In this excerpt from a speech given to a Senate Committee, Congresswoman Patsy Mink of Hawaii, presents her reasons as to why Congress should not approve the proposed bill, which sought to declare English as the official language of the United States.

(1) Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to speak against S. 356, which seeks to declare English as the official language of the United States Government.

(2) According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 97 percent of Americans currently speak English "well" or "very well." Even among those immigrants who come to this country speaking other languages, most passionately desire to be proficient in English--for their own economic survival and to secure economic opportunity for their children. Today's immigrants are learning English faster than previous generations of immigrants; English classes are in such high demand that some stay open 24 hours a day, and statistics show that waiting lists are as long as 40 to 50 thousand. If this is so, why do we need a law to declare English to be our official language? It already is!

(3) So maybe the reason for this bill is to save printing costs. A recent GAO report found that a mere six one-hundredths of one percent of federal documents produced since 1990 are in languages other than English; this works out to be only 256 out of 400,000 federal documents. I would also point out that most of those non-English documents were created to serve the Spanish-speaking residents of Puerto Rico. So I guess it is not the cost of publishing in other languages that justifies this limitation.

(4) There is no evidence that this nation is threatened by "division among linguistic lines." English is far and away our nation's dominant, common language. There is no threat that English will be subsumed as a minor language. S356 has the potential of creating unwarranted1 division in this country. S356 is touted as a way to bolster the national unity but I am troubled by the divisiveness it will create.

(5) How will making English our official language promote unity when thousands of legal, tax-paying immigrants and citizens will be denied a fuller opportunity to gain needed information and services because they are of limited English? What is the overwhelming public policy need to punish the few?

(6) The right to benefit from their government should not be limited by language barriers. Language communication via radio, television, and written material is essential for a basic understanding of an already intimidating political process for many non-native English speakers.

(7) Under S.356, in my role as a government official, my hands would be tied when dealing with my own constituents2 for many of whom English is a second language. To suggest that I cannot represent those constituents to the best of my ability and will be forced to essentially exclude them from the political process through English-only written communication is preposterous3 and insulting. The Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech. Nowhere does it say that it has to be in English. If we enact this bill it will be a limitation of our free society.

(8) The strength of our nation has always been its diversity. The right of each person to seek information from their government should not be limited by restrictions on the provider. To forsake immigrants this right is to deny the very principle on which this country was built, which is free and open access to our elected officials and our government.

(9) S. 356 would also specifically prohibit Native American federal employees or officials from communicating with the native population in their native language, even though it would be a more effective means of communication. In addition it could restrict the use of native languages by tribes and native organizations in implementing federal programs. It is clear that this legislation runs directly counter to overall efforts to preserve and promote the culture and history of the Native Americans. . . .

(10) For a bill which has no ostensible4 purpose or meets no urgent need, the price is too great. I urge the Committee to reject it.

How does the author unfold her argument in paragraph 2?

A.
by giving historical examples that reveal how official languages are divisive and un-American
B.
by describing the likely outcomes of having an official language using other countries as examples
C.
by providing evidence that shows how popular and widespread English-language ability already is
D.
by explaining how a single language would hurt immigrants by limiting their basic human rights