[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1040
 
          THE URGENT NEED TO ADDRESS THE COMMON LANGUAGE ISSUE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the question of whether or not the United 
States has a common, official language grows more urgent each day. The 
longer we wait to address this issue the more polarized the positions 
become and the harsher the rhetoric on both sides.
  There are some in this Chamber that would like to see the Government 
extend any and every service in any and every language; if we 
subscribed to their methods, before long we would have a Government 
functioning in over 200 languages. Why? Because invariably, when we 
start administering Government in the second and third most popular 
minority language, we are going to be requested to provide the same 
accessibility to the fourth on down the line. I ask my colleagues, are 
we not about to cross the threshold of establishing a very dangerous 
and costly precedent?
  On the other hand, there are some in this Chamber, that subscribe to 
the English only philosophy. That being--everything in English; no 
exceptions. Unfortunately, the common language debate suffers as a 
result of this philosophy. This type of mentality results in fear and 
misperceptions that should not be associated with the common language 
debate or my legislation--H.R. 123, The Language of Government Act, 
which would designate English as our common official language.
  For three consecutive Congresses now, I have been the chief sponsor 
of the Language of Government Act (H.R. 123). If my colleagues have 
analyzed this legislation over the past three Congresses, my colleagues 
have seen that as the issue has continued to evolve, I have changed the 
legislation over the course of time. If my colleagues have not analyzed 
my bills, then I encourage you to do so because the common language 
issue and the need for a coherent government language policy is not 
going away. I believe that my bill is a rational vehicle for addressing 
this issue.

  I make note of the maturation of this legislation because I want 
every one of my colleagues to understand my strong desire to put 
together a bill which addresses the concerns of as many people as 
possible. I have listened to each Member's concerns and have attempted 
to work with them in order to ensure that my legislation meets those 
concerns. Of all fronts, I believe I have been accommodating.
  Within my legislation, H.R. 123, I have included an exemption clause 
which ensures that no essential services--emergency, health, safety, 
and justice--would be restricted. It is not English only. The term 
``English Only'' is most often used by the anti-common-language groups 
to promote the falsehood that The Language of Government Act is opposed 
to other languages.
  I recognize that there are individuals living in the United States 
who do not know English, and we have an obligation to extend certain 
essential services to them to ensure that they can get by. However, it 
is my strong belief that we have an even greater obligation to ensure 
that they get the chance to learn English so that they cannot only get 
by but can prosper--and fully partake of all the economic, social, and 
political opportunities that exist in this great country of ours.

  Currently, we adhere to an arbitrary decisionmaking process--every so 
often we decide to extend a particular Government service or function 
to a particular minority language group. I would argue that we often do 
this without first looking at the inevitable negative consequences. 
What we are creating are linguistic enclaves, language minority groups 
that are dependent on the Government to get by. Do we not owe these 
individuals better than that? Is not money spent on some of these 
services, better spend on creating English language instruction 
facilities? I do not believe it's enough to apply political expedient 
Band-Aids. We ought not be throwing individuals a fish and telling them 
to eat of it as long as they can, which is all we are doing when we 
keep mounting the number of services we offer them in their language. 
Rather, we ought to be giving individuals a fishing-pole so that they 
can catch all the fish they need. That fishing-pole is a proficiency in 
the English language.
  My legislation states that the Government has an affirmative 
obligation to promoting the English language--elevating that goal to 
official capacity. At the same time, the bill seeks to set some 
commonsense parameters on the number and type of Government services 
that will be offered in a language other than English. We do not need a 
full scale multilanguage Government. But, if we do not address this 
issue in a forward-thinking, pro-active manner, that is just what we 
are going to have allowed to develop.

  It has been said by some that I spend too much time explaining what I 
am not opposed to, by focusing so much attention on my bill's exemption 
clause. However, I feel it is imperative that each and every Member of 
this Chamber understand that I am not proposing that we not offer help 
to those in need. My bill states that the official Government 
functions, official Government documents, and official Government 
meetings will be recorded and conducted in English. If we commit to 
governing in English, then we also must commit to ensuring that the 
citizens we govern understand the language in which we are governing--
it goes hand in hand.
  We must come together now, this Congress, and hammer out our 
differences on this issue and pass this bill. If we continue to wait, 
the problem is only going to continue to grow. The two sides are only 
going to become more polarized, and I fear what the results might be.
  I appeal to each and every one of my colleagues to analyze my bill. 
H.R. 123, in my opinion, is the best vehicle for addressing the common 
language issue. We cannot continue to turn our backs on this issue. 
Please join me today, by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 123.

                          ____________________