[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4726-4730]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 4727]]

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:

     ``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.--

[[Page 4728]]

       ``(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 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.

[[Page 4729]]

  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.
  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).

[[Page 4730]]

       (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.

                          ____________________