[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H3438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SEEKING AN HONEST DEBATE ON THE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO BILINGUAL 
                               EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to respond to 
assertions that English-only proponents are making about bilingual 
education in their efforts to advance their cause.
  Yesterday a Member came to this floor to praise Mr. Thomas Doluisio, 
for his fight against bilingual education. The Member went on to say 
that the National Association of Bilingual Education officially 
condemned Mr. Doluisio at their 1994 convention. This information, 
taken from a Wall Street Journal editorial by John Miller of the 
Heritage Foundation and Center for Equal Opportunity, is not accurate. 
The National Association of Bilingual Education has never condemned any 
individual officially or otherwise, including Mr. Doluisio. His story 
may have been discussed among bilingual educators, but this is a far 
cry from official condemnation by a respected national organization. I 
am informed that a letter was sent by the National Association of 
Bilingual Education refuting the Wall Street Journal article.
  There have been other statements made by English-only proponents that 
I take issue with. One of the statements continuously used by English-
only advocates is that bilingual education costs the taxpayers $8-$12 
billion a year. This figure is inaccurate and is an exaggeration of the 
costs of educating bilingual children. The $8-$12 billion is the total 
cost of education for children who are limited English proficient, not 
just students being taught in bilingual programs. Furthermore, it 
multiplies the total cost of educating these children not just the 
marginal cost of bilingual education. If we wanted to save $8-$12 
billion, we'd have to kick these 2.3 million kids out of school 
entirely!
  In fact, the Institute for Research in English Acquisition and 
Development Journal, funded by U.S. English, an English-only advocacy 
group, has now come forth and stated that the $8-$12 billion figure is 
misleading. The true cost of bilingual education is the additional 
funds necessary to shift from a monolingual English program to a 
bilingual program. The total Federal expenditure for bilingual 
education is $156 million not $8-$12 billion.
  This week the other body will debate the Immigration Control and 
Financial Responsibility Act. During that debate, an amendment to 
include an English-only requirement will be offered. It is clear from 
this maneuver that proponents would rather dodge a floor clear from 
this maneuver that proponents would rather dodge a floor debate on a 
separate English-only bill. The administration has recently announced 
its support of the Senate immigration bill, but if English-only 
language is included members of Clinton's cabinet are certain to 
recommend a veto.
  I am not pointing these things out in an effort to discredit those 
who are not being totally honest in their arguments. What we seek is an 
honest debate on the issues, not a war of anecdotes and imaginative 
mathematics. Let's stick to the facts and keep fiction out of this 
debate.

                              {time}  1545

  I dare say that I am probably the only Member of this institution who 
has been a bilingual education professional, and if anyone in the House 
wants to understand bilingual education at its very basic and 
grassroots levels, I stand open to be contacted.

                          ____________________