[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNITY ACT OF 2011

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

H.R. 997

__________

AUGUST 2, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-141

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-386 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JARED POLIS, Colorado
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
MARK AMODEI, Nevada

Richard Hertling, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------

Subcommittee on the Constitution

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio JERROLD NADLER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
STEVE KING, Iowa JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
Virginia

Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel

David Lachmann, Minority Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------

AUGUST 2, 2012

Page

THE BILL

H.R. 997, the ``English Language Unity Act of 2011''............. 3

OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 10
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 12

WITNESSES

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
The Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Rosalie Pedalino Porter, Ed.D., Chairwoman of the Board of
Directors, ProEnglish
Oral Testimony................................................. 32
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
The Honorable Rene Garcia, Florida State Senator, District 40
Oral Testimony................................................. 42
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman and CEO, U.S. English, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 60
Prepared Statement............................................. 62

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

English language translation of the opening statement of the
Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 13
Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution............... 68

APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution............... 126
Spanish language version of the Prepared Statement of the
Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 129
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas............. 132
Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution............................... 134

ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNITY ACT OF 2011

----------

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Franks, Chabot, Forbes, King,
Jordan, Nadler, Conyers, and Scott.
Staff present: (Majority) Paul Taylor, Subcommittee Chief
Counsel; Sarah Vance, Clerk; (Minority) David Lachmann,
Subcommittee Staff Director; and Veronica Eligan, Professional
Staff Member.
Mr. Franks. Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on the
Constitution meets today to consider H.R. 997, the ``English
Language Unity Act of 2011.''
Let me first thank Subcommittee Member Steve King for
introducing H.R. 997. This legislation currently has 121
bipartisan co-sponsors.
The great observer of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote
that, ``The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and most
durable that can unite mankind.'' Indeed, only through a common
language can a diverse people come to understand one another
and solve problems together. A common language facilitates
friendships, commerce, and community.
Yet today, more and more Americans do not share a common
language. And without a common language, they cannot share
fully in the American community.
In 1900, 85 percent of the immigrant community was fluent
in English, but 100 years later that fluency rate dropped to 68
percent despite great advancements in communications
technology.
The Census Bureau has predicted that by 2044, a majority of
people residing in the United States will speak a language
other than English. When a country has more and more immigrants
who do not share a common language, more and more members of
those non-English speaking communities tend to keep to
themselves because they can. They interact less with the
English-speaking community and form insular communities within
communities. As a result, they are exposed to fewer and fewer
social, educational, and business opportunities. And our whole
Nation suffers.
H.R. 997 requires that government functions be carried out
in English with common sense exceptions for communications
required by concerns related to health and public safety,
trade, and national security.
Making English the official language, as a good majority of
the States have done, would provide the encouragement needed to
incentivize more immigrants to embrace a common language once
again.
English policies are widely popular. According to a May
2010 Rasmussen Report survey, 87 percent of Americans believe
English should be our official language. A more recent Harris
Interactive poll released on July 9, 2012, found that 88
percent of respondents agree that English should be the
official language of the United States, including 96 percent of
Republicans, 83 percent of Democrats, and 89 percent of
Independents. The results showed 89 percent of males, 87
percent of females, and 83 percent of Hispanics agree that
English should be America's official language.
Making English our official language is also widely
supported among immigrants. A Zogby poll showed that more than
three in four immigrants to the United States favored
legislation making English the official language, as did nearly
60 percent of first generation and 79 percent of second
generation Americans.
As it happens, my own wife is an example of an immigrant
who feels this way. She came to this country as a teenager,
from the Philippines. She speaks the better part of four
languages. But she has said unequivocally that her entire
family's commitment to learning English as their primary
language remains the primary reason for the family's success in
America. In her native country, the population speaks an
estimated 175 languages. How many languages are used on the
Philippine election ballots? One. Which language is used?
English.
There is a reason for this. Having one unifying language
that is the most common to all groups is the most efficient way
to carry out government functions. So many things do, in fact,
get lost in translation, and this is a risky enterprise when
dealing with something as basic as the franchise to vote.
To take a risk of having numerous slight variations for a
ballot initiative risks the integrity of the initiative. This
is just one of the many examples why a single language is
critical; I believe the time has come for America to join the
other 56 countries who have made English their official
language. I look forward so much to hearing from our witnesses
here today.
And I now yield to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
[The bill, H.R. 997, follows:]

__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having already spent
an extraordinary amount of Committee time and resources in an
effort to roll back the civil rights of women, persons with
disabilities, gay and lesbian Americans, and other minorities,
our majority colleagues are now taking their last opportunity
to highlight a bill that would place at risk the 24 and a half
million people in the United States who need language
assistance from their government in some situations.
H.R. 997 does nothing to help these individuals learn
English and to assure that, in the meantime, they are brought
into the mainstream of American life.
English is universally acknowledged as the common language
of the United States. Government proceedings and publications
are always performed or provided in English, though in some
instances augmented by other languages when necessary for
effective communication with the constituents that we serve.
These additional means of communication do not threaten us
as a people or a Nation. On the contrary, they prove that
beyond our common language, what truly unifies us is a shared
commitment to the principles upon which this Nation was founded
and flourishes--freedom of speech, equal protection of laws,
and representative democracy.
That shared commitment is unquestionably tested at times.
Efforts to use the force of law to prohibit the use of
languages other than English are not new, nor is the fact that
these restrictions often have been put in place because of
anxiety and distrust of new immigration populations
In the aftermath of World War I, for example, when anti-
German sentiment was running high and large numbers of
European, including many German immigrants, were coming to this
country, some States passed laws prohibiting the teaching of
any language other than English in their schools.
My colleagues on this Subcommittee should be familiar with
the Supreme Court case which struck that law down, Meyer v.
Nebraska, because it is one of the leading cases establishing
the fundamental right of parents to guide the upbringing of
their children, the subject of a recent Subcommittee hearing,
and a proposed constitutional amendment introduced by our
distinguished Chairman.
As the Supreme Court admonished in Meyer, the desire to
assure that immigrants to this country learn and speak English,
a claimed purpose both of the law in Meyer and of the bill that
we are considering today, ``cannot be coerced by methods which
conflict with the Constitution. A desirable end cannot be
promoted by prohibited means.''
The Alaska Supreme Court cited this passage from Meyer in
Alaskans for Common Language v. Kritz, finding that Alaska's
requirement that English be used for all government functions
and acts violates the 1st Amendment. That law, as would H.R.
997, deprived government officials, agents, and employees of
the ability to communicate with the public. It also prevented
individuals from accessing vital information and services from
the government, prevented effective communication with the
government, and infringed on the constitutional right to
petition the government for redress of grievances.
As the Alaska Supreme Court noted, if the purpose of the
law truly is to promote, preserve, and strengthen the use of
English, then creating and funding programs promoting English
as a second language is a far less restrictive means of
achieving that goal. This is what our Constitution requires,
and it is what we as elected officials should demand.
Laws like H.R. 997, which provide no affirmative support
for those with limited English proficiency, but as the Alaska
Supreme Court put it, ``merely create an incentive to learn
English by making it more difficult for people to interact with
their government,'' have no place in our constitutional scheme.
These laws also should trouble us because, while proponents
claim that their purpose is to unite the Nation, these
proposals divide us by sending a clear message that no one is
welcome here until and unless they are fluent in English. But
this cannot possibly be true. All of us represent multilingual
communities. The district I represent is home to people who
speak Spanish, Yiddish, Creole, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew,
Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Korean, Portuguese, Wolof,
Ukranian, Italian, and German, to name just a few.
Our communities work because we have mutual respect for
each other, our different religions, traditions, cultures, and
languages, as well as shared values and a common belief in the
American Dream.
Unfortunately, there is reason to suspect that proponents
of English only laws are not interested in ensuring inclusion
in this American Dream, but instead seek to bar our newest
immigrants from its achievement. We need look no further than
experience in Iowa to confirm that this fear is not unfounded.
Representative King championed legislation in Iowa that is
nearly identical to H.R. 997 while a member of the State
legislature. While campaigning for passage of his law in Iowa,
Representative King said the law would not prohibit government
usage of other languages, and to illustrate this claim,
explained that ``If the Storm Lake policy chief wanted to post
signs in 5 languages, he would be allowed to do as long as one
of the languages included English.'' Once the law was passed,
however, Representative King sued the Secretary of State for
providing online registration forms in other languages in
addition to forms provided in English.
H.R. 997 unquestionably poses the same threat to the
protections for language minorities in the Voting Rights Act,
particularly given Representative King's efforts to remove
those protections during our most recent reauthorization of the
VRA. Perhaps in his testimony, Representative King can clarify
exactly how H.R. 997 will impact voting rights, and whether his
provision granting standing for anyone claiming injury the law
is intended to allow him to sue government officials for the
usage of language other than English.
I would also like to hear why Representative King did not
include in H.R. 997 a provision from his Iowa bill that allowed
``any language usage required by or necessary to secure the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.''
As we consider this bill, let us not forget that we are a
Nation of immigrants and that this has made us stronger, not
weaker. As we will hear from our colleague from Texas,
Representative Charlie Gonzalez, and from Florida State Senator
Rene Garcia, those who are new to American embrace English and
learn it as fast and as well as they can. They do so because
English is the unquestionable gateway to opportunity, but also
because it allows them to become part of the fabric of this
great Nation. There simply is no legitimate need for official
English or English only bills like H.R. 997.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. And I now yield to the
distinguished Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Gracias, Senor Presidente. Bueno, estamos aqui
otra vez, en este ultimo dia del periodo de sesiones antes de
regresar a nuestros distritos para mas de un mes, considerando
legislacion divisiva sobre un problema social que--
desafortunadamente--no tiene posibilidad de convertirse en ley.
La legislacion que estamos considerando hoy, la ``Ley de la
Unidad de Idioma Ingles del dos mil y once'' es a la vez mal
llamada y, yo creo, hara mucho dano a esta nacion.
H.R. 997 no promovera la unidad, como lo sugiere el titulo.
Limitando nuestra vida publica a un solo idioma no nos
haceremos mas unidos. Lo que nos une no es una lengua, pero los
ideales compartidos que hace los Estados Unidos el pais grande
y unico que es.
H.R. 997 excluira a muchas personas de la ciudadania plena,
haciendo mas dificil la participacion en transacciones simples,
como conseguir una licencia de conducir o inscriber a sus hijos
para la escuela, o acceder a otros servicios.
Excluyera a personas de nuestra democracia, trayendo de
vuelta las desacreditada--e ilegal--pruebas que una vez mantuvo
a los pobres, las minorias y los inmigrantes fuera de las
urnas.
Esta legislaction esta en contradiccion con nuestra
historia.
Somos una nacion de inmigrantes y somos una nacion de
personas que llegaron aqui hablando muchas diferentes idiomas.
Lo que mantiene a esta nacion junta son los valores compartidos
y la creencia compartida en los valores Americanos de libertad,
democracia e igualdad de oportunidades.
Hoy en dia, los inmigrantes de Asia o America Latina son
los objetivos de la demonizacion y la discriminacion. Un dia,
nuestro pais mirara hacia atras a este periodo con verguenza y
arrepentimiento.
Esta legislacion no reconoce que somos, y siempre hemos
sido, una nacion multilingue.
Puedo ver ningun efecto--sea cual sea la intencion--ademas
de excluir a personas de su plena participacion en el sueno
Americano. Peor aun, la legislacion envia un mensaje de que
estas personas no son bienvenidos, que son ciudadanos de
segunda clase.
Quiero dar la bienvenida a neustros testigos, y espero con
interes escuchar su testimonio.
[The English language translation of the opening statement
of Mr. Conyers follows:]

__________

Mr. Franks. The gentleman's time has expired, and I----
Mr. Scott. I want to make sure that the court reporter got
all that down. [Laughter.]
Mr. Franks. I want to thank the gentleman. My wife
certainly would have understood his statement. As it happens, I
do not. But I would ask the gentleman in the interest of
fairness and certainly to Mr. Nadler's district, would you
repeat that in Yiddish, and Vietnamese, and French as well?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Conyers. When is the next hearing, sir?
Mr. Franks. I suppose----
Mr. Conyers. I would be delighted to accommodate your
request.
Mr. Franks. Nothing would make the point better if we
conducted all of our debates in different languages. And, I
suppose that makes the case for this bill better than anything
else. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's gesture, but it
does indicate why it would be even more confusing in this place
than ever if all of us spoke a different language.
So with that, I would yield to Mr. Forbes. I understand
that you do not have an opening statement. So I guess we will
move forward.
So I will recognize then myself for 5 minutes for
questions. No, I am sorry. I am sorry. See, I am quite
confused. Again, the point is made once again.
So I will now turn to our witnesses. Here we go. All right.
Let me now introduce the witnesses on our first panel.
Steve King has represented the Fifth District of Iowa since
2002. He is also a Member of the Constitution Subcommittee. Mr.
King is the chief sponsor of H.R. 997, the English Unity Act.
Charles Gonzalez has represented the 20th District in Texas
since 1998. He serves currently on the House Committees on
Energy and Commerce and House Administration. I want to thank
you both so much for appearing before us today.
Each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered
into the record in its entirety. I would ask that witness
summarize his testimony in 5 minutes or less. And to help you
stay within that time. there is a timing light on your table.
When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 1
minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it
signals that the witnesses' 5 minutes have expired.
Before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of
this Committee that they be sworn. So if you would please
stand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Franks. Please be seated. And I will now recognize our
first witness for 5 minutes, Mr. King. Would you turn that
microphone on? We are always missing that, sir.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been an
interesting introduction here with the statements of the
Members. I was going to start out with a Tower of Babel
discussion, but I think I will pass that. Mr. Conyers perhaps
has made my point on that for me.
I would take this back to the narrative from when I got
interested in official language issues. And that was, as I
heard the story from my father, who my grandmother, Freda
Katrina Yohanna Harm King, came over from Germany with her
family, they were a German-speaking household. And my father
grew up in a German-speaking household.
He went to school on his first day of kindergarten speaking
German, and kindergarten, of course, is a German word, so they
should not have been very shocked at heading off to
kindergarten. But it was a whole new experience for him in that
classroom that was in English. And when he came home, he walked
into the door of the house, and he said hello to his mother in
German. She turned to him and said, speaking German in this
household is for you, from now on, verboten. I came here to
become an American, and that means learning and speaking
English. And you will go to school and learn English, and bring
it home, and teach it to me.
My father was the last of seven children to actually speak
any German. The rest of them learned English. And their family
converted to English because the kids went to school, brought
it home, and taught it to their mother. The father did speak
English, but he was working quite a lot.
So I got interested in it that way. I gave a speech on
October 10th of 1996 as a candidate for the State Senate, and I
just happened to mention that I thought English should be the
official language of the State of Iowa. About 150 people there
erupted in applause, and it surprised me that it went that deep
into the nerve center.
A reporter began to attack me for my position, which I
began to defend. I ended up in the Iowa Senate as the chief
sponsor and author of English as the official language of the
State of Iowa. It took 6 years. We wrote the bill and refined
it. But it is important to say English is the official
language.
If you look around the world and you think how the city-
states merged into nation-states, why did they, especially in
western Europe and eastern Europe? Primarily around the lines
of language, because language, a common language, is the most
powerful unifying force known throughout history, throughout
all humanity, and all time.
It is stronger than the forces of tribe, or race, or
ethnicity, or common experience, or common history. It is
stronger even than religion. If people can communicate with
each other, they are bound together. If they cannot
communicate, they are bound to separate. The lesson of the
Tower of Babel tells that. How did God scatter the people to
the four winds? Because He scrambled their language.
We saw an example of that this morning. As much as we are
amused, we still stopped listening. We need to bind our country
together.
When I sat in testimony before the Small Business Committee
with George Bush's second-in-command on the Department of
Labor, and I asked the question, I understand why you cannot
hire people and train them to run a punch press or a lathe
because they do not understand English. But are you having a
second generation problem there? They said, yes. Not only that,
third generation problem.
We have language enclaves all over this country, and I know
that we are going to bring in immigrants. I welcome them. But,
they expect to arrive in a country that has an official
language. And if you look around the world at the numbers of
countries there are conflicting analyses of that.
I did one where I opened up an almanac, and I took every
country that had a flag. I looked it up--and at this time the
World Book Encyclopedia--every other country had an official
language according to that research. There are a couple, three
exceptions out there in the world otherwise.
Some have more than one official language. Singapore has
English as an official language. It is pretty interesting that
other countries saw the wisdom in this, and here in the United
States we have not been able to get there.
Noah Webster wrote the American English Dictionary for the
purpose of uniting the American people. He saw that among the
colonies where he traveled, that there were colloquialisms that
were arising, and new languages were emerging because people
did not travel and interact with each other enough. So, he
wrote the American English Dictionary for the purpose of
binding the American people together.
Thank God English is the common language in this country.
It has bound us together. We need to make it the official
language because there are efforts in this country to fracture
this and divide it. Going clear back to 245 B.C., the first
emperor of China, whom I pronounce Qin Shi Huang, and the
Chinese always correct me on that pronunciation. He identified
that the Chinese spoke different languages, at least 300
different dialects all over the landscape where they are today
as one China.
He hired scribes to write the Chinese language for the
purposes of binding the Chinese people together for, ``the next
10,000 years.'' Well, it is has worked pretty good for the next
2,500 years. There is no sign of that fracturing that I can
see.
We are a Nation that should be able to look across history,
humanity, culture, economics, and know that we are blessed to
have English as our common language. We need to make it our
official language. It is the official language of the maritime
industry, the air traffic controllers, and something that I
have enjoyed sitting at the round table at the EU as the
official language of the European Union, although sometimes you
hear it with a French accent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa

__________

Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman. And I now recognize
Congressman Gonzalez for 5 minutes. Thanks for being here, sir.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nadler, Hermano
Conyers, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful for
this opportunity to testify before you today.
I have never understood the motivations of those who
believe either our country or our language needs to be
``protected'' by a law like H.R. 997.
Let us leave aside for now the questionable use of the word
English in the bill's title instead of what H.L. Mencken called
the ``American language.'' Maybe it is because I had such good
teachers as a child that I learned the power and majesty of
English. And so I have no fear that the language of Shakespeare
and Twain needs a Federal law to protect it.
Maybe it is because I have known Americans for whom English
was not their first language, and seen firsthand their burning
desire to learn to speak the language in which our Constitution
and our laws are written.
The French have a government agency to protect their
language because our language so dominates their world, from
commerce to culture, that they feel threatened. I have never
had such worries about our commerce and our culture. This bill
would certainly change our American culture.
For most of our history, this country has welcomed
immigrants. They have made us stronger, economically and
otherwise, and their very desire to come to this country is a
recognition of our national strength.
Now there have been vocal minorities who did not share
faith in the strength of our American culture. Even Benjamin
Franklin, as reported in an essay by Dennis Baron, and out of
the essay I will quote, ``considered the Pennsylvania Germans
to be a `swarthy' racial group, distinct from the English
majority in the colony. In 1751 he complained, ``Why should the
Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and
by herding together establish their language and manners to the
exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the
English, become a colony of aliens who will shortly be so
numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and
will never adopt our Language and Customs any more than they
can acquire our Complexion.' ''
In the mid-19th century, they called themselves the
American Party and bragged that they were defending from the
imminent destruction that would be wrought by criminal
immigrants--Catholics from Ireland and Germany. Most Americans
called them Know-Nothings, and their ignorant bigotry is justly
condemned.
In the later 19th century, we heard of our imminent demise
at the hands of the ``Yellow horde'' of Chinese immigrants. And
it is not yet 2 months since the House expressed our regret for
that lengthy fit of unjustifiable bigotry.
These cries of our imminent demise by assorted alarmists
were wrong then and they are wrong now. Do we really want to
return to the mindset of a century ago when a man could testify
to Congress about immigrant laborers and say, ``These workers
don't suffer--they don't even speak English.''
We are a country, and a strong country, when and because we
act as one, when, ``We the People,'' ``establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
[and] promote the general Welfare.'' We the people speak with
accents from Texas and New York. Anyone who has listened to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee
when they converse might wonder if they were indeed speaking
the same language.
We speak English and Inuit. We are one because we will it
so. The United States is about what we do, not how we describe
it. That is why back in 1787 the Constitution was translated
and printed in German so that the non-English speaking minority
in Franklin's Pennsylvania, which would become the second State
to ratify our Constitution, could fully participate in the
ratification debate.
What that means, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, is that our founding document, under and from
which we derive all our authority as a Congress, is the result
of the opinions and votes of men who did not even speak the
language.
While the tradition of printing some public documents in
German continued well into the 20th century, it died out
because, then as now, everyone living here, especially American
citizens, finds life easier if they speak and learn English. We
do not need to go out of our way to punish non-English
speakers. The opportunity to enjoy all of the attributes of
this great country is more than enough of an incentive. There
is no need for H.R. 997 as is evidenced by the 97 percent of
Americans who speak English.
Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Subcommittee.
__________

Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman. The votes have been
called, but we are going to go ahead and try to get started,
and we will be returning right after votes. I thank you both
for your testimony, and I will begin the questioning by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. King, is there anything you heard from the opposing
witness that you would like the opportunity to respond or to
clarify?
Mr. King. I heard some of the language about the Know-
Nothings, and I am thinking about some of the bias and
prejudice against the Irish. That has all gone on. But, I am
also thinking about third generation Americans today that do
not speak English well enough to be trained to work in a
factory. It is a disadvantage for them. This is an economic
opportunity to encourage people to learn English.
And I do not know that there are third generation Germans
in Pennsylvania that did not get a handle on the English
language.
I would also make the point that this bill does not, and no
one alleged otherwise, but this bill does not go in and amend
any components of the Voting Rights Act or other provisions
that are there in statute. But what it does do, and I did not
put this into my testimony, it does address Bill Clinton's
Executive Order 13166. Not specifically, but the general
language I believe does nullify President Clinton's executive
order which essentially says we are going to promote multiple
languages and utilize that, and provide interpreters. This goes
the opposite way.
The Constitution that Mr. Gonzalez talked about being
interpreted into German, well, it just would not be official.
It would be a German version, an unofficial version. The
official version would be in English. That is common form of
communications currency, and language is just like the euro.
Mr. Franks. Well, Mr. King, your English bill became law in
Iowa. What has been your perspective of the impact?
Mr. King. Well, at first there was a defiance of it on the
part of then Secretary of State, as he was campaigning for
governor, Chet Culver, the most recent Democratic governor that
we have had. He as Secretary of State printed voter
registration documents and absentee ballot requests in multiple
languages. I sent a letter to him and asked him to withdraw
those because it directly violated. They are official documents
after all that directly violated Iowa statute.
He did not. I do not recall if he actually answered. Quite
often they just do not. And as so, I had to take him to court,
and the court enjoined that activity that he was carrying on.
He was subsequently elected governor, but the Secretary of
State has been bound by the law from this point.
That is the only thing. Otherwise, there was an intense
opposition to it from a very small percentage of people that
mounted a very energized effort. And once we just dealt with
that argument, it went away. And there has not been an issue in
Iowa since then other than the case that I mentioned.
Mr. Franks. Mr. King, why do you think over 90 percent of
all Nations have designated at least one official language for
day-to-day government operations and official communications?
Are they discriminating?
Mr. King. Well, that was kind of an interesting piece of
it, too, the allegation of discrimination. And it must be to
the rest of the world. They understand that you cannot operate
in multiple languages.
If you think in terms of, for me I spent in the contracting
business. If you have a contract, you write that contract, and
if it is in English, fine, we agree to that definition. But if
you had a contract that was in, say, Chinese and in French, how
do we resolve that issue here? That is a private sector issue,
I understand. But within the government, you need to have a
common form. You have got to have something you can go back to
and say this is it. This is the official document, and we argue
off it. We litigate off it. We debate off it. We provide
services off of it.
And so I think it is just the simplest common sense to
understand that this is unifying. It is not dividing. It is not
an insult to anyone. In fact, the immigrants that come here
expect that we have English as the official language because
they are primarily, almost exclusively coming from a Nation
that has an official language.
Mr. Franks. Mr. King, would a Federal official English
language law affect how State and local governments operate and
implement their own English official language laws, or affect
how they administer and offer multilingual services, such as
translating documents or taxpayer funded interpreters?
Mr. King. Well, I do not have the number on what it
actually costs us to print in multiple languages as we do. But
the interpreters is another cost of this, and I expect we may
have some witnesses that will address that as a specific dollar
value is concerned.
But the responsibility shifts over from what has been given
to the government by Bill Clinton's 13166 Executive Order to
the people. And, you know, up until that time, we had always
managed, no matter what we had for different languages, people
found a way to do business with the government in English up
until such time as Bill Clinton introduced that executive
order. So, I think that is one of the driving forces on why we
need to do this.
The effort on the part of the Federal Government is to,
with that directive of Clinton's executive order, promote
multilingualism within government. That does not bind us
together. You know, I have traveled in foreign countries, and
in this country, too. When you see a foreign language on a sign
or multiple languages on a sign, like in an airport, I have
tried to train myself to be able to read the foreign language,
and you just cannot. You do not do that. You revert to the
language you are familiar with, and you move on.
So, the more multiple languages we offer as a government,
the less likely people are to learn English because they will
use the language they are comfortable with.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. King. And I would yield to
Mr. Nadler for questions. We have 6 minutes, 33 seconds on the
clock. Do you want to--I think perhaps he is right. We are
going to go ahead and recess the Committee, and we will come
back right after votes.
And I apologize. You know how leadership forgot to check
with me this morning. [Laughter.]
And so we will return. We are recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Franks. This hearing will come to order, and we will
now resume with questioning. And I will yield to Mr. Conyers
for questions for 5 minutes. I am sorry, I am skipping right
over the gentleman. I will yield to Mr. Nadler for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman King, you
stated in answer to one of Chairman Franks' questions that your
bill would not impact the Voting Rights Act. Yet Section 203 of
that law specifically requires certain jurisdictions to provide
all voting materials that they provide in English also in the
language of a language of a minority, be that Spanish, or
German, or Yiddish. This includes voter registration forms.
You sued the Iowa Secretary of State with respect to a
nearly identical law. So how can you say that this would not
impact the Voting Rights Act, that this would not impact
Section 203?
Mr. King. Well, first I can see that the gentleman has made
a point that is worthy of discussion here. And when I brought
the suit against the Secretary of State in the State of Iowa,
it was on State law as opposed to Federal law.
The Voting Rights Act contains with it covered districts.
Those covered districts, I believe, are a different legal
question than they are in the broader component of this. Like a
lot of legislation, there may be differing opinions on how this
would be resolved if it needed. It is hopeful that we come
together on a common language and do not have that problem.
Mr. Nadler. Hold on. The covered jurisdictions of Section 5
has nothing to do with this. Section 203 covers the entire
country and says that where you have a sufficient foreign
language population as a percentage of the voters, you have to
issue all voting materials in English and in some foreign
languages. Would your bill change that?
Mr. King. Well, the Voting Rights Act puts the obligations
on the States, and this bill applies to and binds the Federal
Government. That is a distinction that is part of this with
regard to the Iowa piece. As I interpret----
Mr. Nadler. Are you saying it would not impact that?
Mr. King. I want to go back and read that section in light
of the point that you have raised. And this is Congress----
Mr. Nadler. Is your intent not to affect that?
Mr. King. It is my wish one day to affect that. I have done
so by bringing an amendment to the Voting Rights Act when it
was reauthorized on the floor----
Mr. Nadler. Is your intent in this bill to affect that?
Mr. King. It is not my specific intent to target that
particular component. I think that is an unresolved
disagreement that we may have.
Mr. Nadler. Well, would you put a provision in the bill to
make it clear that that does not affect that?
Mr. King. I will take a look at the proposal and work with
the gentleman from New York if we can come to an agreement.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Now your Iowa bill has an exception, Iowa
Code Section 1.184(h) for ``any language usage required by or
necessary to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States or the Constitution of the
State of Iowa.'' You did not include similar language to
provide that exemption in H.R. 997. Was there a specific reason
why that language is not included?
Mr. King. In response, I would look at Section 165 and sub
(4). It says in the bill, ``Nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the
United States.'' I believe we do not need to address the
Constitution of the State of Iowa in this bill.
Mr. Nadler. So in your interpretation, it would have the
same effect as that language, that it would not affect any
language usage required by or necessary to secure the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States? Would that
be the same effect?
Mr. King. Yes. And that is the intent.
Mr. Nadler. Okay.
Mr. King. And really, I think we would agree in this
Constitution Subcommittee that it is a bit redundant to even
have this language in here that I have addressed that could be
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States,
because we are the Constitution Subcommittee and it ought to be
constitutional when it comes out of here.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Chairman Franks asked what impact
H.R. 997 would have on State laws. Specifically, would this
override States laws, particularly those State laws that might
allow or require the use of languages other than English? Would
it restrict States government officials or employees, or is
this only for Federal laws and Federal Government employees?
Mr. King. It addresses Federal functions and activities,
not State functions and activities.
Mr. Nadler. So if the State law requires usage of foreign
languages in certain situations, it would not affect that.
Mr. King. Provided that it is not a Federal function, yes,
an official Federal function.
Mr. Nadler. And what about State--well, given the fact that
the bill defines the Federal Government as including State and
local governments, I do not know that a court would interpret
the law that way.
Mr. King. We address the official functions of government,
the official business of the Federal Government. If it is the
official business of a State government, we are not addressing
that. But it says any function that binds the government is
required by law----
Mr. Nadler. But not to question----
Mr. King [continuing]. To scrutiny.
Mr. Nadler. Not the question of the official function. I
asked about would it affect State laws. And the bill says,
``For the purposes of this section, the term 'United States'
means the several States and the District of Columbia.'' So in
other words, as I read the bill, whenever it refers to the
United States, you are also referring to the States, so it
would bind the States and would--and not only for Federal
functions. In other words, it would, as I read it, say that the
States could not use foreign language materials period. Now if
that is not your intent, which you stated it is not, you might
want to clarify that.
Mr. Franks. The gentleman's time has expired, but the
witness can go ahead and answer the question.
Mr. King. I thank the Chairman. We have language in the
bill that reserves the rights back to the States for the 9th
and 10th Amendment that addresses that, I believe, Mr. Nadler.
So I think we are comfortable this addresses only the Federal
Government and does not direct the States in their functions.
Mr. Franks. Thank you. I would now recognize the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, and I want
to thank you for holding this hearing. I want to particularly
thank Mr. King and Mr. Gonzalez for their willingness to come
here and talk about this issue.
I think if we step back a moment, one of the things we
realize is overwhelmingly a majority of American people want
the concept that is embraced in this bill. And I appreciate us
having a dialogue. I appreciate Mr. Gonazalez's thoughts and
Mr. King's thoughts because all too often when someone brings a
concept like this, we are so quick instead of talking about the
issues, to try to vilify one another, or to try to mock one
another.
And as I was listening to the Ranking Member as he gave his
speech, I looked through the audience, and I saw a lot of
smiles and even thumbs up in doing that. And I understood that.
And the reason I understand it is because when I go to Europe
and to have NATO meetings, and someone comes in and they sing a
song in English, or they try to speak in English, I want to
give them a thumbs up. And I want to smile because I embrace
that.
But then what happens is we go in to try to meet, and we
have to put on earphones, and we have to have interpreters
because some of them are speaking German, and some of them are
speaking French, and some of them are speaking Chinese, and
some of them are speaking other languages, just like the
Chairman said. And when you step back and look at that, it is
so difficult to get any kind commonality of understanding to
move forward.
And, Mr. Gonzalez, when you mentioned that Mr. King was
doing this to protect the English language, I hope you
understand, he is not doing this to protect the English
language. He does not think the English language is in threat
of being abolished.
What it is when sit down as a country, there are folks on
this Committee who do not believe we should have any
commonality of values. They fight to make sure we do not have
those commonality of values. They fight on any kind of
commonality of faith. Some of them do not even support the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. When we tried to put it in
the visitor's center, 6 Members, many of them from this
Committee, voted no. Do not even put the Pledge of Allegiance
in there because that is too disruptive. It brings us together
in a way that we should not.
And what Mr. King's bill tries to do is not protect the
English language, but to encourage us to have some basic
commonality of communication so that we can find common ground
to build a Nation upon and to move forward with solutions that
help this Nation. And language is the fundamental aspect of
that.
And we would all sit back and we would think how absurd it
was if we said we were going to go on the floor in just a few
moments for the next bill and debate it and have to put those
earphones on, and have all those interpreters. But then when we
look at doing the same thing in our warehouses or our
manufacturing plants, somehow we think the absurdity of that.
And it is not absurd at all.
I think it is a principle that Mr. King has grasped that is
something we need to encourage and we need to push forward. And
whether it is this bill or whether it is something else, it is
not a matter of saying we are going to take language away from
folks who speak German, or folks who speak Spanish, or French,
or Chinese, or Vietnamese. It is a matter of saying in this
country there need to be some things that are common among all
of us that we aspire to, and we push them, whether that is
through incentives, or whether that is through a piece of
legislation, I think it is vitally important to our success as
a Nation.
So I commend both of you for coming in here and having this
dialogue, and, Mr. King, for bringing forth this particularly
piece of legislation. And I hope that we will continue to have
this discussion to see how we can move forward on this concept
that I think is embraced by a vast majority of people in this
country.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman and associate myself
with his comments.
I would now recognize Mr. Scott for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. King, I was not sure of your answer on the Voting
Rights Act. Is this intended to override Section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act?
Mr. King. I am sorry, Mr. Scott, I could not hear your
question.
Mr. Scott. Is this legislation designed to override the
language provisions of the Voting Rights Act?
Mr. King. As I responded to Mr. Nadler, I want to go back
and read that section in light of this. I cannot tell you today
that it is designed to override it, but I can tell you that it
is----
Mr. Scott. Is it intended to override?
Mr. King. I cannot tell you today that it is intended to
override it.
Mr. Scott. I am sorry, it is?
Mr. King. I said I would like to go back and read that
section.
Mr. Scott. Okay, it is?
Mr. King. That analysis was done several years ago, and I
need to go back and revisit that.
Mr. Scott. I am sorry, I did not hear you. Did you say it
is or is not intended?
Mr. King. I said I cannot tell you today that it is
designed to override it.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. King. That analysis was done several years ago, and I
would like to go back and reread Section 203.
Mr. Scott. Is Medicaid an official function of the United
States government?
Mr. King. It is federally funded, and when it happens
within a Federal office, then it is an official function.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Now if people want to learn English, they
have to take English language classes. Mr. Gonzalez, is it not
a fact that most English language courses have waiting lists?
Mr. Gonzalez. Absolutely, that is one thing that we have
encountered. In my district, it is about 62 percent Latino, and
depending on the generation, obviously we do attempt to locate
the services, and--definitely underserved.
Mr. Scott. Is there anything in this legislation that would
increase funding so that those who already want to learn how to
speak English or learn how to speak English better, is there
anything in this legislation that will help them?
Mr. Gonzalez. I do not see anything. I actually think that
this actually will mitigate against those that will assimilate
more quickly, learn the English language. I think this sets up
a situation for discriminatory practices. I do not believe that
if you have someone--and, Mr. Scott, you know, I am not sure if
the author and supporters of this bill understand the impact on
certain communities that this would have. You know, you have
somebody that is an American citizen, has worked, paid their
taxes, made their contribution, and have a problem with Social
Security or Medicare, or maybe even a widow of an American
veteran that may not be English proficient. My understanding is
that a government official would not be allowed to conduct
business in any other language.
So, I mean, those are just the practical problems that come
up, but there is no need for the legislation.21Mr. Scott. Well,
we have had comments that people should learn English through--
you say you have a significant portion of your district that is
Latino. Do you find people are unaware that learning English
will help them advance in society?
Mr. Gonzalez. It is the aim of every Latino family in my
district to become English proficient. It is something that we
always tout and encourage. Mr. Scott----
Mr. Scott. Well, will this legislation not alert them to
what they do not know?
Mr. Gonzalez. I think it really is something that is not a
positive development in the lives of those that are here
learning English. I will speak to a Latino population, and the
immigrant. They are no different than any other preceding
immigration group that came to the United States. It is
generational in nature. That first generation will have a
difficult time with English proficiency. By the second, you
have made tremendous inroads. By the third, you do not even
have a bilingual offspring at that point. You have someone that
speaks primarily English.
Mr. Scott. And are you suggesting that they do not need
this legislation to alert them to the fact that English is a
good thing to learn?
Mr. Gonzalez. And to your point, you are exactly right.
This does nothing. And as far as Mr. Forbes about this communal
concept, it already exists in this country. This is totally
unnecessary. It is the mischief in the unintended or intended
consequences of the law that concern me.
Mr. Scott. You have language in here that says that all
citizens should be able to read and understand generally the
English language text of the Declaration of Independence,
Constitution, laws of the United States, made pursuant to the
Constitution. Last time I saw language like that was where the
intent was to deny African-Americans the right to vote under
literacy provisions. Where else can you find that kind of
language?
Mr. Franks. The gentleman's time has expired, but please
feel free to answer the question.
Mr. King. And if it was directed toward me, which I presume
it was.
Mr. Scott. Yeah.
Mr. King. I do not know where that language might exist
otherwise. And I would be interested in the narrative from the
gentleman from Virginia, if he has seen that language as part
of their life's experience.
But as a standard here that we wrote into the bill for the
purposes of encouraging the learning and understanding of the
Declaration and the Constitution and the laws written from it,
for the very purpose of encouraging newly-naturalized citizens
to learn and understand deeply the history of this country and
the founding documents of this country.
And if you have done naturalization services as I have, and
I appreciate the chance to do so, they take it very seriously.
And when they have a responsibility to learn our historical
documents as part of the naturalization process, this
Constitution and Declaration, I think, will be written on their
hearts. And that is the reason to have it there.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman. And I now recognize
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to start off by perhaps asking each of the two witnesses here
to comment on a particular statement. And the statement would
be that the surest path to economic, social, and educational
prosperity in this country is to learn English.
In either order that the two gentleman would like to
respond, I would just be interested to hear what they might
like to say.
Mr. Gonzalez. I do not think you are going to have a debate
that English proficiency is something that I think enables and
empowers individuals. This is not the way to do it. What do you
do with the people that are on the pathway to English
proficiency? Do you just forget about them? Do you not inform
them, educate them to be more productive citizens simply
because they are not English proficient at that point in their
lives in this country? That is the problem with this.
Now I see much more behind this but, you know, I am a
Congressman; I see all sorts of motive. But the thing is, you
are not contemplating real life experiences whether in the past
with other immigration groups or what we have at present in the
United States today.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And I would just like to comment
that you are going to be greatly missed around this place,
Charlie.
Mr. Gonzalez. I am going to miss you, too, Steve.
Mr. Chabot. Yeah, because he is a fine gentleman,
tremendous Member of Congress. And whereas we may differ on
issues here and there, including probably this one, you know,
he has done a great job for his constituents and the people of
this country. So thank you, Congressman Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. I really appreciate that.
Mr. Chabot. Absolutely. And, Congressman King?
Mr. King. I might say to my friend Mr. Gonzalez, I did not
quite recognize his Texas accent today either. But I appreciate
the comments around that. And really this is about unity. There
are a couple of different ways to look at society, and one of
them is that to accommodate people, and eventually their good
intentions will overcome the accommodation, and they will adopt
English as the official language.
The other side of that is is that for me, I believe in
immersion. If I got to a foreign country, as Mr. Forbes said,
and if I were going to live there, I do not really want help in
the English language because it does not encourage me to adopt
the language that I might be operating within.
So many of us have traveled in that way and learned some
words of that language because it is necessary to operate in
their society. If you have a sign here that says stay off the
grass, let us say, in German and another one that says stay off
the grass in English, if your natural ability is to read in
German, you are not going to read that other sign. You are not
going to learn it. I have tried it with stop signs in foreign
countries, and it is an accommodation that is unnecessary. It
is better for people to be functioning in a common language.
I think we agree with that. We have moved in that direction
at least with this dialogue here. How do we go about doing
that? There is also language in the bill that I wanted to point
out that says such obligation of the Federal Government to
function in English, but the obligation also shall include
encouraging greater opportunities for individuals to learn the
English language. So part of the intent here, too, is to
encourage the learning of the English language, not to shut
people out, to be inclusive and empower people by having a
common language that ties us together.
Mr. Chabot. Okay, thank you. Before coming to Congress, I
was a schoolteacher. And I would be interested to hear, Steve,
your take on how your legislation, or at least what the goal
would be as far as children who perhaps do not have English
skills, and how they would have a better outcome ultimately in
education if they got it quicker and had to learn English more
quickly than perhaps some school systems do nowadays. What
would your legislation do relative to that, and what is your
intention with respect to that?
Mr. King. Well, if it is an official function of the
Federal Government, then it directs those functions to be in
English. But it also has exemptions, exceptions, for the
teaching of languages and the requirements under the
Disabilities Education Act. Those two things are exceptions.
So I do not know that it changes education much within our
educational system, except our young people would be educated
that English is the official language, if this bill passes, of
the United States of America. And it raises the expectation
that as an American and American citizen, you have a stronger
and broader obligation to learn English that binds us together.
You did not likely hear my opening statement where I told
the narrative of my father coming home from his first day in
kindergarten speaking only German. As he said hello to his
mother in German, she pointed to him and said, speaking German
in this household is for you from now verboten. I came here to
become an American. That means I have to learn English, and you
are going to learn it in school and bring it home and teach it
to me.
These things penetrate through the culture, and they are
very positive things. There is nothing that discourages the
learning of other languages, and, in fact, that is something
that we want this country to do. But we want to bind ourselves
all together with the common language. It is the most powerful
unifying force known throughout all time and humanity.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Franks. I want to thank both of you for coming. And I
appreciate the sponsor. Also, Mr. Gonzalez, I express my own
very best wishes to you, sir. And we will look to see what is
wonderful and great that comes next in your life. Thank you
both very much.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. King. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Franks. And if the second panel then would be seated.
Well, I want to thank you all for being here. And I would
like to introduce the witnesses on our second and final panel.
Our first witness on the second panel is Dr. Rosalie
Porter. Dr. Porter is an accomplished author and scholar and
current chairwoman of the Board for ProEnglish. She is a
consultant for school districts across the country and the
executive director of the Institute for Research in English
Acquisition and Development.
Dr. Porter arrived in the U.S. at age 6 not knowing a word
of English. My wife came at 11 knowing yes, no, and what is
your name.
Our second witness is Rene Garcia. Mr. Garcia served in
the--am I pronouncing that properly, sir?
Mr. Garcia. Rene.
Mr. Franks. Rene, okay. Mr. Garcia served in the Florida
House for 8 years before being elected to the Florida State
Senate where he currently serves. He serves as the chair of the
Florida Senate Health Regulation Committee and holds several
other committee positions.
Our third and final witness is Mauro E. Mujica. Mr. Mujica
has been chairman of the board and CEO of U.S. English, Inc.,
since 1993. Mr. Mujica immigrated to the United States from his
native Chile and has firsthand understanding of the obstacles
facing non-English speakers upon their arrival in this country.
He succeeded the late Senator Hayakawa, who founded the
organization in 1983.
Welcome to all of you. And each of the witnesses' written
statements are going to be written in their entirety. But for
now I will now recognize Dr. Porter for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF ROSALIE PEDALINO PORTER, Ed.D., CHAIRWOMAN OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PROENGLISH

Ms. Porter. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
in favor of H.R. 997, legislation that will make English the
official language of the United States.
My name is Rosalie Pedalino Porter, and I am chairman of
the board of ProEnglish, a national advocacy organization.
When I immigrated to the United States from Italy as a 6-
year-old child, no one in my family spoke a word of English. I
was fortunate to grow up at a time when Americans felt
confident about their national culture. And immigrants were
encouraged to learn the English language and assimilate. The
public schools taught me English, opening the door for me to a
wonderful education up to the graduate level at the University
of Massachusetts.
I am committed to protecting English as our common language
because it is so essential to immigrant success.
My professional career of 4 decades has been dedicated to
improving the education of non-English speaking children in our
schools. I have advised school districts and testified in court
cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Texas,
and Washington. From 1985 to 1988, I served on the National
Advisory Council on Bilingual Education that advised the U.S.
Congress on education policy.
The organization that I chair, ProEnglish was founded in
1993 to preserve English as the common unifying language of our
Nation by making it the official language at all levels of
government--local, State, and Federal. As you have heard
everyone say this morning, the English language is one of the
strongest and most durable ties that unite us as Americans. The
founders of our Nation recognized this, and this is why
President George Washington signed a law passed by Congress in
1795 requiring all existing and future Federal statutes of the
United States to be published exclusively in English.
Having one official language of record for government
operations and communications makes government more efficient
and less costly. It eliminates the demands for taxpayer funded
services or documents in any other language, with exceptions
under H.R. 997 for instances that service the public interest,
as in protecting public health and safety. It does not mean
English only. Nor does it force anyone to speak English in
their personal daily lives or limit the study of foreign
languages. Official English means that for the government to
act officially and with legal authority, it must communicate in
the English language.
Ninety percent of the world's Nations have at least one
official language, including 47 countries that have English.
Thirty-one of our 50 States have already adopted English as
their official language in statewide elections, with voter
approval margins as high as 9 to 1. No harmful effect has yet
been reported from these laws.
Here are three urgent reasons why Congress should act now.
First, it is time to end the Federal Government's policy of
trying to force all government agencies and Federal fund
recipients to provide multilingual services. This policy relies
on an incorrect interpretation of civil rights law.
Second, we need to avoid the kind of divisiveness,
inefficiency, and waste that we see today in places like the
European Union that is struggling to cope with 23 official
languages.
Third, as our country grows more diverse, thanks to our
immigration, with 303 languages now present in our population,
it is even more important to stress what unites us as Americans
a common language.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge the passage of H.R. 997.
It is essential to the unity and wellbeing of our country. It
will promote the successful integration of immigrants and their
children into American life and will save millions of taxpayer
dollars. Perhaps those dollars could be used for English
teaching classes.
It will reinforce a melting pot ideal that has helped to
make our country the most successful country in the world.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions, Mr.
Chairman, from you or your colleagues.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Porter follows:]

__________

Mr. Franks. And thank you, Dr. Porter.
Senator Garcia, I will now recognize you, sir, for 5
minutes.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RENE GARCIA,
FLORIDA STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 40

Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member,
and Committee Members. It truly is an honor and a pleasure to
be here. It is really different to be on the other side of the
Panel.
But really, I am here pretty much to give you my
experiences in Miami-Dade County and how it relates to this
bill and English as the official language. And may I start off
by saying that Florida does have an official language, which is
English, and it is really a statement of principle and still
allows us to conduct business in different languages. But that
is because Florida chooses to do it that way.
Now the reason that I have some concerns with this
language, and especially Section 163 of the bill, which
addresses the different jurisdiction as the States and its
territories and so forth that English will be the official
language, is that how then am I going to be able to communicate
with my constituency?
You see, in South Florida, and Miami-Dade County, and our
public school system, on a daily basis, almost 150 languages
are spoken in our school system. Ten of those languages are as
bilingual education. Federal funds are received for that
bilingual education in our school system. Why do we teach our
children in multiple languages? Why? To prepare them for the
global marketplace, to make sure that they have an advantage
when they go and compete in this global economy that we all
hear so much that we belong to.
By restricting that ability, I think we are doing a
disservice to our children and to our country. You see, when
you travel to most European countries, and I remember when I
was in elementary school, a friend came from, I think it was
Israel. He came from Israel. When he came over to the United
States, he spoke English, Spanish, French, and Arabic. And that
was impressive, and this was in sixth grade. Later on this
gentleman, he is now a principal of one our local schools, and
he has been successful, and he is one that really pushes for
this type of education forward.
Now when we address the issue of communicating with our
constituency, in Miami-Dade County, our ballots are translated
from English to Spanish to Creole. Why? Because we want more
inclusion. We want more people to participate in a democratic
process ensuring that they have a voice.
We have seen that numbers have increased in the
participation of Hispanics and Haitian-Americans because of the
translation of these ballots. If we are not going to allow
these ballots to be translated, then we are excluding them from
the process.
I understand the intent of the bill. We want people to
speak English. When people come over from foreign countries, we
want to make sure whether they are immigrants or exiles, we
want to make sure that the first thing they do is learn
English. And why do we not put the resources behind that and
educate people?
When people come to my office, the first thing I tell them
is you need to learn English. That is the first thing you need
to do. We all understand that English is the common language of
this Nation. Yes, it is binding. Yes, it does bring us
together. I am not saying that it does not. It does. But when
you tell me that I cannot communicate or conduct official
business with my constituency and allow them to know what is
going on at our State level, then I do have some concerns.
This country is about inclusion, not exclusion. That is why
I am here to assure you that in Miami-Dade County, it is
working. In Miami-Dade County, we have a lot more participation
because of the ability to translate our official documents.
So I encourage you all, if we can address the issues of
Section 163 and not make it binding where it will be illegal
for me to communicate in an official capacity with my
constituency, I would encourage you to fix that or vote this
bill down.
And it works. Let us not throw the American Dream out the
door telling folks that they cannot be part of the process just
because they do not speak the language. You know, we should
encourage them to learn and get educated.
I think that is the intent of the bill, but the
practicality of the bill is that it will exclude a lot of my
constituency.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]

__________

Mr. Franks. Thank you, Senator Garcia.
And I now recognize Mr. Mujica for 5 minutes for his
opening statement.

TESTIMONY OF MAURO E. MUJICA, CHAIRMAN AND CEO,
U.S. ENGLISH, INC.

Mr. Mujica. Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Nadler, and Members of the Subcommittee for
giving me the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R. 997,
legislation that would make English the official language of
the United States.
My name is Mauro Mujica. I am the chairman of the board and
CEO of U.S. English, Inc., the Nation's oldest and largest
organization promoting English as the official language of the
country.
I was going to give my testimony in Spanish so Mr. Conyers
could understand me. But I will continue in English.
[Laughter.]
As an immigrant from Chile and a naturalized U.S. citizen,
the issues that we are discussing here today are of great
personal importance. Before I came to the United States in 1965
to study architecture at Columbia University, I knew very well
that I was going to live in an English-speaking country, and I
had no doubt in my mind that I had the civic duty to learn the
common language of the country. I know firsthand how important
it is to know English to succeed in the United States. I have
lived this issue, and it is incomprehensible to me that anyone
would oppose legislation which codifies the language policy for
this country.
Mr. Chairman, language is a powerful factor in human
society. Just as it has the power to unite, it also has the
power to divide. The job of government is to foster and advance
the common good. A country that has an official language policy
is certainly preferable to a country divided by linguistic
factions. Just look at Belgium. Look at Canada.
H.R. 997 in no way prohibits citizens from speaking or
using other languages. The bill establishes an official
language policy, and that policy applies only to the
government. In effect, this legislation will encourage
immigrants to this country to learn the common language and
enjoy the benefits that that will provide.
I personally think that it is a great asset for someone to
know other languages. I am fluent in 4, and I am learning
Russian right now.
This issue must be addressed in a forthright and
expeditious manner. This legislation does not threaten the
great American tradition of diversity. Ironically, only a
common language can preserve that tradition. Only a common
tongue can bind together a Nation formed by people from other
countries, other races, other languages, and other religions.
It allows cross-cultural understanding where there is otherwise
all too often misunderstandings, suspicion, and distrust.
As usual, there will be people against this legislation,
people that would see all sorts of problems and people that
will not even read the text of H.R. 997, and will invent all
sorts of things that are not even in the bill. I urge those
people to read carefully all the exceptions in it, which make
sure that nobody will be punished because they do not speak
English well.
According to a Harris Interactive poll that U.S. English
commissioned this past June, 88 percent of Americans favor a
law to make English our Nation's official language. A large
majority of immigrants also support this law. Eighty-three
percent of Hispanics support it. Incidentally, English has
already become the global language, and people all over the
world are learning it.
I have a slight comment on the side regarding global
market. I am an international architect. I have worked in about
40 countries. English is the language of commerce when you are
outside of this country. An international conference in Brazil
will be in English. It will not be in Portuguese. An
international conference in Russia will be in English, not in
Russian.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you
again for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the
over 1.8 million members of U.S. English who urge you to pass
this essential and beneficial legislation. I also thank
Congressman Steve King for introducing H.R. 997, and for his
continued efforts in promoting our Nation's common language,
English.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mujica follows:]

__________

Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Mujica. And thank all of you for
your testimony. And I will be now asking questions for 5
minutes.
Let me begin with you, Dr. Porter. One of the things that I
hear, a consistent commonality here is that everyone, including
my own personal experience, is that when someone comes to this
country as an immigrant, that it is clearly to their great
benefit to be able to learn English for their upward mobility,
for their ability to socialize, and for their ability to gain
economically. This was certainly a very common theme in my
wife's family, and this is something I have heard all three of
you testify unequivocally to.
So I guess the question occurs, Dr. Porter, do you believe
or do you think there is any evidence to the notion that having
a bill like this pass would encourage, or incentivize, or
increase the number of immigrants who learn English when they
come to this country?
Ms. Porter. I do believe passing a bill like this will
encourage, incentivize, motivate more people to concentrate. As
long as we and government provides services, documents,
translations in many languages. I will compare it to my
experience as a bilingual teacher. As long as we have provided
instruction in the child's native language and English, the
child tended to listen to the native language and ignore the
English. It took much longer to teach children a second
language when they were being educated in 2 languages.
Fortunately, those programs have been overturned in many
States, and we are now seeing much greater success for
immigrant children in learning English rapidly and in
succeeding in school, in achievement, graduating from high
school.
So I would say having the impetus of an official language
will be a motivator. Most immigrants do want to learn English.
They need the opportunity. But, you know, it is easy to fall
back on being comfortable in your home language.
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Dr. Porter. That certainly seems
compelling to me. Mr. Mujica, could I put the same question to
you? Do you believe that from your own perspective or
experience, is there any evidence to indicate that if we have
an official language, whether a State does it or the country
does it, that it is an inducement or a motivation, or that it
by other means increases the number of the percentage of
immigrants that come to this country that do, in fact, learn
English?
Mr. Mujica. Yes, absolutely. I have seen it in other
countries. I have worked, as I said, in many, many countries as
an architect. I have seen the problems in Belgium, the fights
in Belgium. I have seen the almost secession of Quebec in
Canada because of language problems. I have seen it in other
countries. And it is obvious.
The message that you have to send to the new immigrants
like myself. And incidentally, you know, we immigrants do not
come to this country because of the weather or the quality of
the drinking water. We come here to make money. You can only
make more money if you know English.
And knowing English is essential. We cannot send the
message to the new immigrants that English is optional. They
can come here, live in Miami all their lives, speak Spanish and
not bother to learn English. I have seen it firsthand with
members of my family that live in Miami. They just do not
bother to learn English. They think English is optional.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, sir. Everything that a person
does, you know, there are usually some positives and some
negatives. So, the reason I asked that question is because that
seems to be a very profound positive on the upside of this
legislation. The one thing that we all seem to agree on is that
when immigrants do learn English, that it is better for them
and better for the country. So, that seems like a worthwhile
pursuit.
And there seems to be some clear consensus here that when
we have laws like this, that occurs. I suppose then the only
thing we can do is to try to, if we oppose that, find some
offset to that overwhelming positive.
Dr. Porter, does an official English law mean that the
Federal Government itself is prohibited from using other
languages?
Ms. Porter. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I could not hear.
Mr. Franks. No, I did not ask the question well. Does a
Federal official English law mean that the Federal Government
is prohibited from using other languages?
Ms. Porter. Of course not. The Federal Government in its
many operations, for instance, the State Department, the
Defense Department, the Naturalization and Immigration Service.
There are specific reasons why other languages must be used,
and they will be used, and there is no forbidding such
activities in this law.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Mujica, do you have anything you would add
to that?
Mr. Mujica. No, I think they are all exceptions to learning
the foreign languages, things like our dollar bills that say e
pluribus unum. That would not have to be changed.
I think certain things are clear. I mean, they are so clear
at least to me that it is difficult to figure out what would be
wrong with this bill.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, and I now recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much. Senator Garcia, do you
agree that provision of some bilingual education impedes
learning of English?
Mr. Garcia. Of course not. I think bilingual education, and
this is where I may have to disagree with Dr. Porter. In Miami-
Dade County, we have seen that because of bilingual education,
we have seen children assimilate much quicker and learn the
English language a lot easier because of that ability.
Mr. Nadler. Not to mention math and other things.
Mr. Garcia. I am sorry?
Mr. Nadler. Not to mention math and other things.
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. Yeah, so that is the key. The
problem that I see with this legislation currently is that
because there are Federal dollars attached to it, I think that
we will have--there will be a problem with us continuing to do
those programs that we have in Miami-Dade County.
Mr. Nadler. But that is one of the purposes of the bill.
Mr. Garcia. Exactly.
Mr. Nadler. Now, Dr. Porter, you testified in your written
submission that, ``The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of
States to have official English laws'' in Arizonians for
Official English v. Arizona, 1997.
Ms. Porter. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. In that case, in fact, the Court actually
dismissed the case because the employee challenging the law had
voluntarily left her job and made the case moot. Far from
ruling that the Arizona law was valid, as you claim, the Court
said, ``We express no view on the correct interpretation of
Arizona's English only law or on the measure's
constitutionality.'' The Arizona Court subsequently ruled in
Ruiz v. Hull that the law was unconstitutional.
I am submitting the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the
Arizona Supreme Court decision for the record as it is
important to reflect the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has
not approved English only laws, and that Arizona's highest
court struck down the law that you mistakenly claimed the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld.
[The information referred to follows:]

__________

__________
Mr. Nadler. Would you like to correct the record at this
time?
Ms. Porter. I would like to comment on the Flores v.
Arizona case or Arizona----
Mr. Nadler. No, no, no. You said in your testimony that the
U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of States to have official
English laws in the case of Arizonians for Official English v.
Arizona. In fact, the Court ruled that the case was moot
because the employee had quit and said we are not ruling on the
constitutionality of the law, which directly contradicts your
testimony. Would you like to correct your testimony at this
point?
Ms. Porter. The Supreme Court ruled that the case that was
brought, the person who brought the case legitimately had the
right to do so, and they did not rule then on the
constitutionality, if I understood.
Mr. Nadler. Yes. So in other words, they said she did not
have the right to bring the case because she was no longer an
employee, and, therefore, the case was moot.
Ms. Porter. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. And then they said, ``We express no view on the
correct interpretation of the statute or on the measure's
constitutionality.'' Now in your testimony, you said they
upheld the constitutionality. So would you like to correct your
testimony at this point?
Ms. Porter. Well, I may have misstated.
Mr. Nadler. Okay.
Ms. Porter. But----
Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Dr. Porter and Mr. Mujica, your organizations seek to
promote, preserve, and strengthen the use of English. In
striking down portions of the law that we just talked about the
Alaska Supreme Court found that there are less restrictive ways
to achieve your goal. I am sorry, we are talking about a
different case here. The Alaska Supreme Court found that there
are less restrictive ways to achieve your goal. The Court
specifically noted as one example that, ``The State could
create and fund programs promoting English as a second
language.'' This is the Kritz case.
What has your organization done to support programs to
teach English? And would you agree to submit to the Committee
the amounts spent by your organizations in each of the last 5
years, say, on promoting English as a second language or other
programs that teach English, and promoting passage of
legislation declaring English as the official language of the
United States or of States and local government?
In other words, what have you done to promote teaching
English as opposed to trying to get the law changed to prohibit
the use of other languages?
Mr. Mujica. Well, let me say the country is slightly larger
for the money that we have. We do have a foundation that
promotes English in other ways, not paying for lessons or
anything. People can call in to the foundation and we would
tell them where they can go for English classes.
We have been trying for a long time to institute something
like what Israel has, the old panning system. An old pan, and
that would be actually the answer for this country. An old pan
is a school where a new immigrant is sent for 6 months at the
expense of the government. The immigrant cannot work. The
immigrant goes for 6 months to be assimilated. They teach him
or they teach her how to be an Israeli, how to function in
Israel, how to learn Hebrew, et cetera. That would be a
wonderful program in this country if every immigrant would have
the chance of not working for 6 months.
Mr. Nadler. Would you support an amendment asking for the
funding to do that? That would have a little problem with the
balanced budget amendment, I would think.
Mr. Mujica. Maybe after January we could talk about that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Franks. Thank you very much. And I would now recognize
the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank all the
witnesses for your testimony and for being here today.
It was interesting to me to hear Mr. Mujica bring up the
situation in Israel. I recall a meeting with several of the
members of the cabinet in Israel a few years ago in the capital
building across the street. And they told the narrative of how
they had adopted Hebrew as the official language of Israel in
1954. And Hebrew, having been a language that was used in
prayer for thousands of years, but not commonly spoken, and
essentially they think they said a dead language other than
prayer. We brought it back to life was their message to us. And
I said, why did you establish an official language for Israel?
They formed Israel in 1948. Why did you establish an official
language? And their answer was, we followed the model of the
United States of America. You have been so successful with your
assimilation because English is the common language of the
United States, we wanted to do the same thing because we are
bringing Jews from all over the world into Israel, and we
wanted a language that identified us as a people.
And what did they use in Entebbe, Hebrew to tell the
Israelis get down out of the line of fire. And Benjamin
Netanyahu's brother was killed in that raid, as you might know.
So I appreciate the testimony and comments on that.
I wanted to ask Senator Garcia, I do not speak but just a
handful of words of Spanish, but if I were to have to learn
Spanish in order to vote a Spanish ballot, how long do you
think that would take me if I were sit down and focus on
learning a Spanish ballot enough to be able to make those
decisions?
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, you would not have to learn
Spanish.
Mr. King. But my question is, though, if I were required to
vote in Spanish, then how long would it take a person who is
not literate in Spanish to learn enough to be able to read the
ballot, read the names, and make a decision on which of those
candidates they would vote for?
Mr. Garcia. I am not following the question because the
ballot is in English already. Why would you----
Mr. King. You understand that you have said to me that
people need to be able to vote in Spanish and in Creole as well
as English. So just in your mind's eye, pick up one of those
Spanish ballots that you identified here in your testimony, and
then imagine someone who does not speak Spanish and think how
much education does it take to learn that ballot in Spanish if
you are an English speaker?
Mr. Garcia. They would not need to read the Spanish ballot
because it is already in English.
Mr. King. I can see you are not going to answer my
question. But I really expected more of an objective answer.
And it troubles me that you will not do that.
I wanted to follow up with another question. You said how
will you communicate with your constituency. Well, first of
all, you know, I think you know that this does not address the
State functions in Florida. You have English as the official
language in Florida. You have mad exceptions. I do not know
what they are, but you alluded to them in your testimony. And I
would point out that in the bill in Section 165, it says,
``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a
Member of Congress or any officer or agent of the Federal
Government while performing official functions from
communicating unofficially through any medium with another
person in a language other than English, provided that or as
long as official functions are performed in English.''
And so that exception that is written for Federal officials
I presume is also written for State officials within Florida
within your official English law. Is that correct?
Mr. Garcia. I would not know what the exceptions are, but I
will tell you one of the problems that I see with the section
that I addressed earlier. When you deal with any Federal
programs that the State receives, as it was mentioned earlier,
when we talk about Medicaid and those Medicaid applications,
that could be potentially a problem for anyone that is going to
fill out an application or have communications from my office
with that constituency that may not understand or read English
in a proficient manner.
Mr. King. I am going to ask you to please go back and read
the exceptions that are in this bill. I think they will reflect
a lot of the practices in Florida. And I can tell you that in
the State of Iowa, we do not have problems. I would have heard
about them if anybody would have heard about those problems.
And your concern that it would exclude a lot of your
constituency, in listening to the testimony here, I do not
think so. And I would turn to Mr. Mujica, who I know has been
broadly engaged in this globally and nationally and within the
States and ask, can you think of the number one problem that
might have been created by any of the States that have adopted
an official language or any of the other countries that have
adopted official language? Have you seen that people cannot
vote or that people cannot function?
Mr. Mujica. None whatsoever. And I will tell you something
about the so-called translations. I live in Maryland, and the
ballots are in Spanish and English. When I read the English I
can barely understand it. And then I go to the Spanish, and it
is even worse. [Laughter.]
When you translate things, you have no idea. And I think
the people who translate have no idea what they said because
things usually do not match. And if you get into a situation
where you have to translate into 2 or 3 different languages--
luckily I speak 4--sometimes I do not understand any one of the
4 translations.
So when you have someone that translates something for a
ballot, you know, especially those long things that you have to
vote to change some zoning law or whatever, it is impossible to
understand even in English.
Mr. King. And in conclusion then, a State that chose the
next leader of the free world in the year 2000, I think that
illustrates the kind of confusion we could have if we do not
have an official language that we vote in, we make decisions
in, and direct the future of this country. And I thank all the
witnesses, and I would yield back.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman, and I would yield to Mr.
Scott for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Mujica, you indicated that the
legislation does not prohibit use of other languages. If the
bill were to pass, you could still conduct business in other
languages. The language on page 3 says, ``Official functions of
the government of the United States shall be conducted in
English.'' They talk about a couple of exceptions, and then
said that there is nothing to prevent you from communicating
unofficially on the side, but the official functions of
government shall be conducted in English.
Mr. Mujica. Right, and I will give you a good example. Our
function today here, I did not see in the invitation that it
said that the hearing will be in English. We all assumed it
would be in English, right? We did not need to know that.
Mr. Scott. That is right.
Mr. Mujica. Back when Mr. Conyers was speaking in Spanish,
my first language is Spanish, I got about 5 percent of what he
said. [Laughter.]
And if each one of you would have spoken in the language of
your ancestors, I would have left, you know. I would be gone
because I would not know what we are talking about. So we do
need the common language to understand each other.
Mr. Scott. Are you suggesting that we need legislation to--
what problem are we trying to correct?
Mr. Mujica. Why do you stop at a red light? Because we have
something in writing that was passed that says you must stop at
a red light.
Mr. Scott. Okay. The legislation says official functions of
the government of the United States shall be conducted as
English, so the suggestion that you can----
Mr. Mujica. This is an official function right now.
Mr. Scott. Now if a bilingual clerk can explain better to a
person in another language, what constructive purpose would be
served by denying that clerk the ability to speak in the other
language?
Mr. Mujica. It depends on who does the translation, as I
was telling you. How do you control what the translator said?
Mr. Scott. Well, I do not know what we are trying to
protect. I have not had any problems communicating with people.
For people who speak English, is there anything in here to
protect their right to use English? I mean, is there any threat
to a person's right to go to a government agency and speak
English?
Mr. Mujica. No, there is no threat.
Mr. Scott. There is not threat to that, okay. Senator
Garcia, you indicated communicating with your constituents. And
Dr. Porter used the term ``immigrant success.'' Is there any
question in the minds of your constituents that immigration
success depends on their ability to learn English?
Mr. Garcia. No, there is no question about that. It is the
opposite.
Mr. Scott. And does the passage or failure of this
legislation make any difference about whether or not they need
to be alerted to that reality?
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely not.
Mr. Scott. Did you notice that there was no money in here
to help people learn English?
Mr. Garcia. I noticed that.
Mr. Scott. You noticed that?
Mr. Garcia. Yes.
Mr. Scott. Are there waiting lists in your district for
people who want to learn English that cannot because we do not
put enough money into English classes?
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott. You indicated that you do not want to be
inflicted with this so that can communicate with your
constituents the best possible. Do you not see a problem with
Federal officials communicating with same constituents if they
are restricted by this legislation?
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Mujica, you indicated that 90 percent of the
people responded that they wanted English as the official
language of the United States?
Mr. Mujica. According to the poll, yes.
Mr. Scott. Now I noticed in the way you said it, the
question was not shall there be an official language, but
should English be the official language. What were the
alternatives?
Mr. Mujica. Well, the question is would you agree to make
English the official language of the United States?
Mr. Scott. As opposed to what? As opposed to what?
Mr. Mujica. Well, you can only ask one question when you
are calling somebody.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, I mean, say, as opposed to Spanish,
as opposed to----
Mr. Mujica. As to opposed to any language.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, the question was not whether or not
there shall be an official language, but whether English shall
be the official language. The only thing surprising about that
part is----
Mr. Mujica. Right, because the great majority of Americans
speak English, so we are not calling somebody referring to
Chinese.
Mr. Scott. And was the poll conducted in English?
Mr. Mujica. Pardon? Yes. [Laughter.]
Mr. Scott. So to answer anything other than yes, you would
have to be speaking to somebody in English and suggested maybe
something else ought to be the official language.
Mr. Mujica. Well, we were calling Americans regardless. If
they call my house, they are calling an American house.
Mr. Scott. But the question was not whether or not there
should be an official language, but whether English should be
that language. So we want to be clear as to what the
alternatives were. And obviously the alternatives would be
absolutely absurd.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franks. Alright. Well, I want to thank you all for
coming today.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Franks. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. I just had one point to correct the record.
Israel has two official languages, English and--I am sorry,
Hebrew and Arabic. And at the raid on Entebbe when they warned
the hostages that we are freeing you, get down, they used many
different languages. Thank you.
Mr. Franks. All right. Well, again, I want to thank all of
you for coming today. It has been an interesting hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
respond to as promptly as possible so that they can have their
answers be made part of the record.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit additional materials for inclusion in
the record.
And with that, again I thank the witnesses and thank the
Members and observers. And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas