[Senate Report 110-436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 932
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-436
======================================================================
STATE COURT INTERPRETER GRANT PROGRAM ACT
_______
August 1, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 702]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the
bill (S. 702), to authorize the Attorney General to award
grants to State courts to develop and implement State courts
interpreter programs, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Background and Purpose of the State Court Interpreter Grant
Program Act......................................................2
II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration..................8
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill...........................9
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................11
V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation....................................12
VI. Conclusion......................................................12
VII. Minority Views of Senators Coburn and Kyl.......................13
VIII.Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........15
I. Background and Purpose of the State Court Interpreter Grant Program
Act
The State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act authorizes
$15,000,000 per year over five years for a grant program to be
administered by the Office of Justice Programs of the
Department of Justice. The grant program will make grants to
State courts to develop and implement programs to assist
individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) to access
and understand State court proceedings in which they are a
party.
This legislation is supported by State court judges and
administrators, and access to justice advocates from around the
country.\1\ It would provide much needed financial assistance
to States for developing and implementing effective State court
interpreter programs that include training, testing and
certifying court interpreters. Improving State court
interpreter programs around the country will help to ensure
access to justice and fair trials for individuals with limited
English proficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State
Court Administrators approved resolutions in support of the State Court
Interpreters Grant Program Act, on November 29, 2007 and January 18,
2006, respectively. Members of the Judiciary Committee have received
letters from numerous state court judges and administrators including,
Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille of Pennsylvania, Judge Lynn W. Davis
of Utah, Daniel J. Becker, Utah State Court Administrator, Chief
Justice Kay McFarland of Kansas, and Howard Schwartz, Judiciary
Administrator of Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, States are finding themselves in a difficult
position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it
is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and
well-versed in legal terminology. At the same time, 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. Despite their efforts,
many States have been unable to keep up with the demand. The
grants contained in this bill will help States to meet their
obligations to provide equal access to justice with qualified
and certified interpreters to ensure that LEP individuals
understand court proceedings and receive fair trials.
State courts have an obligation to provide court
interpreters to LEP individuals in order to satisfy the
Constitution, Federal law, and Department of Justice (DOJ)
regulations. Competent court interpreters are critical in all
courtroom proceedings from criminal pleas and trials to civil
proceedings, and especially in those involving juvenile
delinquency, parental rights, domestic violence, mental
commitments and guardianships.
Case law dating back more than three decades has recognized
the constitutional right to an interpreter in criminal cases.
State and Federal courts have held that providing an
interpreter may be necessary to ensure an LEP defendant's Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confront adverse witnesses,
participate in his or her own defense, and to effective
assistance of counsel, as well as to ensure fundamental
fairness under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.\2\
Under established precedent, courts must ensure that court
interpreters are provided at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351 (De. 1992); State v. Calderon, 13
P.3d 871 (Kan. 2000); State v. Rodriguez, 682 A.2d 764 (N.J. Super.
1996); State v. Guzman, 712 A.2d 1233 (N.J. Super. 1998), cert. denied,
719 A.2d 1022 (1998); People v. Avila, 797 P.2d 803 (Colo. Ct. App.
1990). every crucial stage of criminal proceedings including jury
instructions, sentencing, arraignment, entry of a guilty plea, and
hearings such as those to change a plea or withdraw a guilty plea.\3\
\3\See, e.g., People v. Aguilar, 677 P. 2d 1198, 1201 (Cal. 1984);
People v. Robles, 655 N.E. 2d 172, 173 (1995); Thanh Ton v. State, 878
P. 2d 986 (Nev. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to constitutional requirements to provide a
court interpreter, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Department
of Justice guidance implementing title VI of the Act, require
recipients of Federal financial assistance, including most
State courts, to provide meaningful access to their programs
and activities to LEP individuals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Exec. Order No. 13166, 65 CFR 50121 (2000); Nondiscrimination in
Federally Assisted Programs--Implementation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 28 CFR 42.101-112 (1966); Guidance to Federal
Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against
National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient
Persons, 67 FR 41455 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 601 of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
provides that no person shall ``on the ground of race, color,
or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.'' The Act directed Federal agencies that provide
Federal financial assistance to any program or activity to
issue rules or regulations implementing the Act. In Lau v.
Nichols, the Supreme Court, interpreting the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare's regulations, held that title VI
prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP
individuals because such conduct constitutes national origin
discrimination.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\414 U.S. 563 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, the Department of Justice promulgated regulations
directly relating to title VI and LEP individuals in accordance
with Executive Order 13166, ``Improving Access to Services for
Persons with Limited English Proficiency.''\6\ In the
regulations, DOJ recognized that LEP individuals, defined as
individuals who ``have a limited ability to read, write, speak
or understand English,'' face significant barriers to accessing
government benefits and services, understanding and exercising
important rights, complying with applicable responsibilities,
and understanding other information provided by federally
funded programs and activities.\7\ According to DOJ, failure to
ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or
benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may
violate the prohibition on national origin discrimination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\67 FR 41455.
\7\Id. at 41457.
\8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in jurisdictions where English has been declared the
``official language,'' entities receiving Federal financial
assistance are still subject to the nondiscrimination
requirement of title VI and DOJ regulations pertaining to LEP
individuals.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Id. at 41459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the regulations, DOJ acknowledges the particularly acute
need for LEP services in a courtroom setting where credibility
and accuracy are important to protect an individual's rights
and access to important services. It tells State courts that,
at a minimum, every effort should be taken to ensure competent
interpretation for LEP individuals during all hearings, trials,
and motions during which the LEP individual must or may be
present.\10\ Furthermore, DOJ strongly encourages the use of
certified interpreters when an individual's rights depend on
precise, complete, and accurate interpretation or translations,
particularly in the contexts of courtrooms.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. at 41471.
\11\Id. at 41461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State courts should provide interpreters free of cost,
regardless of whether the LEP individual is indigent.\12\ In a
recent letter from the Department of Justice's Civil Rights
Division to the National Center for State Courts, DOJ
emphasized that the ``legally sound'' approach to providing
language services in State courts requires them to be provided
in both civil and criminal cases and be free of cost to the
party in need of such services.\13\ Despite the greater
financial burden, States have responded by adopting policies to
provide court interpreters regardless of the ability to
pay.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id. at 41462.
\13\Letter from Merrily A. Friedlander, Chief, Coordination and
Review Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to
Wanda Romberger, Manager, Court Interpreting Services, National Center
for State Courts (February 21, 2008) (available at http://
www.najit.org/Advocacy/DOJ%20Comment%20Letter%20on%20Bench%20Book.pdf)
(last visited May 13, 2008).
\14\Georgia Pabst, Courts Will Provide Interpreters More Often;
State Budget Expands Funding, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel November 5,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for language interpretation in courts is great and
steadily increasing. The 2000 census reported that almost 47
million people over age five spoke a language other than
English at home, a 14 percent increase from the 1990 census. Of
those who responded that they spoke a language other than
English at home, 21 million, or 45 percent, said that they
speak English less than ``very well.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Census Brief, Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000
(October 2003), http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf (last
visited May 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to census data, States are facing a dramatic
increase in the number of LEP individuals that they are
required to assist in State courts. For example, from 1990 to
2000, Wisconsin had a 59 percent increase in the population of
people who speak English less than ``very well.'' The
percentage in Illinois increased by 60 percent, California 40
percent, Iowa 92 percent, Maryland 65 percent, Massachusetts 31
percent, New York 31 percent, and Vermont 28 percent.
With the increase in population of foreign born or non-
native speakers, the need for court interpreters is growing.
Federal court data show that in FY 2007, there was a 17 percent
increase in the number of events requiring the use of court
interpreters.\16\ Although the National Center for State Courts
does not collect nationwide interpreter data, the Center
approximates that State courts are faced with at least the
same, and likely greater, increase due to the larger size of
State court systems and the nature of their workload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\2007 Annual Report of the Director, Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts at 35, \\http://www.uscourts.gov/library/annualreports/
2007/2007%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf (last visited May 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual State data demonstrate the dramatic increase in
the use of court interpreters. For example, in Arizona, at the
Pima County Superior Court, the number of cases requiring
interpretation services has nearly doubled over the last few
years. In 2004, 519 criminal cases in the Superior Court
required translation or interpretation. In 2007, there were
more than 1,028 criminal cases needing translation or
interpretation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Claire Conrad, Need for Court Interpreters on Rise: Specialized
UA Training Efforts also Expand to Meet Surging Demand, The Arizona
Daily Star, December 10, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill focuses on State court interpreter training and
certification because the skills required of a court
interpreter differ significantly from those required of other
interpreters or translators. In addition to the important
nature of court proceedings, court interpretation is a highly
specialized and particularly demanding form of interpretation.
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 to be able to
give accurate, real-time interpretations of complicated court
proceedings. Notably, DOJ strongly encourages States to use
certified interpreters in courtrooms.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455, 41,461 (June
18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of uncertified or unqualified court interpreters has
resulted in serious miscarriages of justice. For example, in
2004, a Spanish-speaking man in Florida unknowingly pleaded
guilty to stealing a $125,000 dump truck when he thought he was
admitting to stealing a tool box. A judge ordered a new trial
for him after it was found that the error was caused by poor
interpretation on the part of his interpreter.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Jordana Mishory, Court Interpreters, Setting Standards, Daily
Business Review, July 19, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy,
testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February
2007, expressed his familiarity and frustration with the
problem of unqualified court interpreters. He noted situations
where a long colloquy takes place between an interpreter and a
witness, and then the interpreter turns to the judge or jury
and simply relays ``yes'' or ``no.'' He also cited instances
where bilingual jurors dispute the interpreter's interpretation
in open court.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Judicial Security and Independence: Hearing Before the S. Comm.
on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (Feb. 7, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1995, the Consortium for State Court Interpreter
Certification has been working to develop court interpreter
examinations for their member States. To date, the Consortium
has developed tests for 13 different languages: Spanish,
Cantonese, Haitian Creole, Hmong, Korean, Laotian, Russian,
Vietnamese, Arabic, Mandarin, Portuguese, French and Somali.
The Consortium has 40 member States and by the end of 2007, 29
of them had used the examinations to test the qualifications of
their interpreters.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Patricia Walther Griffin and Stephanie J. Cole, White Paper on
Court Interpretation: Fundamental to Access to Justice, Conference of
State Court Administrators (November 2007), http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/
WhitePapers/CourtInterpretation-FundamentalToAccessToJustice.pdf (last
visited May 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these efforts, court interpreter certification
varies greatly by State. Some States have highly developed
training, testing and certification programs and others lag
behind because of lack of adequate funding. Still others have
no formal certification program at all.
States that have already developed court interpreter
programs would greatly benefit from this grant program because
they would be able to increase the size of their training
program to meet growing demand and acquire better technology
that will help them make court interpreting more effective and
cost efficient.
Many States are making progress even though they still face
significant challenges in providing enough certified
interpreters to courts in need. Wisconsin's court interpreter
certification program began in 2004, using State money and a
modest Federal grant, when certified interpreters were scarce.
Now, just a few years later, Wisconsin has trained 671
interpreters and certified 51 of them. Even with this progress,
increasing demand requires the State to continue to increase
the pool of interpreters and expand the variety of languages
for which it certifies interpreters.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Pabst, supra n. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other States, like Utah, struggle to meet the need for
interpreters. Utah's certification program currently certifies
court interpreters in Spanish, as the State has one of the
fastest growing Latino populations in the country. However, the
Utah Administrative Office of the Courts struggles to meet the
need for interpreters of many languages due to limited
resources. Utah has significant needs in Vietnamese and Tongan
and has required court interpretation in more than 25 different
languages.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Letter from Daniel J. Becker, Utah State Court Administrator,
to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (February 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other States have only begun their certification efforts in
the past few years. In 2006, Pennsylvania passed a law that
created a statewide system of uniform certification for
courtroom translators because availability and qualifications
of interpreters had varied widely across the State. The State
is now working on training their interpreters and preparing
them for certification tests to be administered this year.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Act 172 of 2006, http://www.courts.state.pa.us/index/
interpreterprogram/Default.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Iowa, the growing need for court interpreters made it
clear to State court officials that greater efforts were needed
to provide certified interpreters. This prompted Iowa to begin
testing interpreters in 2006. At that time, only eight of the
State's 115 court interpreters were certified.\25\ The Chief
Supreme Court justice in Iowa, Justice Marsha Ternus, recently
told Iowa lawmakers that the quality of Iowa's judicial system
sits at a ``critical juncture'' hinging in part on funding for
court interpreters.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Michael McWilliams, Court Translators Increasingly Needed to
Break the Language Barrier, Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 4, 2006.
\26\Grant Schulte, Chief Justice: Iowa Court System at Critical
Point, Des Moines Register, January 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of 2007, South Carolina had approximately 200
interpreters working in the court system and only 22 had
demonstrated that they could accurately interpret court
proceedings by successfully completing the interpreter
certification process. The State court system is currently
trying to expand the pool of qualified interpreters by
conducting its own training to certify court interpreters in
Spanish.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Noelle Phillips, Classes Aim to Certify Legal Interpreters for
S.C. Courts, The State, Oct. 16, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, some States are still struggling to get their
programs off the ground. In Kansas, anecdotal evidence suggests
that less than one-half of the people who should have had a
certified court interpreter received one. In those cases where
no certified interpreter was available, interpreter services
were provided by a family member or a bilingual member of the
community. In these cases, the person serving as the
interpreter rarely had adequate knowledge of the law or court
procedures to provide services comparable to those of a
certified court interpreter. The Kansas Committee on
Interpreters, established in 1999, recommended establishing a
formal, State-operated system for the recruitment,
certification, training and compensation of court interpreters.
However, this is a costly endeavor and the Kansas Judicial
Branch has been unsuccessful in procuring adequate funding
since the committee made its recommendation. Kansas is
struggling to provide adequate interpreter services.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Letter from Chief Justice Kay McFarland to U.S. Senator Sam
Brownback (Apr. 4, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modest funding authorized in S. 702 will provide States
with new money to start or bolster their existing court
interpreter programs. The grants will not merely send Federal
dollars to States to pay for court interpreters, as some
critics suggest. The funding will be used for assessing the
need for interpreters, recruitment, training and certification
of interpreters, and developing court interpreter program
infrastructure. States are hard-pressed to find enough funding
for interpreters to satisfy existing need. Therefore, it would
be difficult or impossible for States to devote substantial
resources to certify interpreters when they are struggling to
simply pay for the few interpreters they have. Thus, the grants
will provide states with needed capital to develop programs
that will be sustainable with state funding.
In 2007, the Consortium for State Court Interpreter
Certification surveyed its 40 member States. Of those States
that responded, 71 percent indicated that additional budget
dollars were critical for the future of their program. In order
to establish and maintain viable and sustainable court
interpreter programs, State courts need to conduct an expansive
recruitment initiative, build the skills of bilingual
individuals so that their language skills can be used for court
interpreting, conduct continuing education, ethics and other
training programs, and update courtroom technology for more
cost-efficient and effective interpretation and translation.
This critical infrastructure for training and certifying
interpreters will benefit other government entities in their
efforts to serve LEP individuals. By increasing the pool of
certified interpreters, it will be able to better serve the LEP
population in other settings such as local law enforcement,
national emergency preparedness and response, and immigration
proceedings, to name a few.
In addition to helping States develop their court
interpreter programs, this bill emphasizes the need for fully
trained and certified interpreters. The bill recognizes that
the best interpreters are those that have been tested and
certified as official court interpreters.
The bill does not change or alter current law or State
obligations. It establishes a grant program to be administered
by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. The
bill authorizes $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2012. It authorizes $500,000 for each of the five
fiscal years to be used to establish a court interpreter
technical assistance program to assist State courts receiving
grants under this Act.
The grants may be used 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; and (6) engage in other related activities
as prescribed by the Attorney General.
In order to be eligible for a grant under the bill, the
highest State court of each State must submit an application to
the designated administrator in the Office of Justice Programs.
The application must include information that the administrator
may reasonably require as well as: (1) a demonstration of need
for the development, implementation or expansion of a State
court interpreter program; (2) an identification of each State
court in that State which would receive funds from the grant;
(3) the amount of funds each State court indentified would
receive from the grant; and (4) the procedures the highest
State court would use to directly distribute the grant funds to
State courts identified in the application.
The bill creates three different types of allotments as a
means of distributing the authorized funds. The first such
allotment is called the ``base allotment.'' Any State that
submits an application will receive the base allotment of
$100,000. Under the ``discretionary allotment,'' five million
dollars will be split among States that demonstrate to the
Administrator an ``extraordinary'' need.
Finally, under the ``additional allotment,'' the remaining
grant dollars shall be divided proportionately among States
that have submitted applications based on need as determined by
the most recent census data.\29\ Each State will get a fraction
of the money based on its proportion of individuals over age
five who speak a language other than English at home to the
total number of people in this category from all States that
have applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\The amount each State receives will be based on need to be
determined by the most recent State census data for people over five
years of age who speak a language other than English at home. The use
of this particular census data is based on the Department of Justice's
guidance that courts must provide language assistance to individuals
who ``do not speak English as their primary language and who have a
limited ability read, write, speak, or understand English.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act does not
instruct the State in great detail on how to develop their
court interpreter program. Each State has unique needs and
faces unique challenges in providing court interpreters. The
bill is intended to give them some flexibility, within the
criteria permitted in the bill and the guidelines or
regulations determined by the Attorney General or
Administrator, to provide certified interpreters in State court
criminal and civil proceedings.
II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration
A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL
The State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act was first
introduced by Senator Kohl (D-WI) in the 108th Congress as S.
1733. The bill was introduced again in 109th Congress and was
included in S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
of 2006 which passed the Senate 62 to 36 on May 25, 2006. No
further action was taken in the 109th Congress.
In the 110th Congress, Senator Kohl (D-WI) introduced S.
702, the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act. Senator
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) were
original co-sponsors. After introduction, Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-VT), Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), Senator Benjamin Cardin
(D-MD), and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) joined as co-sponsors.
B. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On April 24, 2008, the Judiciary Committee met in executive
session to consider the bill. Senator Kohl offered an amendment
in the nature of a substitute that made three technical
changes. The amendment updated the findings to reflect that 40
States have now developed, or are developing, qualified court
interpreting programs. It also added a showing of need to the
application required under subsection (c). Finally, the
amendment made the ``discretionary allotment'' requirement
consistent with the other allotments by requiring that to be
eligible a State must submit an application under subsection
(c). The substitute amendment was accepted by unanimous
consent.
The Committee then voted to report the State Court
Interpreter Grant Program Act, with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute, favorably to the Senate. The Committee
proceeded by roll call vote as follows:
TALLY: 14 YEAS, 5 NAYS
Yeas (14): Leahy (D-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Biden (D-DE), Kohl
(D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Feingold (D-WI), Schumer (D-NY),
Durbin (D-IL), Cardin (D-MD), Whitehouse (D-RI), Specter (R-
PA), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA), Brownback (R-KS).
Nays (5): Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC),
Cornyn (R-TX), Coburn (R-OK).
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that the legislation may be cited as
the ``State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act.''
Section 2. Findings
This section contains congressional findings related to the
growing need for certified State court interpreters.
Section 3. State court interpreter program
Section 3, subsection (a), paragraph (1) authorizes and
directs the Administrator of the Office of Justice Programs of
the Department of Justice to make grants, in accordance with
regulations that may be prescribed by the Attorney General, 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.
Paragraph (2) allocates $500,000 each fiscal year for five
years to be used to establish a court interpreter technical
assistance program to assist State courts that receive grants.
Subsection (b) describes how the State courts may use the
grant awards. They may be used to: (1) assess regional language
demands; (2) develop a court interpreter program for the State
courts; (3) develop, institute, and administer language
certification exams; (4) recruit, train and certify qualified
court interpreters; (4) 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.
Subsection (c) describes the grant application process.
Under paragraph (1), the highest State court of each State
desiring a grant under the program must submit an application
to the Administrator at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as reasonably required by the
Administrator.
Subsection (c) paragraph (2) describes the components for
the application required under paragraph (1). The application
must include a demonstration of the need for the development,
implementation or expansion of a State court interpreter
program, an identification of each State court in that State
which would receive funds from the grant, the amount of funds
each State court would receive from the grant, and the
procedures the highest State court would use to directly
distribute grant funds to State courts.
Subsection (d) creates three different allotments of
funding available to States that have applications approved
under subsection (c). Paragraph (1) creates the ``base
allotment'' of $100,000 available to each of the highest State
courts of each State which has applied for funding.
Paragraph (2) creates the ``discretionary allotment,'' in
which the Administrator shall allocate $5,000,000 to be
distributed among the highest State courts of States which have
extraordinary needs that are required to be addressed in order
to develop, implement or expand a State court interpreter
program.
Finally, paragraph (3) creates an ``additional allotment''
which would allocate the unallocated balance of the amount
appropriated for each fiscal year to States who have submitted
grant applications. The amount each State receives will be
based on need to be determined by the most recent State census
data for people over five years of age who speak a language
other than English at home. Each State shall get an amount
equal to the total calculated by multiplying the unallocated
balance of the amount appropriated for each fiscal year and the
ratio between the number of people over five years of age who
speak a language other than English at home in the State and
the number of people over five 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.
This can be demonstrated by the following example.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, in all 50 States plus the
District of Columbia, there were 46,951,595 people over age
five who speak a language other than English at home. Assuming
all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia applied for grants
under subsection (c), State X that had 1,000,000 individuals
over age five who speak a language other than English at home
in the most recent census would receive 2.13 percent of the
remaining funds. However, if only 40 States applied for the
grants, the percentage would be based on the total number of
individuals over age five who speak a language other than
English at home from those 40 States, not the total number for
all 50 States plus the District of Columbia. Thus, State X
would receive a greater percentage of funding.
Paragraph (4) says that for purposes of section (d), the
District of Columbia shall be treated as a State and the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall act as the highest
State court for the District of Columbia.
Section 4. Authorization of appropriations
This section authorizes appropriations of $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this
Act.
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 702,
the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
April 29, 2008.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 702, the State Court
Interpreter Grant Program Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag.
Enclosure.
S. 702--State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act
Summary: S. 702 would authorize the appropriation of $15
million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 for the
Department of Justice to make grants to state courts for
programs to assist persons with limited English proficiency.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates
that implementing the bill would cost $47 million over the
2009-2013 period. Enacting S. 702 would not affect direct
spending or revenues.
S. 702 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 702 is shown in the following table. For
this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted
near the end of fiscal year 2008. We assume that the amounts
authorized by the bill will be appropriated by the start of
each fiscal year and that outlays will follow the historical
rate of spending for similar activities. The costs of this
legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration of
justice).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year in millions of dollars--
---------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level............. 15 15 15 15 0
Estimated Outlays............... 3 8 11 13 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 702
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. Assuming appropriation of authorized
amounts, states would benefit from almost $50 million over the
2009-2013 period for interpreter services in courts.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell;
Impact on the Private Sector: MarDestinee C. Perez.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory
impact will result from the enactment of S. 702.
VI. Conclusion
The State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act will provide
much needed assistance to State courts to develop and implement
programs to assist individuals with limited English proficiency
so that they will be able to access and understand the State
court proceedings in which they are parties. This legislation
is critical to helping States ensure access to justice and fair
trials for LEP individuals.
VII. Minority Views
----------
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS COBURN AND KYL
S. 702 authorizes $75 million over 5 years to provide
federal grants to state courts for interpreter programs. This
bill is another example of the federal government spending
limited federal dollars on what is an inherent state
responsibility. In this instance, it seems clear the states
have already largely addressed the issue--according to the
bill's own finding--as 40 states have developed, or are
developing, qualified court interpreter programs. During these
times of economic pressure that this government and all
Americans face, every dollar Congress spends should be
prioritized according to our constitutional duties.
Moreover, as written, this bill means that individuals who
are bilingual--for example, those who speak another language at
home, but who are also perfectly able to speak and understand
English--will be included in the process of determining how
much money a state will receive under this program. According
to the Census Bureau, in 2000, most people who spoke a language
other than English at home (55% or 25.6 million people)
reported they spoke English ``very well.'' Furthermore,
``respondents who said they spoke English `very well' were
considered to have no difficulty with English.''\1\
Yet this bill would include these individuals in the
calculation of a state's allotment. This shows that focusing
broadly on those who ``speak a language other than English at
their home'' overestimates the number of people this program is
meant to assist, and implies that language assistance is
required for those who might not need it. The language of the
bill should be narrowed to include only those who cannot
sufficiently understand or speak English, consistent with the
purpose of this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000,'' Census 2000
Brief, October 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should not intrude upon the inherent authority of
the states by making this matter a federal responsibility,
which is the ultimate effect of this bill. When the federal
government assumes responsibility for the states' duties, the
states' incentive to perform those functions is inevitably
diminished. There will always be a need for more court
interpreters, and we appreciate the sincere efforts of the
bill's proponents to address a very real problem. However, once
Congress has created a grant program to provide court
interpreters at the state level, the states will look to
Congress when the money runs out, rather than to their own
state legislatures, as is the current case. It is the
responsibility of each individual state to provide court
interpreters as needed, in order to meet the needs of its
citizens. We decline to wrest this authority from the states,
where it should appropriately remain.
Tom Coburn.
Jon Kyl.
VIII. Changes to Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 702, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
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) 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 which would receive funds from the
grant;
(C) the amount of funds each State court
identified under subparagraph would receive
from the grant; and
(D) the procedures the highest State court
would use to directly distribute grant funds to
State courts identified under subparagraph (B).
(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 which
have an application approved under subsection (c), and
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.
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.