[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10930-10932]
[From the U.S. 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, 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

[[Page 10931]]

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 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

[[Page 10932]]

       (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.

                          ____________________