[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ENGLISH-ONLY LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House on the issue 
of English only, making English the official language of the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, mandating English as the official language of the United 
States is unnecessary, resolves no particular problem of Government, 
and communicates a negative divisive message to the society about 
people who speak other languages. We all acknowledge that English is 
the common language. In fact, 97 percent of Americans over the age of 5 
speak English. And every immigrant to this country recognizes this 
also. In fact, today's immigrants learn English faster than previous 
immigrant generations.
  A variety of official language legislation has been introduced in the 
104th. Some of these bills are less intrusive than others, but most of 
them include provisions similar to section 2 of H.R. 739, the 
Declaration of Official Language Act, which states that all 
communications by Federal officials and employees with U.S. citizens 
``shall be in English.'' This implies that English-only improves 
Government efficiency. In fact, just the opposite is true. Language 
restrictions will make carrying out the functions of Government more 
cumbersome in the few instances where languages other than English are 
used. In fact 99.96 percent of all Federal Government documents are 
printed in English according to GAO.
  Members of this House would feel the burden of this legislation if it 
ever became law. Under English-only provisions I would be breaking the 
law if I wrote a letter to one of my constituents in the indigenous 
language of our island of Guam. My staff would be breaking the law if 
they spoke to a constituent in a language other than English. Many of 
our congressional offices would become less effective if forced to 
speak only English.
  English-only advocates further claim that language is what binds us 
together as a nation. I maintain rather that our unity as a nation is 
rooted in common beliefs and values, as well as a common language. It 
is these distinctive American values that bind us together as a people.
  There are those in this country who feel it necessary to declare 
English as an official language in a symbolic way, but I want to remind 
Members of this House that most of this English-only legislation goes 
far, way beyond symbolism.
  English-only legislation solves no real problem either in the 
Government or among U.S. citizens. What this kind of legislation does 
is stigmatize users of other languages as somehow not being quite 
American enough and discourages the cultivation of our linguistic 
resources. How can we value multilingualism, and simultaneously 
discourage the environment which would allow it to flourish. This 
country needs to develop not stifle our linguistic resources to compete 
in a global economy. This legislation communicates the wrong message. 
It tells citizens to speak only English while at the same time, 
American businesses seek persons with foreign language skills in order 
to maintain a competitive edge in today's global economy, and higher 
education degrees mark the truly educated as those who are 
multilingual.
  In Arizona, English-only legislation has already been determined 
unconstitutional because it required all government officials to 
``act'' only in English. This clearly inhibited the free speech of 
these employees. I find it ironic that those who fight for devolution, 
States rights, and limited government, also fight for English-only 
which takes power from the States and hands it over to the Federal 
Government. Further, it mandates that the Government infiltrate our 
private lives by regulating how we talk. This is the ultimate in 
Government intrusion and runs counter to the mood of the country which 
is to deregulate Government, to get Government out of our lives as free 
citizens. Nowhere did I hear a cry to regulate language, to regulate 
speech.
  H.R. 739 also states that the Government ``shall promote and support 
the use of English for communications among U.S. citizens.'' Provisions 
like this go far beyond encouraging the learning of English and move 
toward English-only, not English first but English-only. We make a 
distinction between attitudes. Frivolous litigation, which would no 
doubt follow such a law, would flood our already overburdened court 
system with claims such as: ``I was spoken to in Spanish by a 
Government employee.'' ``I heard them talking in Chinese on Government 
time.'' ``The Government isn't doing enough to promote English.'' And 
on and on. Citizens will be permitted to sue for monetary relief based 
on these claims of linguistic abuse.
  Because it solves no problems, English-only legislation which seeks 
to regulate language seems to be giving life to the social forces of 
resentment.
  This resentment could stem from a rise in the number of foreign 
accents we hear day-to-day or the increase in the use of languages 
other than English. This kind of resentment is not based on a need to 
improve communications between individuals or their Government, but is 
based on a fear of the growing foreignness in our midst.
  Recently, proponents of English-only have tried to frighten us by 
comparing America with Canada. They tell us that if we reject English-
only, portions of America will again attempt secession from the United 
States. Every country has a different history and those who attempt to 
draw this comparison display an ignorance of the Quebec situation. In 
Canada, official languages were written into the original legal 
framework. It is because of legal language restrictions on languages 
that Canada finds herself divided. I doubt Americans want to create a 
bureaucracy to enforce language policy like our northern neighbors 
have.
  English-only legislation is potentially dangerous because it 
encourages nativism, raises constitutional issue about free speech and 
empowers the Federal Government to regulate--for the first time in our 
country's 219-year history--how Americans speak. The message of 
English-only legislation cannot be that English should be America's 
common language because it already is. Is the message then that we are 
less than those who speak only English? For those of us with different 
mother tongues, it is not at all incompatible to practice the 
continuance of a mother tongue, to be a good American, and recognize 
that the lingua franca is English.
  As Congress considers English-only measures, I urge my colleagues to 
consider the implications of such legislation and the message it will 
send to this Nation of immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to take a close look at this 
legislation and examine it, and see it for what it is worth.

                          ____________________