Click Here to watch a recording of Dr. Bill River's testimony.

Transcript of Testimony included below.

William P. Rivers, Ph.D.

Testimony before the United States Commission on Civil Rights

March 21, 2025

Revised and Extended, Submitted April 21. 2025

Thank you to the members of the United States Civil Rights Commission for taking up the vitally important subject of language access as a civil right, and for the opportunity to testify today on the current state of language access. My name is Bill Rivers, and I have spend the last twenty-five years working on language access at the national, state, and local level, with experience in needs assessment, policy development, training, and evaluation of language access, including recent work with the State of Maine, the City of Sacramento, California, and the County of Sonoma, California. I work closely with the Association of Language Companies, and I serve as a volunteer advocate with the American Association of Interpreters and Translators in Education, as the co-Chair of the National English Learners Roundtable, and as the Chair of the recently formed National Language Access Coalition. 

While the legal framework for language access as a civil right is well established, proceeding from the Title VI prohibition on national origin discrimination, as interpreted more than fifty years ago by the unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lau v. Nichols, where the Court held that discrimination based on language status is, in fact, national origin discrimination, in practice the provision of language access remains uneven. Even as other regulations, such as 45 CFR 92, the implementing rule for section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, have added to the legal structures guaranteeing the right to language access, it is worth bearing in mind that, uniquely among the civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution and by federal law, language access must be actively provided, where other civil rights depend on the restraint of discriminatory behavior. In this sense, language access is more akin to the rights guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires active accommodation of those Americans with disabilities, rather than the mere restraint of prejudices. While the maintenance of other civil rights guaranteed by Title VI may well have costs, the resources required for language and communications access and assistance are readily identifiable. Moreover, insofar as the Federal government – that is, the taxpayer – generally does not provide resources for meeting civil rights obligations, under whatever Federal law, the provision of language assistance, with the identifiable expenditures of resources as noted here, takes the appearance of an unfunded mandate. Because of the perception among many covered entities that language access is an unfunded mandate, the legal requirements to require compliance, and the enforcement mechanisms to redress its lack, are ever more important. 

Nonetheless, the past fifty years, and in particular, the past twenty-five years, have seen significant progress in the development of language access as a civil right. This is due in part to the promulgation of Executive Order 13166, published in August of 2000, which laid out clear requirements for federal agencies in terms of providing language access, planning for language access, and requiring the provision language access by federal contractors and grantees, as necessary. Holding that in mind, as I will return to Executive Order 13166, the more important driver of improved language access has been necessity. That the United States are more linguistically and culturally diverse than at almost any other point in our history is the result of two generations of immigration, primarily legal, and the concomitant need for doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, teachers, police officers, emergency dispatchers, motor vehicle administration examiners, and far more, to communicate with these new residents and citizens. While almost every last immigrant is trying to learn English, the exigencies facing adult immigrants – providing for their families, caring for children and aging parents, for example – restrict the time available for them to learn English. Moreover, the Hippocratic principle of care for patients, if we extend it to the provision of public services and benefits, does not allow for the “come back when you learn English” response that is sometimes still heard. 

What Executive Order 13166 did was to clarify the civil rights requirements fo the Executive Branch, and to facilitate federal agencies’ management of language access within that framework. It did have a salutary effect on many state and local governments, as they in turn thought through the civil rights and practical consequences of rapidly diversifying populations. For example, the Maryland General Assembly passed a language access statute in 2005, closely modeled on Executive Order 13166. Many other states have done so as well, from California to New Jersey to New York. 

If we take the moral and legal imperative of non-discrimination, and join it to the practical considerations of how covered entities engage with those whom the Census defines as “Limited English Proficient,” or LEP, we see the foundation of the language access verticals in the American language industry. As Commissioner Magpantay noted just now, the Bureau of the Census, more than 74 million Americans speak one of more than 350 languages at home, and of these, more than 27 million are classified as “LEP.”  In fact, the number of languages counted by the Bureau if the Census is a lower range, as a recent detailed survey of New York City, for example, shows more than 800 languages spoken there. To these we must add more than 150 Native American, Alaska Native, Hawai’ian, and Pacific Islander languages spoken by the original inhabitants of our 56 states and territories. 

Language access is strongest in the health care system, thanks to 45 CFR 92 (the implanting rule for section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act), and in the Federal and State Courts, thanks to the Federal Court Interpreter Act and the many state court interpreter acts as well as the requirements of Title Vi. Other service providers show uneven patterns, especially at the local government level, where school systems and municipal governments may lack the expertise to provide effective language access, and may face large numbers of languages in their service areas, albeit mostly spoken by small populations. Specific languages may pose additional challenges, such as the Indigenous languages of Mexico and Central America, which have very few English interpreters, necessitating relay interpreting (for example, Zapoteco to Spanish, then Spanish to English), or languages with no written form (such as Karen, a minority language of Myanmar). Certain scenarios can be challenging in terms of language access, especially natural disasters, where the communications infrastructure for remote interpreting may be damaged, and local interpreters themselves are victims of the disaster. In this scenario, the US Department of Homeland Security has developed comprehensive best practices for state and local governments. 

Along with the growth of language access as a civil right, the American language industry has developed innovative ways to ensure language access in almost any language found in the United States, around the clock and every day of the year, through a combination of on-site, over-the-phone, and virtual remote interpreters. The US language industry as a whole sees an estimated $30 billion in annual revenue, and provides middle-class, professional work for more than 100,000 interpreters and translators. Language access comprises approximately 20% of the revenue of the industry. 

The recent revocation of EO 13166 by President Trump in EO 14224 does not, in and of itself, materially affect the requirements for recipients of Federal funding to provide language access. EO 14224 does two things, which I will briefly address here. 

First, it declares English to be the official language of the United States of America. The effect of this declaration beyond the Executive Branch – the only part of the body politic and society legally bound by Executive Orders – is legally nonexistent. In fact, United States Supreme Court precedent dating to at least 1923 (Meyer v. Nebraska) and including Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad (1925), holes that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment extends to the use and teaching of languages in the United States (Nebraska) and to restricting the languages of business records (Yu Cong Eng). Indeed, in October 1973, Solicitor General Robert Bork filed an amicus brief in Lau v. Nichols, (see https://perma.cc/3E6T-PGPR) supporting the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Protection Clause. While I am a linguist, not a lawyer, the weight of case law seems to indicate that restricting languages other than English, absent a compelling interest, is of dubious constitutionality. 

Nevertheless, “English Only” has been a rallying cry at different turns in our history. The Nebraska case case found its roots in the Simon Act, a Nebraska state law enacted in the wake of the First World War, prohibiting the teaching of any subject in a language other than English, or foreign languages to students who had not passed the eighth grade. In its opinion, the Supreme Court stated “the protection of the constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but . . . a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.” More recently, in the wake of the Lau decision, a movement arose to press the Congress to pass a law declaring English as the official language. While proponents of this policy would have us believe that doing so would merely reify the obvious – that English is the de facto official language of the United States, as it has been since July 4, 1776, they elide much of their supporting arguments, rooted in very dark places in our history. ProEnglish, the leading proponent of English as the official language, founded by the noted Eugenicist and White Supremacist, John Tanton, has been labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (see https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/proenglish/). 

Thus we see an EO which carries little legal weight beyond the Executive Branch, but enormous symbolic power in the body politic. 

Second, EO 14224 rescinds EO 13166, which in turn, required that the Executive Branch undertake the development of: language access policies and plans for each agency; guidance for recipients of Federal Funding, and other matters. Crucially, EO 13166 did not create a new requirement for such guidance, as the US Department of Justice, among others, had long standing language access guidance predating EO 13166. However, EO 14224 requires that any guidance based on EO 13166 be rescinded, and that the US Department of Justice develop new guidance for language access. In fact, in its recent notice on the rescission of this guidance, the Department of Justice reaffirms that recipients of Federal funding must still provide language access [2]. 

Indeed, and notwithstanding other testimony today to the effect that there is no evidence in legislation for language as a protected category, several Federal statues require the provision of language access in one or another situation, including the Voting Rights Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Workforce Opportunity and Investment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, among others. This is not an exhaustive list, and it does suggest that language status has factored into Congressional lawmaking for the past sixty years. 

The reaffirmation of the requirement to provide language assistance notwithstanding, the media has reported several instances where Federal contracts for language access have been cancelled, most recently for the National Weather Service’s emergency alerts [3]. It is unclear if these cancellations are related to the rescission of EO 13166. 

I will conclude with a brief discussion of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Translation. First, we note that statistical Machine Translation has been available since 2002, and while it has continued to improve, basic errors are still introduced, somewhat at random, even in what we call “high data density language pairs,” such as English to Spanish. Indeed, a recent civil rights complaint was filed against 18 state departments of health for the use of unedited machine translation for information in other languages during the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] Current best practice, and indeed, federal regulations in healthcare, require review by a qualified human translator of any machine translated text that is at all important (required by 45 CFR 92.201(c)(3)). AI is itself an evolution of statistical machine translation, albeit on a massive scale. While there are some applications for AI-based interpreting, it suffers from the same tendency to introduce random errors, and moreover, to insert material not present in the original source. Recent guidance from the SAFE-AI Task Force, a grass roots volunteer organization of more than 600 representatives from healthcare providers, state and local courts and governments, professional societies, language companies, and academic researchers,  recommends four ethical principles in the use of AI-based interpreting: end-user autonomy; evidence of improving well-being and safety for end-users; transparency of quality; and, accountability for harms and errors. These broadly mirror the basic ethical principles of the interpreting profession, and are aimed at ensuring the integrity of the interpreted communication. 

Lastly, I would advise that the Commission consider a recommendation to the Congress to enact a statute along the substantive lines of Executive Order 13166, clearly indicating that discrimination based on language status is illegal, and including clear directions to the Executive Branch to develop thoughtful regulations for language access and in particular the role of AI in providing that access. In addition, legislation should restore the right of private action for disparate impact discrimination, which was foreclosed by the Sandoval decision. In addition, Congress should consider a clear definition of disparate impact and disparate treatment; for example, a blanket denial of language assistance as a matter of organizational policy on the part of a covered entity falls under disparate impact under current case law, although it might be arguable that such a policy decision in and of itself evidences intent that rises beyond disparate impact. With respect to the recommendations the Commission might make to the Attorney General, a reversion to the guidance published during the previous administration would be the most effective step this Administration could take; the revised guidances issued by numerous agencies incorporate a generation’s worth of lessons learned and best practices among Federal agencies, state and municipal governments, and thousands of covered entities. Failing that, at the very least reversion to the guidance ante EO 13166 would provide some signal of stability regarding language access and this Administration’s commitment to it. 

Thank you again, and I welcome your questions. 

Notes

[1] See: Salome, Richard. “Limited English Skills Can Mean Limited Access to the COVID-19 Vaccine,” Slate, April 30, 2021, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/covid-19-vaccine-for-non-english-speakers.html, last accessed April 18, 2025. The initial inkling that there were issues with these state departments of health came from a single sentence in Spanish on the Virginia Department of Health’s website, “La vacuna no se necesita.” [English translation: The vaccine is not necessary]. While a perfectly grammatical Spanish sentence, the original English sentence was “The vaccine is not mandatory.” [emphasis added]. An investigation by the National Health Law program found that 18 state departments of health were using unedited, raw, free machine translation for language access for COVID-19 information, including the Virginia Department of Health. The complaint was settled in March, 2024. 

[2] “Notice of Rescission of Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons,” Federal Register, vol. 90, no. 71, Tuesday, April 15, 2025, pp. 15721-15722, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-04-15/pdf/2025-06366.pdf, last accessed April 18, 2025. 

The DoJ states in section III, “Continuing Obligation”: “All recipients of Department financial assistance have a continuing obligation to comply with Title VI, all applicable Title VI implementing regulations, all applicable federal civil rights laws and nondiscrimination provisions. Recipients of federal financial assistance also have a continuing obligation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure that their communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others and may need to provide qualified sign language interpreters for individuals who are deaf. Recipients of federal financial assistance, including subrecipients, are reminded that the denial of language assistance services can be evidence of discrimination on the basis of national origin or disability under certain circumstances.” (ibid, p.15722). 

[3] See Robledo, Anthony. “National Weather Service cuts back on automatic translation services,” USA Today, April 10, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/04/09/national-weather-service-alerts-translated/83017659007/, last accessed April 18, 2025. 

We are sharing a letter that was submitted to the IRS requesting the agency to rescind the new rule and reinstate the prior version, which allowed for case-by-case application of safe harbor protections based on the common law test. The letter includes a detailed analysis of the issue and is part of a broader advocacy effort led by the Coalition for Independent Entrepreneurs—an initiative ALC supports.

Please note:

• The new IRS procedure may impact your company’s ability to rely on the safe harbor protection in the event of a misclassification audit.
• We recommend you consult with your attorney or tax advisor to evaluate the implications for your business and ensure compliance with all applicable laws

ALC will continue to monitor developments on this front and advocate for policies that preserve the flexibility and viability of independent contractor relationships in our industry.

Friday, March 21, 2025 | Washington, DC | Virtual
10:10 am EDT

Tomorrow, March 21, 2025, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a critical hearing on Language Access for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). ALC’s Advocacy Consultant, Dr. Bill Rivers, will be among the first speakers, providing expert testimony on the importance of equitable language access policies. His remarks are scheduled in the first wave of speakers, beginning at 10:10 AM EDT.

This hearing is an important opportunity to highlight the challenges and solutions surrounding language access in government services, healthcare, and other essential areas. ALC members are strongly encouraged to attend virtually and lend their voices to this discussion.

🔹

How to Participate:

Attend the virtual hearing  – Click here to view the agenda and access the virtual meeting link.

Submit written comments  – The Commission is accepting public comments through April 21, 2025 . Written comments should be submitted to  languageaccess@usccr.gov.  This is a great opportunity for ALC members to advocate for policies that support language access and the interpreting and translation industry.

Your voice matters in shaping the future of language access policy. Whether by attending the hearing or submitting written testimony, your participation helps ensure that the needs of Limited English Proficient individuals—and the professionals who serve them—are recognized and addressed.

Your voice matters—join us in advocating for language access!

The American Translators Association (ATA), American Association of Interpreters and Translators in Education (AAITE), Association of Language Companies (ALC), Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI), National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT), and Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) have come together to denounce EO 14224. These organizations represent over 27,000 professionals dedicated to breaking down language barriers in healthcare, education, the legal system, and beyond. This executive order weakens the fundamental right of LEP individuals to access essential services, threatening their ability to participate fully in society.

For more than two centuries, the United States has thrived without an official language mandate, embracing its rich linguistic diversity. Revoking EO 13166 creates unnecessary obstacles for LEP individuals, businesses, and public institutions, limiting access to medical care, fair legal representation, and education. This coalition urges policymakers to defend language access rights, reaffirm EO 13166, and uphold the principles of equal access for all.

Read the full Joint Statement here.

As a leading voice in the language services industry, ALC recognizes the critical role of professional interpreters and translators in ensuring compliance with Section 504 and other civil rights laws. Clear, effective communication is a fundamental right, and any attempt to weaken language access protections threatens the well-being and full participation of millions of individuals. We stand in solidarity with RID and other organizations advocating for stronger enforcement of Section 504 and policies that expand—not restrict—access to language services.

We urge policymakers, institutions, and language industry professionals to support measures that protect and improve access to qualified interpreters, ensuring that all individuals—regardless of hearing ability or language proficiency—can engage fully in society.

Read RID’s full position statement here

For ALC members, it’s important to take a breath. There will be a lot of misinformation and hype. ALC will continue to update our members on the policies affecting us and will always ground our reports in facts.

January

We rolled out our state-level issue tracking, and wow, did we track A LOT of state-level issues, especially in Q1, when most state legislatures hold their yearly sessions). 

A small sampler:

• In Virginia, State Senator Hashmi and State Delegate Henderson proposed an amendment to Virginia Senate Bill 30 and Virginia House Bill 30, adding $2.5 million to fund the development of Language Access Plans at state agencies. While we supported this, and while it did pass the Virginia Senate, it did not pass the Virginia House.
• In Hawaii, four bills were introduced to improve language access, all of which were passed into law, except Hawaii House Bill 1837, which has only passed the Hawaii House of Representatives:

1. Hawaii House Bill 2107/Senate Bill 2781 - Creating a language access coordinator position in the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency
2. Hawaii House Bill 2108/Senate Bill 2782 - Funding for language access in state agencies
3. Hawaii Senate Bill 2787 - Allocated funds for language access for immigrants
4. Hawaii House Bill 1837 - Funding language access in Hawaii public schools.

• In Washington, there were three bills of concern:

1. Washington Senate Bill 5950 - Imposed strict restrictions on language access in community services. We opposed this bill, and Washington took no action on it.
2. Washington Senate Bill 5995 - Proposed a mandatory licensing scheme for translators and interpreters in Washington, excluding certain certifications and requiring remote interpreters, even if located outside Washington, to obtain a Washington state license. ALC opposed this bill. The Washington State Senate passed it, but the House took no action.
3. Washington State Senate Bill 5810 - Would alter the definition of a "language access provider," potentially requiring remote interpreters' union affiliation. We opposed this bill, and while it passed, the Washington governor vetoed it.

As you can see, our state legislatures kept us busy! The efforts above stretched into the spring, and there were more state legislative bills beyond these eight that we worked on. This should give you, the ALC membership, a taste of just how much work ALC Advocacy and Standards does behind the scenes in tracking and monitoring and how your support and involvement make a real difference. Many of these ideas will come back around in the states’ legislatures in the coming year, and we’ll be ready. 

February

ALC On the Hill ’24 saw a record 50 language advocates who met with 74 Hill offices, advocating for flexibility in worker classification, support for language access in healthcare and education, and enforcement of federal laws restricting price-based acquisition of knowledge-based services. 

Others raising their voices for our industry included members of the American Translators Association, the American Association of Interpreters and Translators in Education, the Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreting, and the National Association of Judicial Interpreters and Translators.

DON’T MISS OUT!ALC On the Hill 2025 will take place virtually on Thursday, March 20th for one day only.Register Now.

March

We had good news and bad news in March. The good: On March 23, President Biden signed the “minibus” appropriations bill for federal Fiscal Year 2024, funding several departments and agencies. Congress included $4 million for the Office of Minority Health to inform LEP individuals about their right to language access. ALC was part of a coalition of organizations advocating for this, and once again, your work made a difference, especially during ALC On The Hill 2024!

The bad: Oregon Senate Bill 1578 would create a state-run interpreter scheduling and payment platform for healthcare interpreting in Oregon. This bill passed the legislature at the very last minute. It was the top priority for the labor movement in Oregon, and it passed on a straight party-line vote. 

It gets worse. A story in the Willamette Week makes clear that AFSCME has been working on eliminating the language industry from healthcare language access since 2019. Governor Kotek signed the bill into law on April 17. Team Oregon and the ALC will keep fighting this unjust and corrupt attempt to put us out of business.

April

In April, we continued working on state-level issues and following up on Federal issues. ALC began working with a coalition of national language access organizations on a letter to the US Department of Health and Human Services regarding the need to better regulate AI in interpreting for healthcare language access because in...

May

We saw the publication of the revised rule for language access under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You can read the National Health Law Program’s explainer or the detailed ALC analysis for full details. In short, we got almost everything we asked for in the new regulation – better definitions of qualified interpreters, translators, and bilingual staff; better requirements for notifying LEP patients of the availability of language assistance; a clear requirement that MT needs to be reviewed when used in language access in healthcare, and much, much more. ALC worked as a key member of a national coalition on language access in healthcare for more than two years, working on the initial comments on the draft rule in the summer of 2022, testifying at multiple listening sessions with the US DHHS, submitting formal comments, and more. Moreover, all indications are that this rule will withstand court challenges, and that it will be enforced in the Trump administration. This was a monumental effort from all of you and an enormous win, but it did leave out AI – mostly because AI blew up after the comments period closed for the proposed regulation. More on that below. 

June

We continued to spread the news about language access in healthcare with a webinar from the inestimable Mara Youdelman of the National Health Law Program, giving us a deep dive into the new rule and its prospects. 

We submitted comments to the US Department of Homeland Security, recommending that the DHS provide interpreters in asylum hearings, and we submitted detailed, data-driven comments to the US Department of Health and Human Services on the proposed “Universal Language Access Symbol.” You may remember from 2022 and 2023 that ALC advocated successfully for legislation and funding for such a symbol, so this effort was an important and necessary follow-up to make sure that the government executed this task. Our letter was detailed and data-driven, emphasizing the need for a professionally designed symbol that is clear, unambiguous, and easily understood, akin to the International Access Symbol (the “Handicapped” symbol). We recommended that OMH collaborate with top graphic design and marketing professionals and launch a well-developed, sustained campaign to educate LEP communities and healthcare providers about the symbol's meaning and the underlying civil right to language access. An update from January 2025 – still waiting to hear back, but that’s not a surprise as things move pretty slowly in the USG. 

Finally, in June, the SAFE-AI TF published its Guidance on AI and interpreting. The SAFE-AI TF has significant support and participation from ALC members and is dedicated to ensuring the integrity of interpreting, whether AI, human, or blended. 

July

In July, we turned back to the States. In Minnesota, we had a partial victory, as ALC Team Minnesota, led by ALC member Ingrid Christensen, was able to defeat a strict ABC worker classification bill. However, the Minnesota legislature did pass a punitive measure, HF 5247, which established penalties of $10,000 per misclassified worker. A partial victory, and most importantly, the criteria for worker classification did not change.

In Illinois, the legislature passed HB 1122, the “Independent Contractor Bill of Rights.” This law requires a written contract for any independent contractor, prompt payment of their invoices, and establishes penalties for non-payment (twice the amount in the contract, plus court and legal costs) and for not providing a contract ($500 per incident). It also mandates the Attorney General of Illinois to make recommendations to the legislature regarding specific occupations to be excluded from the definition of “freelance worker.” Again, it doesn’t change the underlying criteria for worker classification.

Finally, in the states, there is some good news from Pennsylvania, where Danielle (Filip) Gregor led ALC Team Pennsylvania to pass SB 1274. This bill would expand the number of recognized certifications that ASL interpreters can hold in the Commonwealth and recognize additional pathways (such as not requiring a BA) for interpreters to qualify in the state. ALC supported this bill, and in July, it made it past the first gate, passing the State Senate unanimously. Eventually, it passed the State House of Representatives unanimously and was signed into law in October!  

ALC Advocacy and Standards also works on representing ALC’s interests in ASTM Main Committee F43, “Language Services and Products,” and in the International Standardization Organization Technical Committee 37, Language and Terminology, Subcommittee 5, Translation, Interpreting, and related technologies. In July, ASTM opened the ballot for the revision of ASTM F2089, Standard Practice for Spoken and Sign Language Interpreting. Among the significant revisions were the inclusion of Sign Language interpreting, treatment of relay interpreting, and a straightforward, graduated set of metrics for determining interpreter qualifications. Sometimes, it may seem that standards are the only thing that moves slower than legislation and regulations, but your active participation in ASTM F43 and ISO/TC 37/SC 5 really matters! Standards are developed by consensus, and we need folks to participate to make sure that our point of view is represented in these standards. 

August

We finally had some peace and quiet in August – just kidding. The presidential campaigns were in full swinging chaos, but ALC did get its priorities to both sides – flexibility in worker classification and support for language access. We also sent comments to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, recommending that their language access requirements align with the guidance at LEP.gov. 

September

In September, ALC Advocacy ramped up its work on the PRO Act, as the polling in September pointed presciently to a Democratic clean sweep. ALC is non-partisan, so we make no comment on the September polls. However, our work on the PRO Act will matter, as you will see in the December update below!

October

In addition to Team Pennsylvania’s win on sign language interpreting, with the passage and Governor Shapiro’s signature on Pennsylvania Senate Bill 74, ALC Advocacy testified before the Maryland Supreme Court, supporting the Maryland Interpreter Advocacy Committee in its effort to turn back a proposal for four-hour interpreting sessions with no breaks. Dr. Bill Rivers noted that ASTM and ISO standards on interpreting include specified breaks, and the Chief Justice of the Maryland Supreme Court asked for further information on the standards. In the end, the Maryland Supreme Court remanded the proposed rule change back to the Rules Committee of the Maryland Judiciary, directing that standards be included in any further rule development. 

November

So, there was an election, and it turned out rather differently than the pollsters and media predicted earlier in the fall. For ALC, the biggest news was the announcement of Representative Lori Chavez-Deremer, a Republican from Oregon, as the nominee for Secretary of Labor. She was a co-sponsor of the PRO Act in the current Congress. Whether she will support misclassification efforts as Secretary of Labor is still unclear, so it remains essential to advocate for professional entrepreneurs—the majority of our workforce—on both sides of the aisle.

In addition, Dr. Bill Rivers, ALC Advocacy Consultant, had the opportunity to brief LEP.gov and the US Department of Homeland Security, on AI and interpreting in language access. He was joined by Mila Golovine (MasterWords) and Katharine Allen (BoostLingo). ALC and its members continue to be thought leaders in language access, in AI and interpreting, and in standards. 

December

We come to the end of 2024 with mixed success in December on Capitol Hill. The SPEAK Act, a bipartisan bill that would have required the Department of Health and Human Services to take several actions to improve language access in health care, was included and then dropped from the temporary funding bill for the US Government. Supporters on the Hill have indicated that it will come back around in 2025. 

Continuing their work on informing the US Government on AI and interpreting, Dr. Rivers, Mila Golovine, and Katharine Allen briefed more than 200 career civil servants in the Federal Language Access Working Group, the White House-level interagency that coordinates language access efforts. 

Looking Forward to 2025

First, in looking back at this sampling of the work of ALC Advocacy and Standards in 2024, we hope that you see how much work has been done by you, the ALC members, the ALC Advocacy and Standards Committee, and by ALC’s staff and contractors. 

Second, we are already working with Capitol Hill and the Executive Branch on our key issues for 2025:

• Worker classification
• Language Access 
• NAICS size standards for language schools
• And more.  

Third, we expect a busy Q1 as state legislatures reassemble. Wherever there’s a “blue trifecta” – the two houses of the state legislature and the governorship in Democratic hands – we can expect more efforts to restrict worker classification and in extreme cases, to replace the language industry with state-run agencies. Oregon and Washington are the usual suspects here. We can also expect states to experiment with AI for language access in low-risk situations. ALC’s continued leadership in blending AI and human expertise in interpreting will really matter in this area. 

Our advocacy makes a difference. ALC is a trusted voice in Congress and the Executive Branch on all things language-related, thanks to your participation. Together, we ensure the language industry’s vital role in the economy, national security, and the well-being of over 70 million Americans who speak a language other than English. ALC Advocacy is here to help you tell your stories to those who can make change happen.

Many of our California-based ALC members met with these representatives or other co-sponsors during ALC On The Hill '24, and several congressional offices recognized ALC's crucial support. Thank you to everyone who spoke up for our industry.

Please take a moment to give your feedback on the proposed symbols. We need to push OMH to improve. Any feedback from you and your marketing teams will make a real impact.

Also post-Summit, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the bipartisan SPEAK Act, which mandates language access in telehealth. ALC has been advocating for this bill for the past two years. Well done, everyone!

ALC notes as well that federal regulations (e.g., 45 CFR 92.201) and guidance make clear that the use of children as ad hoc interpreters is not allowed, except under very limited and exigent circumstances. Moreover, companies in our industry are capable of providing language access remotely to any location with telephone service, and can do so at any time of the day or year, and in more than 250 languages. In fact, many of our companies maintain service level agreements with healthcare, law enforcement, and emergency services clients where language access can be provided within a very short period of time – 30 seconds to 3 minutes, depending on the language. This is to underline that the exigent circumstances envisioned at 45 CFR 92.201(e)(3), where minor children might legally serve as ad-hoc interpreters, are and ought to be exceptionally limited and rare. 

However, the ALC and its member companies are well aware that the use of children as ad hoc interpreters continues, even in major métropolitain areas in large health care systems, large school systems, state government offices, and beyond. For example, the recent documentary film “Translators” depicts several disturbing scenes where covered entities use children as interpreters in deeply problematic circumstances, without any evident consideration of the legal requirements inherent in language access. The film valorizes and celebrates the work of these children despite the evident trauma experienced by these children serving as interpreters for their families. For example, Harye, age 13, fears that she will misinterpret the conversation between her parents and the surgeon who will perform a life-saving procedure on her beloved 2 year old sister. Virginia, age 16, muses that she can’t leave home to attend college, lest she deprive her family of vital language access.  

These anecdotes capture the problems with using children as interpreters. Such children are exposed to traumatic situations involving the distress and suffering of a loved family member, or to medical conditions where they do not have the cognitive capacity, emotional maturity, conceptual understanding, or vocabulary to accurately transfer meaning between two languages. Children are often asked to interpret in situations where they are a party to the proceeding – in school settings where the child may be disciplined, in juvenile justice settings, and so forth. Again, this violates the foundational principle of the neutrality of the interpreter, and places children in impossible situations in terms of their own emotional and mental health. (See, for example, Russell et al., 2015, for a discussion of the practice of using children as language brokers in US healthcare).1 

Our members adhere to the highest ethical principles, and we expect covered entities to do the same. Using children as ad hoc interpreters, language brokers, or cultural brokers is plainly counter to the letter and intent of relevant US laws, absent extraordinary and exigent circumstances. The language industry routinely provides language access to all corners of the country, in hundreds of languages, around the clock. There is no excuse to endanger children – and those for whom they interpret – by asking them to do so.  

1. Improve Language Access in Healthcare: The ALC is requesting continued funding of $5 million for the Office of Minority Health. This funding is vital for supporting the development and dissemination of a universal language access symbol.
2. Support Language Access in Education: The ALC is seeking $10 million for the Office of English Language Acquisition. These funds will support projects that promote best practices in language access at the school district level.
3. Enforce Federal Law on LPTA in Knowledge-Based Services Procurement: The ALC is asking Congress to request that the Secretary of Defense report on the implementation of specific sections of the FY 2017 and FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA). These sections collectively limit the government's ability to use price-based acquisition methods for knowledge-based services.
4. Flexibility in Worker Classification: The ALC requests engagement with Senator Warner’s “Future of Work” project. This initiative explores innovative ways to ensure that Independent Contractors receive benefits comparable to regular employees.

ALC submitted a detailed letter to the US Department of Homeland Security, advocating for qualified interpreters in asylum-related hearings before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). For most of the past 20 years, asylum applicants have had to bring their own interpreters, whose performance was monitored in real-time by USCIS contract interpreters. We argued that if USCIS monitors these encounters, it makes sense for USCIS interpreters, whether contract or staff, to handle the interpretation. ALC proudly joined ATA, AAITE, CCHI, and many other organizations in supporting this common-sense reform to improve USCIS efficiency and ensure impartiality in language access.

Bringing together over 550 federal agency staff and stakeholders, it was inspiring to see so much engagement and enthusiasm across this robust language access community for innovation and expansion of federal agency language access efforts.

Our featured speakers provided updates on language access plan implementation in their agencies and answered stakeholder questions. Because attendees were unable to copy and paste from the chat, we have provided below the links and resources that were shared.

We encourage you to continue to review the following links and resources our team shared:

• You will find Tips and Tools, webinars, language data, language access plans, settlements, briefs, and a lot more information on these and many other efforts on our website: www.lep.gov
• Updated federal agency language access plans: www.LEP.gov/language-access-plans
• State Courts Fact Sheet and Webinar: https://www.lep.gov/state-courts
• Law Enforcement Language Access Initiative: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-new-language-access-law-enforcement-initiative

Our panelists shared the following resources with the group:

• DOJ:
  • Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable: https://www.justice.gov/atj/legal-aid-interagency-roundtable
  • LAIR’s 2022 Report “Access to Justice through Simplification”: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-03/Legal%20Aid%20Interagency%20Roundtable%202022%20Report.pdf
  • Spanish Language Style Guides and Glossaries: https://digital.gov/resources/spanish-language-style-guide-and-glossaries/
  • Connecting with others interested in translation technology: https://digital.gov/resources/introduction-to-translation-technology/#connect-with-others-interested-in-translation-technology-2
  • Executive Summary of the 2023 Justice Department Equity Action Plan: https://www.justice.gov/opa/video/executive-summary-2023-justice-department-equity-action-plan
• HHS:
  • HHS Office for Civil Rights Resource Page for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency
  • HHS Office for Civil Rights Letter to State Health Officials Regarding Civil Rights Obligations During Medicaid Unwind
  • Office for Civil Rights, Fact Sheet for Individuals on Civil Rights Protections under Title VI
  • Complaint portal: HHS Office for Civil Rights Complaint Portal, available in multiple languages
  • Contact email:languageaccess@hhs.gov
• DOL:
  • Department of Labor Language Access Plan and Accompanying Translations
  • Complaints: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/contact
• DHS:
  • Language Access | Homeland Security (dhs.gov)
  • Complaint information: File a Civil Rights Complaint | Homeland Security (dhs.gov)
  • Complaint portal: CRCL Intake - DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Complaint

Attendees also shared the following resources in the chat:

• Contact info for Social Security Administration: Maria Artista-Cuchna at Maria.artista-cuchna@ssa.gov and Susan Camarena at susan.camarena@ssa.gov.
• Municipal Language Access Network (MLAN): membership is limited to government and quasi-government employees. People interested in joining can apply using the Membership Form. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdnTL9LHfStqHYvDB0WKsxfwJhC6FCQMenMbWcofke9d9epPw/viewform
• IRS translation/language glossaries are listed under Publication 850 here: https://www.irs.gov/publications
• New York multilingual listening tour and media awareness campaign: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWFSbPySNf6We5JLb7rQLg1ewumOaUVOK&si=mXkJzBZxhMSNG-kI. Happy to answer any questions or meet: Margarita Larios, margarita.larios@ogs.ny.gov
• Northwest Justice Project project to develop know your rights information on language rights: One of the priority areas is the right to these services in interactions with state government programs. For those interested, please reach out and I can share our toolkit when it is finished later this year and to share input if you have an interest in helping. Kristi Cruz, kristic@nwjustice.org
• SAFE AI – Stakeholders Advocating for Fair and Ethical AI in Interpreting (safeaitf.org)
• Washington State Courts interpretation rules: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_11_04_00.pdf
• Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID): www.rid.org

The next FedLAWG meeting will be exclusively for federal agencies and will discuss language access training for federal staff. We look forward to inviting stakeholders back to future meetings and listening sessions. In the meantime, please continue to reach out directly to us and our counterparts at other federal agencies.

Thank you for your continued engagement and efforts as we strive to build a culture of language access within the federal government. 

Sincerely,

FedLAWG Team

Federal Coordination and Compliance Section

Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department of Justice

In Oregon, Senate Bill 1578 would create a state-run interpreter scheduling and payment platform for healthcare interpreting in Oregon. This bill passed the legislature at the very last minute. It was the top priority for the labor movement in Oregon, and it passed on a straight party-line vote. 

It gets worse. A story in the Willamette Week makes clear that AFSCME has been working on eliminating the language industry from healthcare language access since 2019. It also said that State Senator Kayse Jama, who was the sole sponsor of the bill, may well intend to have Unite Oregon take over language access in healthcare. (Jama was the Executive Director at Unite Oregon before being appointed to the Oregon Senate.) 

ALC Team Oregon has worked with the Republicans in the State Senate to ask Governor Tina Kotek to veto the bill. As of this writing, she has not yet done so, but she has until December 31. You can read the letter here. Team Oregon and the ALC will keep fighting this unjust and corrupt attempt to put us out of business.

The accompanying Senate Report states:

“The Committee continues no less than $4,000,000 to support the development of methods of informing limited English proficient [LEP] individuals about their right to and the availability of language access services. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to improve external communications, which should include mediums such as television and radio, to reach LEP communities. However, the Committee encourages the Department to review communication practices and create uniform applications across all HHS agencies to strengthen communication practices to include digital, television, and radio advertising when working with LEP communities.” (Senate Report 118-84, p. 204). 

We will continue to advocate for language access funding and outreach for the more than 20 million U.S. residents who are LEP.  

Washington SB 5995 and Washington 5810 were opposed by ATA and ALC, and our combined efforts led to their defeat. SB 5995 would have required a Washington state license for any translator or interpreter providing services in the state, with no exemptions for remote work. SB 5810 would have classified all state-funded language access providers as employees for the purpose of union membership. 

In Oregon, we have been working on Oregon SB 1578, which would create a state-run interpreter scheduling and payment platform for healthcare interpreting. The bill has passed the Oregon Senate Ways and Means Committee. It is now under consideration on the floor of the State Senate. 



The bill’s fate remains unclear. ALC Team Oregon, led by Kristin Quinlan, continues to advocate against this bill, pointing out that the language industry already does everything the bill mandates without costing the Oregonian taxpayers.