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

                       ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNITY ACT OF 2011

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       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

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

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

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

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

                        Subcommittee on the Constitution

                        TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman

                       MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman

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

                         Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel

                    David Lachmann, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 AUGUST 2, 2012

                                                                       Page

                                    THE BILL

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

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                                   WITNESSES

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

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

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

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

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

                       ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNITY ACT OF 2011

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012

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

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

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

                                   __________

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

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

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

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

                                   __________

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                   __________

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

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

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

                                   __________

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

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

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

                                   __________

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

                                   __________

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

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