State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hatch in introducing the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, a bill to give law enforcement additional tools to fight the scourge of gang violence and to fund prevention programs to stop the cycle of gang violence.

I thank and commend my good friend and colleague, Chairman Hatch, for his hard work in helping to develop this legislation. Since 1996, he and I have worked together to address the problem of gang violence in this country.

We have now introduced legislation in each of the last four Congresses--the 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th. None of that legislation became law. But we have not given up.

The legislation we are introducing today addresses the many aspects of gang violence by focusing on new criminal offenses and increased penalties for individuals who engage in gang violence. Specifically, this legislation targets gang members who participate in criminal street gang by committing gang crimes like murder, sexual assault, robbery, and drug offenses to name a few, or by employing others to do so; recruit and use minors in gang crimes; commit violent crimes in furtherance of gang or drug trafficking activity; or travel in interstate commerce to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses.

This legislation also makes it easier to prosecute certain 16 and 17- year-olds as adults if they are engaging in violent gang activity.

We have also worked to provide for more cooperation between Federal and local law enforcement officials, and to make it easier for prosecutors to go after gang members who commit serious or violent crimes on behalf of their gangs.

We offer this comprehensive legislation because the problem of gang violence continues to get worse. I concur in the sentiments expressed by Los Angeles Police Department Chief William Bratton when he stated, ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.''

In 2002, there were over 650 homicides in Los Angeles, half of which were gang related. This year the Los Angeles Police Department reports approximately 400 murders and almost one-half of those murders are the result of gang violence.

The United States Attorney in Los Angeles testified before the Judiciary Committee last month about the gang problem in her city. She stated that in Los Angeles County alone, conservative estimates put street gangs at about 1,000 in number. The number of individual gang members in those street gangs is 150,000.

In addition, there are approximately another 20,000 gang members in Orange County, Ventura and San Bernardino Counties.

I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be, and how damaging they are to the victims and to the surrounding community.

Let me give a couple of examples from my own home city of San Francisco.

In 2000, two rival gangs had a shoot out in San Francisco's Mission District. An innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and shot through both legs.

A brave eyewitness gave law enforcement the name of the shooting suspect, who was then arrested. The gang then tracked down the witness, put a 9 millimeter automatic to his head, and threatened to kill him for cooperating with the police.

And just recently, on September 28, 2003, 7-week-old Glenn Timmy Maurice Molex was killed in his home during a drive-by shooting in a Bayview district neighborhood in San Francisco. Law enforcement believe that gang members may have been involved in the shooting.

But this problem is not limited to any one city, of course.

In 1980, there were gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they are in over 1,500 jurisdictions.

In 1980, there were about 2,000 gangs. Today, there are over 26,000 gangs.

In 1980, there were about 100,000 gang members. Today, there are more than 750,000 gang members.

I would like to explain how this legislation will help deter and punish gang-related crimes, and why Congress should act quickly to pass it.

First, the bill includes tough 10-year sentences for gang recruitment. This will serve to punish anyone who recruits a member to join--or forces a member to stay in--a criminal street gang with the intent to have that person commit a serious violent crime or a drug crime.

Second, if the person who was recruited was a minor, the offender will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years.

The purpose of this provision is to deter criminal gang recruitment. It is also to punish those who use minors to commit their crimes. And gangs specifically do go after juveniles because they know that, if the child is caught, he or she will probably receive lighter punishment than an adult.

I believe that we need to punish gang recruitment of children very severely. This bill would do that.

This legislation would also make it a crime for three or more people who work together to commit predicate gang crimes which are listed in the bill. Gang members who commit two or more predicate gang crimes or employ another individual to commit a gang crime would be punished under this new statute by up to 30 years in prison. If the predicate gang crime carries a greater penalty, the maximum would increase. If the gang member has previously been convicted of a predicate gang crime, that gang member's sentence would also increase.

And because juveniles are being used to commit these gang crimes, if the gang member employs a minor to commit the gang crime, the gang member would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.

The predicate gang crimes are felony crimes and include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, gambling, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, arson, obstruction of justice, tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, burglary, sexual assault, carjacking, or selling or possessing a controlled substance, firearm offenses, and illegal transportation of an alien.

The offenses that are listed as predicate gang crimes are those commonly pursued by gangs.

One study of gangs in various countries found that law enforcement reported that 55 percent of gang members were involved in aggravated assaults; 33 percent in robberies;

Fifty-eight percent in burglary and breaking and entering;

Fifty-two percent in motor vehicle theft; and

Seventy-two percent in drug sales.

Numerous gangs illegally launder their illicit drug profits. These include Russian and West African criminal gangs as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings.

This bill also allows property derived from gang crimes to be forfeited.

Third, the bill creates a new, RICO-like, anti-gang law to help prosecutors target the more serious gangs and gang members. In response to the problems of mafia-violence, the racketeering statute was created to punish violent crimes that are in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise. This legislation will do the same for violent crimes that are in furtherance of gang activity or drug activity.

The gang and drug crimes are those which I have described earlier-- murder, carjacking, drug distribution, robbery, firearms violations, and sexual assault. These crimes represent the heart of gang activity and those who commit them must be met with tough penalties.

The penalties range from a maximum of 10 years to the death penalty if death results from the crime.

This legislation also expands the Travel Act.

The Travel Act allows Federal prosecutors to charge certain interstate crimes such as extortion, bribery, and arson, and for business enterprises involving gambling, liquor, drugs, or prostitution.

This statute was passed in 1961 also with mafia-related criminal activity in mind.

Now criminal street gangs travel interstate for another purpose which strikes at the heart of our system of justice--intimidating and retaliating against witnesses, jurors, informants, and victims.

This bill would make it a crime to travel across state lines for that purpose and would allow for a sentence up to life imprisonment for someone who commits that crime.

Defendants who violate the Travel Act and kill someone will also face a possible death sentence for such actions.

This bill should ensure that prosecutors can use the Travel Act to act against crimes caused by the new Mafia: criminal street gangs.

The bill also amends several criminal statutes to address violent crimes frequently or typically committed by gangs.

These crimes include carjacking, assault, manslaughter, racketeering, illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, the use of firearms in drug trafficking and violent crimes, and murder-for- hire.

These amendments make it easier for prosecutors to prove these crimes by eliminating or modifying the intent requirement for the crimes or by increasing the penalties for violations.

This legislation also changes the venue statute for capital cases so that capital cases can be brought where the murder occurs or where the racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, or criminal street gang operates. So, if the gang, commits the bulk of its crimes in one State but commits a capital crime in another State, all of the crimes can be tried in the same State where the gang focused its criminal activity and the government can seek the appropriate punishment for that crime. The jury will then get the whole picture of how the gang operated and what they did.

Where a 16-year-old or 17-year-old has committed a Federal serious violent felony, this legislation facilitates Federal prosecution of such offenders. Surveys in 1996 and 1999 showed that 37-50 percent of gang members were under the age of 18. This legislation also calls upon the United States Sentencing Commission to create new sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders who are charged as adults to address concerns specific to offenders of that age.

The bill permits the Attorney General to designate high intensity interstate gang activity areas, HIIGAs, and authorizes $100,000,000 for each of 5 years for these task forces.

These provisions are modeled after similar provisions creating high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs.

HIDTAs are joint efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies whose leaders work together to assess regional drug threats, design strategies to combat those threats, and develop initiatives to implement the strategies.

HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies.

HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies.

HIDTAs integrate and synchronize efforts to reduce drug trafficking.

They eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize resources.

And they improve intelligence and information sharing both within and between regions.

HIDTAs are necessary because drug trafficking tends to be ``head quartered'' in certain areas of the country, from which it spreads to other areas.

Moreover, drug traffickers have been highly organized and developed sophisticated interstate and international operations.

These points are also true for many criminal gangs. So we have erected a new program of cooperation between law enforcement agencies to attack the gang problem like we attack the drug problem.

This bill authorizes $75 million over the next 5 years for the hiring of Federal prosecutors to identify and prosecute significant gangs within their districts under the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Across the Nation, 94 Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Forces are working to implement the coordinated strategy to reduce gun violence, led by the U.S. Attorney in each of the Federal judicial districts. U.S. Attorneys have been working side by side with all law enforcement participants in their communities to identify the most pressing crime problems and attack those problems both through prevention and aggressive prosecution.

Finally, this legislation would authorize $100 million dollars over the next 5 years for States to update their technology, create and fund gang prevention and community prosecution programs, and create and expand witness protection programs.

Witness protection is a critical part of reducing gang violence. The president of the National District Attorneys Association, Robert McCulloch, who is also the district attorney in St. Louis, testified last month before the Judiciary Committee. He said that while his office is able to put witnesses in motels for a couple of days or a week or is able to send them on a bus ride to a relative's house, the solutions are not long-term. And as a result, the witnesses come back and are at risk. That is not acceptable. If witnesses are not confident that they will remain safe, they will not talk to law enforcement. It is as simple as that. We must give local and State law enforcement the tools to keep witnesses alive.

While criminal street gangs flourish in certain urban areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, they typically use these cities as bases to invade more rural locales.

And the characteristics of a criminal street gang are extremely diverse. While some criminal street gangs are looser-affiliations of violent individuals who work together in furtherance of their gang, there are also some very highly disciplined, hierarchical ``corporations,'' often encompassing numerous jurisdictions.

MS-13, an international gang with roots in El Salvador's civil war has spread to at least 28 States and includes more than 8,000 members. In this gang there is no real command structure or national charter.

And in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, criminal street gangs are largely neighborhood-based associations of lifelong friends. They use no flashy names or symbols, but they bank together to commit crimes and sell drugs.

In the past three years, members of just three neighborhood-based gangs in Washington, D.C., called the 1-5 Mob, the K Street Crew and Murder Inc. by prosecutors, have been convicted of 57 murders and dozens of assaults and weapons offenses for gang crimes committed over the past ten years.

On the other hand, there are some very organized and structured ruthless gangs in this country.

The Gangster Disciples Nation, for example, has a chairman of the board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for streets), Governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers, and ``shorties,'' youth who staff drug-selling sites and help with drug deals.

From 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing more than 200 people. Moreover, one-half of their arrests were for drug offenses and only one-third for nonlethal violence.

And just like MS-13, these gangs pop up all across the country.

In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago-based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 states.

Members of the Los-Angeles based 18th Street Gang have migrated outside of California into the southwest border up into the Pacific Northwest, out to New Jersey, Mexico, and El Salvador. Los Angeles gang members have been tracked to Indianapolis, Oklahoma, Omaha, Raleigh and St. Louis.

This bill is a necessary measure to target increasingly violent, increasingly sophisticated, and increasingly national gangs. This is not just a California problem, or a Chicago problem, or a District of Columbia problem--this problem is a nationwide in its scope, and we must craft a nationwide solution. This legislation will tackle that problem head-on. We simply cannot wait any longer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003.

Mr. President, it's time to bring competition back into our Nation's gasoline markets. Across America, gasoline prices have recently soared to the highest levels ever. Right now, gasoline costs 12 cents more than it did at this time last year. In my home State of Oregon, folks are paying a whopping 32 cents more per gallon than in October of last year.

Proven price manipulation is siphoning competition out of the gasoline markets and stealing money from Americans' wallets. It's time that government regulators opened their eyes to reality of rampant price manipulation by gas companies and protected American consumers from getting pummeled at the pump. That's why today I am introducing the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act.

Every extra penny Americans spend on the artificially inflated price of gasoline is a penny they aren't spending on other things--like clothes, groceries, or other consumer items. The difference is that buying a new washer dryer helps create jobs; paying extra for gas only creates a fatter bottom line for oil companies, nothing more.

With people losing their jobs and the economy in sorry shape, Congress should act right now to protect the American people from oil company price gouging. Artificially inflated gas prices hurt American families three ways: it steals dollars from their pocketbooks, slows down job creation, and often raises the price of the goods families need to buy due to increased transport costs.

Folks are looking to Congress to address gasoline price spikes and industry pricing policies that can't always be explained away by the market. But as the American people have called out for relief, the Federal government has stayed silent--refusing to respond in any meaningful way to the gas price crisis.

The Secretary of Energy says he's conducting an informal investigation to look into the issue. But under current law, the Department of Energy has no power to do anything about gasoline prices.

On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does have the power to protect consumers from gas price manipulation. Yet they've done almost nothing. They turned aside evidence of serious, documented anti-consumer practices--such as redlining and zone price--that inflate gas prices. They've argued that they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out collusion, setting out a standard that is almost impossible to prove against savvy oil interests.

You can see the results of the FTC's inaction at gas stations in Oregon and all across America. Nationwide, gasoline markets in Oregon and at least 27 other States are now considered to be ``tight oligopolies'' with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supplies. The problem is particularly dire in the West, where California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho are four of the top six States for high gas prices today.

In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices are driving independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called ``redlining,'' limits where independent distributors can sell their gasoline. As a result, independent stations must buy their gasoline directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand- name stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent stations can't compete.

Redlining is just the tip of the iceberg. Investigations have also found oil companies controlling not just stations' buying choices, but also distributors' selling prices. Companies engage in a practice called zone pricing, basing prices not on the cost of producing gasoline, but on the maximum a neighborhood will pay. They have squeezed out smaller refineries that could increase supply and introduce new competitions. They have exported gasoline and oil to Asia at rock-bottom prices, making up their profits by sticking West Coast consumers with the difference. So, stopping one anti-competitive practice, by itself, won't get the job done.

The solution is to update antitrust law to prohibit anti-competitive practices by single companies in concentrated markets. The current standard of collusion is unenforceable. Smart oil companies will never hole up in a room and collude to set prices; they don't need to.

Chevron/Texaco's North American President David Reeves admitted to a congressional panel that the West Coast gasoline market is so dominated by a limited number of large committed refinery/marketers whose individual actions can have significant market impact.

Here's how the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act would tackle the problem. First, the Federal Government would establish consumer watch zones for concentrated gasoline markets. Where control is concentrated, supplies can be manipulated, and competition restricted with ease. Where that capability is ready-made, the FTC should watch markets more carefully.

Oil companies employing anti-competitive practices in consumer watch zones should have to prove they're not hurting consumers. The whole litany of anti-competitive practices should be considered presumptively illegal. That includes exporting at a discount and pressuring independents--all the practices that manipulate supply or limit competition.

Consumer watch zones would also be empowerment zones for quick action by the FTC. In these zones, the agency could issue cease and desist orders to companies participating in these anti-competitive practices, forcing them to stop gouging consumers.

These legislative proposals are first steps toward bringing back competition to the Nation's gasoline markets. Congress should act now to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices--because even the oil companies admit the market won't solve the problem on its own. Last month, a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. That means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years.

I have spent years documenting unethical and anti-competitive practices in this country's gasoline markets--practices that have driven prices up and driven consumers crazy at the pump. The American people deserve relief from high gas prices and the Congress should act on their behalf.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, a comprehensive bipartisan bill to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts.

This legislation, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, authorizes approximately $650 million over the next 5 years to support law enforcement and prevention efforts. Of the $650 million, $450 million would be used to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs, and $200 million would be used for intervention and prevention programs for at-risk youth. The bill also increases funding for the Federal prosecutors and FBI agents needed to conduct coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs.

Additionally, this bill will create new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhance existing gang and violent crime penalties to deter and punish illegal street gangs, enact violent crime reforms needed to prosecute effectively gang members, and implement a limited reform of the juvenile justice system to facilitate Federal prosecution of 16 and 17-year-old gang members who commit serious violent felonies.

I want to take a moment here and commend my dear friend Senator Feinstein for her long-time commitment to this issue. She has been a leader in California and in the Senate in the war against gangs and gang violence. She and I have worked together for many years on this important issue, and I look forward to our joint effort to enact meaningful legislation.

The problem of gang violence in America is not a new one, nor is it a problem that is limited to major urban areas. Once thought to be only a problem in our Nation's largest cities, gangs have invaded smaller communities.

The problem of gang violence is of great concern to the citizens of my State. According to the Salt Lake Area Gang Project, a multi- jurisdictional task force created in 1989 to fight gang crime in the Salt Lake area, there are at least 250 identified gangs in our region with over 3,500 members. What is perhaps most troubling, the juvenile gang members in Utah account for over one-third of the total gang membership.

Gangs now resemble organized crime syndicates who readily engage in gun violence, illegal gun trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and other serious crimes. All too often we read in the headlines about gruesome and tragic stories of rival gang members gunned down, innocent bystanders--adults, teenagers and children--caught in the crossfire of gangland shootings, and family members crying out in grief as they lose loved ones to the gang wars plaguing our communities.

Recent studies confirmed that gang violence is an increasing problem in all of our communities. Based on the latest available National Youth Gang Survey, it is now estimated that there are more than 25,000 gangs, and over 750,000 gang members who are active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United States. The most current reports indicate that in 2002 alone, after five years of decline, gang membership has spiked nationwide.

While we are all committed to fighting the global war on terrorism, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we devote sufficient resources to combating this important national problem--the rise in gangs and gang violence in America. I have been--and remain--committed to supporting Federal, State and local task forces as a model for effective gang enforcement strategies. Working together, these task forces have demonstrated that they can make a difference in our communities.

In Salt Lake City, the Metro Gang Multi-Jurisdiction Task Force has for years demonstrated its critical role in fighting gang violence in Salt Lake City. We must act in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that adequate resources are available to all of our communities to expand and fund these critical task force operations to fight gang violence.

I also am mindful of the fact that to be successful in reducing gang violence, we must address not only effective law enforcement strategies, but we must also take steps to protect our youth--so that the next generation does not all into the abyss of gang life, which so often includes gun violence, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes. The young people of our cities need to be steered away from gang involvement. We need to ensure that there are sufficient tools to intervene in the lives of these troubled youth. Federal involvement is crucial to control gang violence and to prevent new gang members from replacing old gang members.

We must take a proactive approach and meet this problem head on if we wish to defeat it. If we really want to reduce gang violence, we must ensure that law enforcement has adequate resources and legal tools and that our communities have the ability to implement proven intervention and prevention strategies, so that gang members who are removed from the community are not simply replaced by the next generation of new gang members.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me and Senator Feinstein in promptly passing this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Court Interpreters Grant Program Act of 2003. This bill would create a modest Federal grant program to support the State court interpreter services. Currently, court interpreting services vary greatly by State--some States have highly developed programs, others are trying to get programs running but lack adequate funds, and still others have no program at all. This inconsistency creates the potential for poorly

translated court proceedings, or court proceedings that are not translated at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by funding State court interpreter programs.

According to the 2000 Census, 18 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. As these individuals with limited English proficiency come into the court system to seek redress or to defend themselves against allegations of civil or criminal wrongdoing, it is critical to the fair administration of justice that they be able to understand their court proceedings.

At the Federal level, court interpreting services are provided as needed by trained and certified interpreters. Similarly, some States have robust and effective court interpreter programs in their State courts. These States recruit, train, test and certify individuals in all necessary languages. However, many States have limited programs which may test and certify interpreters for only one language. Such States may have only a small number of interpreters certified to interpret courtroom proceedings. Still other States have no program at all. We have heard horror stories of ``amateur'' interpreters attempting to translate courtroom events. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports: ``In one juvenile court, a juvenile defendant had to interpret for his parents. In a Monroe County [Pennsylvania] court, a member of an anti-domestic violence group was asked to interpret for an alleged victim, despite having a clear bias.''

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.

A lack of qualified interpreters can create serious problems in the justice system. For example, a poorly interpreted trial may be appealed on the grounds that justice was not administered fairly. Those appeals clog up the courts. In addition, where there are inadequate resources available, interpreters may not be able to keep up with the caseload and trials may be delayed unreasonably and in violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial.

This is not just a State issue. First and foremost, the right to a fair trial is a federally protected right under the Constitution. The Federal Government therefore has a role to play in ensuring that State courts are holding fair trials. In addition, State budget crises have reduced the ability of the courts to pay for interpreter services. At the same time, requests for interpreter services have skyrocketed over the past several years all around the country. Although Spanish is by far the most requested language to be translated in courtrooms, court officials report regular or occasional need for Russian, German, French, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Afghani, Armenian, Punjabi, Hindi, Arabic, Somali, Polish and many other languages. The coincidence of budget cuts and increased demand threatens federally-guaranteed due process and justifies Federal assistance.

This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million for each of the next five fiscal years for a grant program to the States. 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.

Support for this legislation comes from State court administrators across the country. In fact, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators this summer adopted a resolution urging Congress to establish a national program to assist State courts in providing court interpreters services.

I hope my colleagues will help the court systems in their States to provide critical court interpreting services to their constituents.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Court Interpreters Grant Program Act of 2003. This bill would create a modest Federal grant program to support the State court interpreter services. Currently, court interpreting services vary greatly by State--some States have highly developed programs, others are trying to get programs running but lack adequate funds, and still others have no program at all. This inconsistency creates the potential for poorly

translated court proceedings, or court proceedings that are not translated at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by funding State court interpreter programs.

According to the 2000 Census, 18 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. As these individuals with limited English proficiency come into the court system to seek redress or to defend themselves against allegations of civil or criminal wrongdoing, it is critical to the fair administration of justice that they be able to understand their court proceedings.

At the Federal level, court interpreting services are provided as needed by trained and certified interpreters. Similarly, some States have robust and effective court interpreter programs in their State courts. These States recruit, train, test and certify individuals in all necessary languages. However, many States have limited programs which may test and certify interpreters for only one language. Such States may have only a small number of interpreters certified to interpret courtroom proceedings. Still other States have no program at all. We have heard horror stories of ``amateur'' interpreters attempting to translate courtroom events. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports: ``In one juvenile court, a juvenile defendant had to interpret for his parents. In a Monroe County [Pennsylvania] court, a member of an anti-domestic violence group was asked to interpret for an alleged victim, despite having a clear bias.''

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.

A lack of qualified interpreters can create serious problems in the justice system. For example, a poorly interpreted trial may be appealed on the grounds that justice was not administered fairly. Those appeals clog up the courts. In addition, where there are inadequate resources available, interpreters may not be able to keep up with the caseload and trials may be delayed unreasonably and in violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial.

This is not just a State issue. First and foremost, the right to a fair trial is a federally protected right under the Constitution. The Federal Government therefore has a role to play in ensuring that State courts are holding fair trials. In addition, State budget crises have reduced the ability of the courts to pay for interpreter services. At the same time, requests for interpreter services have skyrocketed over the past several years all around the country. Although Spanish is by far the most requested language to be translated in courtrooms, court officials report regular or occasional need for Russian, German, French, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Afghani, Armenian, Punjabi, Hindi, Arabic, Somali, Polish and many other languages. The coincidence of budget cuts and increased demand threatens federally-guaranteed due process and justifies Federal assistance.

This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million for each of the next five fiscal years for a grant program to the States. 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.

Support for this legislation comes from State court administrators across the country. In fact, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators this summer adopted a resolution urging Congress to establish a national program to assist State courts in providing court interpreters services.

I hope my colleagues will help the court systems in their States to provide critical court interpreting services to their constituents.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.