing your
livelihood.
Today I am taking one step to silence those who may have done
irreparable harm by putting their own personal agendas above their
colleagues and, most importantly, their country. We cannot afford to
wait for more leaks or more compromised covert actions.
The bill I have introduced today may target only one part of the
problem, but I believe it is an essential part of a solution. I urge my
colleagues in the days and weeks to come to be supportive of this piece
of legislation. I think it is a small thing to ask of those who are
entrusted with our Nation's most important secrets, that they actually
keep them secret or we take that ability away to be entrusted with that
information.
____________________