U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–386 PDF 2012

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 

ON

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

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 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

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 

Page

IV 

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 

(1) 

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 cosponsors. 

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. 

2 

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:] 

3 


HR997-1.eps
4 


HR997-2.eps
5 


HR997-3.eps
6 


HR997-4.eps
7 


HR997-5.eps
8 


HR997-6.eps
9 


HR997-7.eps
10 

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. 

11 

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 

12 

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:] 

13 


JCJE-1.eps
14 


JCJE-2.eps
15 

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 


JCJE-3.eps
16 

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 

17 

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 

18 

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:] 

19 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa 


King-1.eps
20 

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. 


King-2.eps
21 

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 KnowNothings, 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 

22 

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 KnowNothings, 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 

23 

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-today 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. 

24 

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 

25 

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. 

26 

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 speakVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:30 Oct 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\080212\75386.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
27 

ing 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. 

28 

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? 

29 

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 AfricanAmericans 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 

30 

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 

31 

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. 

32 

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 nonEnglish 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-yearold 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 

33 

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:] 

34 


RPP-1.eps
35 


RPP-2.eps
36 


RPP-3.eps
37 


RPP-4.eps
38 


RPP-5.eps
39 


RPP-6.eps
40 


RPP-7.eps
41 


RPP-8.eps
42 

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 


RPP-9.eps
43 

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. 

44 

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:] 

45 


Garcia-1.eps
46 


Garcia-2.eps
47 


Garcia-3.eps
48 


Garcia-4.eps
49 


Garcia-5.eps
50 


Garcia-6.eps
51 


Garcia-7.eps
52 


Garcia-8.eps
53 


Garcia-9.eps
54 


Garcia-10.eps
55 


Garcia-11.eps
56 


Garcia-12.eps
57 


Garcia-13.eps
58 


Garcia-14.eps
59 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Senator Garcia. 

And I now recognize Mr. Mujica for 5 minutes for his opening 

statement. 


Garcia-15.eps
60 

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 supVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:30 Oct 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\080212\75386.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
61 

port 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:] 

62 


MEM-1.eps
63 


MEM-2.eps
64 

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 


MEM-3.eps
65 

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 

66 

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 

67 

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:] 

68 


75386B1-1.eps
69 


75386B1-2.eps
70 


75386B1-3.eps
71 


75386B1-4.eps
72 


75386B1-5.eps
73 


75386B1-6.eps
74 


75386B1-7.eps
75 


75386B1-8.eps
76 


75386B1-9.eps
77 


75386B1-10.eps
78 


75386B1-11.eps
79 


75386B1-12.eps
80 


75386B1-13.eps
81 


75386B1-14.eps
82 


75386B1-15.eps
83 


75386B1-16.eps
84 


75386B1-17.eps
85 


75386B1-18.eps
86 


75386B1-19.eps
87 


75386B1-20.eps
88 


75386B1-21.eps
89 


75386B1-22.eps
90 


75386B1-23.eps
91 


75386B1-24.eps
92 


75386B1-25.eps
93 


75386B2-1.eps
94 


75386B2-2.eps
95 


75386B2-3.eps
96 


75386B2-4.eps
97 


75386B2-5.eps
98 


75386B2-6.eps
99 


75386B2-7.eps
100 


75386B2-8.eps
101 


75386B2-9.eps
102 


75386B2-10.eps
103 


75386B2-11.eps
104 


75386B2-12.eps
105 


75386B2-13.eps
106 


75386B2-14.eps
107 


75386B2-15.eps
108 


75386B2-16.eps
109 


75386B2-17.eps
110 


75386B2-18.eps
111 


75386B2-19.eps
112 


75386B2-20.eps
113 


75386B2-21.eps
114 


75386B2-22.eps
115 


75386B2-23.eps
116 


75386B2-24.eps
117 


75386B2-25.eps
118 

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 

119 

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 someVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:30 Oct 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\080212\75386.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
120 

one 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. 

121 

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. 

122 

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. 

123 

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.] 

(125) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

126 


Nadler-1.eps
127 


Nadler-2.eps
128 

f 


Nadler-3.eps
129 


JCJS-1.eps
130 


JCJS-2.eps
131 

f 


JCJS-3.eps
132 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 


75386A-2.eps
133 

f 


75386A-3.eps
134 


75386C-1.eps
135 


75386C-2.eps
136 


75386C-3.eps
137 


75386C-4.eps
138 


75386C-5.eps
139 


75386C-6.eps
140 


75386C-7.eps
141 

Æ 


75386C-8.eps