Committee hears competing views on bill to streamline sign-language interpreter licensing

PORTLAND — The House Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection heard testimony May 6 on Senate Bill 950A, which would let the State Board of Sign Language Interpreters set by rule criteria for a supervisory interpreter license, consolidate specialty licenses into a simplified three-license structure and create an in-training interpreter license.

Advocates said the bill would reduce administrative barriers and help shore up a shrinking interpreter workforce while opponents and some educators warned the changes could remove pathways and standards important to educational interpreting.

SB 950A would: transfer some authority over sign-language interpreter licensing from the Oregon Health Licensing Office (HLO) to the State Board of Sign Language Interpreters; eliminate multiple specialty licenses that advocates say create duplicate fees and paperwork; create a sign-language interpreter and a training license; clarify exemptions and temporary licensure; and require licensing fees be reasonable and justified.

Kaylee McGuire, testifying on behalf of Sen. Janine Solomon, said the bill’s changes were proposed after rule-making in 2024 revealed problems with the licensing system created under 2023’s HB 2696. “These changes were created to address issues revealed through the rulemaking process in 2024,” McGuire said, and will “bolster the interpreter workforce and better serve the deaf and hard of hearing communities.”

Jack Ludwig, president of the Oregon Association of the Deaf and a former chair of the State Board of Sign Language Interpreters, urged support and criticized the Health Licensing Office’s handling of interpreter matters. Ludwig said HLO’s “lack of inclusion, transparency, accountability, and refusal to adapt” exacerbated interpreter shortages and that SB 950A “corrects this imbalance by transitioning key authorities from HLO to the board.”

Several working interpreters and education advocates gave mixed testimony. Melanie De Leon, an American Sign Language interpreter and communication access project coordinator at Portland Community College, said she supported parts of the bill but opposed eliminating specialty licenses because doing so removed a clear pathway to raise educational interpreting standards. “Oregon has been behind by 10 to 15 years,” De Leon said, noting Washington and California raised educational interpreter assessment requirements from an EIPA score of 3.5 to 4.0 years ago. She said the loss of specialty licenses removed an avenue to secure Oregon Department of Education support for higher K–12 standards.

Eric Crook, a nationally certified interpreter who supervises K–12 interpreters in Southern Oregon, said SB 950A’s proposed provisional and in-training licenses would create “an avenue for students, interns, and grow-your-own interpreters to enter the field” and help rural districts fill positions. Crook confirmed the bill would keep the existing Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) requirement for educational licenses at 3.5 and said consolidating specialty licenses would reduce fees and administrative tasks for licensees and HLO staff.

Chad Ludwig of Bridges Oregon asked the committee to keep the bill’s operative date at Jan. 1, 2026, and said industry stakeholders would continue work this summer with Rep. Sanchez on educational interpreting issues; he also said HLO had recently urged moving the effective date to 2027.

No committee vote on SB 950A took place during the May 6 hearing. Committee staff (Mr. Hendry) summarized the bill at the start of the public hearing; most testimony was public comment and stakeholder exchange. Supporters said the bill would improve responsiveness and oversight by the profession’s board; opponents and education advocates requested amendments to preserve pathways and standards for K–12 interpreting.

Questions from committee members probed the bill’s effects on educational interpreting standards, the role of the Oregon Department of Education, and how deaf interpreters would be credentialed under the new structure.

If enacted, SB 950A would alter where licensing authority rests and how interpreters progress through licensure categories; proponents argue it will expand the workforce and remove unnecessary barriers, while some educational stakeholders urged amendments to preserve routes for higher EIPA requirements and clearer support for deaf interpreters.