[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9725-H9738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 123, ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT
ACT OF 1996
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page H9726]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 499
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 123) to amend title 4, United States Code, to
declare English as the official language of the Government of
the United States. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of H.R. 3898. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of
order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute
for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived.
No other amendment shall be in order except those printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be considered only in the
order specified, may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against amendments printed in the report
are waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may:
(1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes
of debate only.
(Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 499 is a modified closed
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 123, the English Language
Empowerment Act of 1996. House Resolution 499 waives points of order
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause
2(l)(6) of rule XI, regarding 3 day availability of committee reports.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities.
The rule further makes in order, for the purpose of amendment, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
3898. The rule waives points of order against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule 16,
relating to germaneness.
The rule also provides for the consideration of the amendments
printed in the Rules Committee report on the rule only in the order
specified; if offered by the Member designated in the report; debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent; and which shall not be subject to
amendment or a division of the question in the House or the Committee
of the Whole.
House Resolution 499 waives all points of order against the
amendments printed in the report. The rule also authorizes the Chair to
postpone and cluster votes on amendments.
Finally, the resolution provides for a motion to recommit with or
without instructions as is the right of the minority.
The rule for this bill is a fair one. House Resolution 499 allows for
an hour of debate on a minority substitute, and specified time for a
number of amendments which give those in opposition the opportunity to
refine the bill. I believe the Rules Committee has been extraordinarily
fair and prudent in that minority amendments outnumber majority
amendments by a count of 4 to 1.
Mr. Speaker, the English Language Empowerment Act of 1996 is designed
to empower a new generation of immigrants. This bill declares that
English is the official language of the Federal Government, mandates
that the Federal Government conduct its business in English, eliminates
the Federal bilingual ballot requirement, and requires officials to
conduct naturalization ceremonies in English.
This bill assures that we have a uniform government policy that does
not undercut incentives to learn English and is consistent with
established immigration policy that new citizens demonstrate an ability
to read, write, and speak English. It is a modest bill which does not
restrict, in any way, the use of foreign languages in homes,
neighborhoods, churches, or private businesses.
The argument will be made that this bill will result in cost savings
to the American taxpayer as a result of the termination of documents
and services currently provided in different languages. I agree that it
is unrealistic that the Government should accommodate the printing of
government materials in countless languages, and some cost savings will
be achieved. This debate, however, is about more than simply the cost
in dollars. For the past three decades we have come to realize that
well-meaning programs intended to help have actually evolved into
programs that hinder the advancement of our citizens. In this case,
costly bilingual policies have acted as a disincentive to some
immigrants who have been encouraged to use their native languages
rather than learn English.
The problem again is not that the Government has done too little--it
is that the Government is doing too much. In this case, the
Government's actions are inhibiting the social and economic advancement
of new immigrants.
Throughout this Nation's history, we have opened our ports to
immigrants from countries across the globe, and each generation of
immigrants has understood the importance of learning to communicate in
English. New immigrants continue to understand that the knowledge of a
common language will propel them along the road to prosperity and will
unite all immigrants with a common bond as Americans.
Unfortunately, this Government is impeding their integration into
American society. This legislation will facilitate the opportunities
for non-English speaking persons in this country, and I disagree with
the argument that this bill would isolate them from society.
It is the failure to promote English as our common and unifying
language that has hindered some Americans from building a solid future
for their families and gaining access to the American dream.
During a meeting with a group of businessmen I asked a gentleman who
had immigrated to the United States why his community has achieved such
great educational and professional accomplishments in this country, and
he proudly responded that there were two reasons for this success in
the United States--intact families and the adoption of the English
language.
It is becoming painfully clear that those who have not adopted the
English language have had a much more difficult time achieving success
in our schools, in our businesses, and in our society. For those who
use English, we have seen a great rise in achievement.
Mr. Speaker, this is an equitable rule that permits opponents of the
bill the opportunity to alter extensively the
[[Page H9727]]
original bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may
proceed with consideration of a bill that I believe will help to open
the door to the American dream to more of our follow Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material from the Committee on
Rules for the Record:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 31, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\.............. 46 44 81 59
Structured/Modified Closed \3\...... 49 47 39 28
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 17 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 137 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may
be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany
it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be
completely open to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 31, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-199; A:
Revitalization. 227-197 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
[[Page H9728]]
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 249-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands..... PQ: 221-197 A:
voice vote (5/15/
96).
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H. Con. Res. 122. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... C................ H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/19/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96).
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96).
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act A: voice vote (4/
17/96).
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 2715........ Paperwork Elimination A: voice vote (4/
Act. 24/96).
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 1675........ Natl. Wildlife Refuge. A: voice vote (4/
24/96).
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 175.... Further Cont. Approps. A: voice vote (4/
FY 1996. 24/96).
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2641........ U.S. Marshals Service. PQ: 219-203 A:
voice vote (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2149........ Ocean Shipping Reform. A: 422-0 (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 2974........ Crimes Against A: voice vote (5/
Children & Elderly. 7/96).
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 3120........ Witness & Jury A: voice vote (5/
Tampering. 7/96).
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 2406........ U.S. Housing Act of PQ: 218-208 A:
1996. voice vote (5/8/
96).
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 3322........ Omnibus Civilian A: voice vote (5/
Science Auth. 9/96).
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3286........ Adoption Promotion & A: voice vote (5/
Stability. 9/96).
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)........... S................ H.R. 3230........ DoD Auth. FY 1997..... A: 235-149 (5/10/
96).
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 178. Con. Res. on the PQ: 227-196 A:
Budget, 1997. voice vote (5/16/
96).
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96).......... C................ H.R. 3415........ Repeal 4.3 cent fuel PQ: 221-181 A:
tax. voice vote (5/21/
96).
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96).......... MO............... H.R. 3259........ Intell. Auth. FY 1997. A: voice vote (5/
21/96).
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3144........ Defend America Act.... .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3448........ Small Bus. Job A: 219-211 (5/22/
Protection. 96).
MC............... H.R. 1227........ Employee Commuting .................
Flexibility.
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 3517........ Mil. Const. Approps. A: voice vote (5/
FY 1997. 30/96).
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 3540........ For. Ops. Approps. FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 5/96).
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3562........ WI Works Waiver A: 363-59 (6/6/
Approval. 96).
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 2754........ Shipbuilding Trade A: voice vote (6/
Agreement. 12/96).
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96).......... O................ H.R. 3603........ Agriculture A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 11/96).
1997.
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96).......... O................ H.R. 3610........ Defense A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 13/96).
1997.
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96).......... O................ H.R. 3662........ Interior Approps, FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 19/96).
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96).......... O................ H.R. 3666........ VA/HUD Approps........ A: 246-166 (6/25/
96).
H. Res. 460 (6/25/96).......... O................ H.R. 3675........ Transportation Approps A: voice vote (6/
26/96).
H. Res. 472 (7/9/96)........... O................ H.R. 3755........ Labor/HHS Approps..... PQ: 218-202 A:
voice vote (7/10/
96).
H. Res. 473 (7/9/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3754........ Leg. Branch Approps... A: voice vote (7/
10/96).
H. Res. 474 (7/10/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3396........ Defense of Marriage A: 290-133 (7/11/
Act. 96).
H. Res. 475 (7/11/96).......... O................ H.R. 3756........ Treasury/Postal A: voice vote (7/
Approps. 16/96).
H. Res. 479 (7/16/96).......... O................ H.R. 3814........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. 17/96).
H. Res. 481 (7/17/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3820........ Campaign Finance PQ: 221-193 A:
Reform. 270-140 (7/25/
96).
H. Res. 482 (7/17/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3734........ Personal A: 358-54 (7/18/
Responsibility Act. 96).
H. Res. 483 (7/18/96).......... O................ H.R. 3816........ Energy/Water Approps.. A: voice vote (7/
24/96).
H. Res. 488 (7/24/96).......... MO............... H.R. 2391........ Working Families...... A: 228-175 (7/26/
96).
H. Res. 489 (7/25/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2823........ Dolphin Conservation A: voice vote (7/
Program. 31/96).
H. Res. 499 (7/31/96).......... MC............... H.R. 123......... English Language .................
Empowerment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Linder] for yielding me the customary half-hour of debate time, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this modified closed rule for the
bill designating English as the official language of the Government of
the United States and requiring that most official business be
conducted only in English. We believe this is a bad rule for an equally
bad piece of legislation.
We oppose this legislation in such strong terms for many reasons: It
is unnecessary; it is without doubt unconstitutional; it will increase
litigation by creating a new private right of legal action in Federal
court; it is offensive, insulting and denigrating to millions of
Americans; and it is divisive at a time that we need to unite our
country and its citizens.
Mr. Speaker, we fail to understand the need for this legislation of
such dubious value. According to the Census Bureau figures, English is
spoken by over 97 percent of the American people. A recent General
Accounting Office report tells us that less than .1 percent of all
Federal documents are printed in foreign languages; thus, more than
99.9 percent are already printed in English.
The fact that English language classes across the country have long
waiting lists attests to the fact that laws are not needed to encourage
people to learn English.
What those who do not speak English will need is access to more
educational programs that teach English, but this bill does nothing
whatsoever to help meet that need. Mr. Speaker, the way to further the
primacy of English is to put more resources into efforts to expand
English proficiency and literacy, not to pass legislation of such
questionable value as this.
We already know that English-only laws such as H.R. 123 are subject
to serious constitutional challenge, an important point that the
proponents appear to have overlooked.
In a 1923 case, the Supreme Court wrote that:
The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those
who speak other languages as well as those born with English
on the tongue. Perhaps it would be advantageous if all had
ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot
be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution.
The presumptive unconstitutionality of H.R. 123 was fortified more
recently by a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Arizona's
English-only mandate violates the first amendment and in
``unconstitutional in its entirety.'' No doubt that reasoning would
apply as well to this Federal English-only legislation, which we
believe clearly violates the first amendment guarantee of free speech.
As if all this were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, the rule making this
bill in order is unfair and limited beyond good reason. At the very
least, if we must consider a bill as repugnant as this one, then we
should have had, if not a completely open rule, at least one that is
more open and much less restrictive than the rule we are now
considering.
In recognition of the announcement by our chairman that only certain
amendments would be made in order, the minority members of the Rules
Committee chose 5 of the more than 20 amendments submitted by Democrats
as our priorities. But only one of those
[[Page H9729]]
five was accepted and is made in order by this rule.
Inrerestingly the majority did see fit to allow three other
amendments submitted by Democrats, none of which was on our priority
list. We are somewhat puzzled by that decision, and suspect that they
address issues the majority itself wanted to be taken up.
The Serrano amendment that is permitted under the rule was our first
priority. It is a very thoughtful attempt to establish a language
policy for the United States that does not infringe on indigenous
languages and does not place undue burdens on one's ability to obtain
services from the Federal Government because of limited English
proficiency. Instead of imposing the divisive and restrictive policies
in H.R. 123 that infringe on constitutional rights, the Serrano
amendment encourage diversity and opportunity. We encourage our
colleagues to support that amendment.
It is a key amendment. We are pleased that it is made in order.
Unfortunately, four others that are just as essential to making the
debate on the bill complete were not approved by the majority.
We feel strongly that we should have been allowed a vote on the
amendment striking repeal of the bilingual election requirements of the
Voting Rights Act. The bilingual provision that the rule incorporates
into H.R. 123 is a major change in existing law and policy. Members
deserve the opportunity to vote separately on such radical action. The
rule is in essence protecting the repeal of a fundamental part of our
voting rights law; it should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
If we truly want to encourage people to speak English, then English
training for all who seek it should be available. However, the majority
denied our request that an amendment for that purpose be made in order.
We were also denied the right to vote on striking another major
provision in the bill, the section permitting any individual to sue in
Federal court if they believe this legislation has been violated.
We do not believe there is a need for this new right to sue,
especially when so much of our effort in this Congress have been to
discourage the wave of litigation that seems to be sweeping over the
country. This is a serious issue that Members will not have the
opportunity to vote on under this restrictive rule.
We also asked earlier that the amendment of the gentleman from Puerto
Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo] be made in order to provide that any agency
can communicate orally or in writing in a language other than English
if doing so will assist the agency in doing its work. This is clearly
essential to protect the rights of so many of our citizens, yet our
request to make the amendment in order was denied.
Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that allowing votes on only 4 of the
over 20 Democratic amendments submitted is far or reasonable. We feel
strongly that the four amendments I have just described, as well as
several others offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]
to exempt from the bill's provisions actions or documents from the IRS
and the Social Security Administration should be part of this debate.
Clearly, if the majority is willing to make an amendment in order to
allow Members of Congress to communicate orally and in writing in a
language other that English, then the Martinez amendments giving the
same rights to agencies that serve so many of our senior citizens
should have been permitted as well.
The bill denies many of those citizens the right to understand
clearly and completely some of the most basic functions of their
Government, and the functions that affect them most personally and
directly. We are especially disappointed that the majority was
unwilling to give Members the opportunity to correct that serious
failure in the bill.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, we repeat that we find it difficult to
understand the reason for this legislation. The use of languages other
than English to meet the needs of language minorities in this country
does not pose a threat to English because it is already in fact, of
course, recognized as the primary language of this country.
But language alone in not the basis for nationhood. Americans are
united by principles enumerated by our Constitution and the Bill of
Rights: freedom of speech, representative democracy, respect for due
process, and equality of protection under the laws. The legislation
this rule would make in order is contrary, we believe, to each of those
principles.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, we strongly oppose this rule and the bill
that it makes in order. We urge our colleagues to defeat the rule so at
least some more amendments might be made in order. It is the only
proper and fair action we can take.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding
and I rise in support of this rule. This is a subject that generates
much emotion from all sides--and I applaud this rule for allowing those
with opposing views a fair opportunity to be heard.
In my opinion, the uniqueness of America stems from the fact that,
although we are a Nation of immigrants hailing from all parts of the
world, we have guiding principles enshrined in our Constitution that
focus on what we have in common, not what divides us. Throughout the
history of this great melting pot, we have demonstrated to the world
that it is possible to preserve individual liberties, to uphold the
traditions of a vast array of cultural heritages and to still weave a
fabric of society that is uniquely American.
But Mr. Speaker, things have changed in recent years. Our society
seems less committed to the idea of a melting pot, less able to focus
on the common threads within the fabric of our American society. And
that is why we are considering this legislation--because we want to
reinforce the English language as one of those threads.
English is, and has always been, the official voice of America. H.R.
123 reaffirms this principle by setting out that the Federal Government
will conduct its official business in English--with reasonable
exceptions to protect the public health and safety, promote trade and
commerce, uphold national security, conduct language education and
preserve the integrity of our criminal justice system. I would like to
emphasize that this legislation does not preempt any State or local
laws. This legislation eliminates the burdensome unfunded mandate of
required bilingual ballots, which was originally established by the
Voting Rights Act, and which I have long opposed. While the premise of
increasing access to the electoral system was well-intentioned, the
implementation has become an expensive burden. It has also created
unanticipated consequences, including discrimination against English-
deficient voters who do not happen to live in heavily concentrated
minority areas. I have always believed that the Federal Government
should neither require nor prohibit the use, by local communities, of
local funds to communicate with their citizens in languages other than
English. Repealing the bilingual ballot requirement is an important
step in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 123 underscores that English is our national
language without unduly interfering with the ability of States and
localities to deal with their own unique language needs. Reaffirmation
of our common language is something a substantial majority of Americans
have asked us to do--and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and
this bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].
(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, language is an intensely personal form
of self-expression. We use it to articulate the full range of human
thought and emotion. We use it to convey our thoughts on philosophy. We
use it to convey our thoughts on theology and political ideals. We use
it to convey sorrow, anger and forgiveness, and we use it to express
love for one another.
[[Page H9730]]
I think that this bill does precisely the opposite. Instead of being
an expression of love for all of the citizens in the Nation, it is the
setting aside of those citizens that may not have the proficiency in a
language that is a common language of our Nation that others have. It
curtails their access and availability of services in the government
and to exercise their rights and the fulfillment of their duties and
obligations.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if Members are aware of how many documents
can be published, if necessary, in other languages, to inform the
public. For instance, Social Security for elderly citizens. We have
information about what Social Security is all about. Survivors'
benefits. Social Security, what an individual needs to know when they
get retirement survivors. Social Security benefits for children with
disabilities. Social Security, if an individual is blind, how can we
help.
All of these and many, many, many more reports and information are
published in other languages when the recipient, when the citizen does
not know English well enough. And we do have citizens that do not know
English or speak it very little.
In Puerto Rico, we were made citizens in 1917 by law, and we were not
asked for the language we spoke, nor have we been asked what language
we speak when we are drafted to go in the armed services and service
the Nation.
In the Korean war, for instance, we were No. 4 in deaths, even though
we were number 25 in population. And how many of those soldiers that
were defending the Nation died because maybe they did not understand
the orders.
They say that this is done to promote efficiency in English. We do
not promote by obligating; we promote by stimulating. We promote by
providing opportunities for people to educate themselves, to learn the
English. Nothing is being proposed here to stimulate or further
encourage or even fund the teaching of English.
I oppose the approval of this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], who has worked on this issue for many, many
years.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me
this time, and I appreciate the fine and the fair rule that the
Committee on Rules has brought to the floor.
I wish we had more time to debate the issue, but I know at this time
that we have a good deal of pressing legislation issues before us.
This is an historic day. I frankly have told many people who have
doubted this day would ever come to have faith, that the day would come
when the American people's wishes were going to be heard. In every
single survey that has been taken on whether English should be our
official language, 90 to 97 percent of the people say, yes, English
should be our official language, which basically means when we vote,
when an individual works with the Federal Government, that we do it in
the English language.
The people have spoken and the Congress has listened, and now we can
say that Congress has as much common sense as the American people.
We are people from every corner of the globe. We represent every
religion, every ethnic group, every Nation under the Sun, but we are
one nation, we are one people. Why? Because we have a wonderful
commonality, a common glue, called the English language.
Now, in some 80 nations around the world they have official
languages; 63 nations have English as the official language, and other
nations have various other languages, of course.
The gentleman who just spoke before me is from Puerto Rico. Some of
the finest people in the world live in Puerto Rico. But in Puerto Rico
they have Spanish as their official language, and rightly so. They
should have that right. In Mexico, they have Spanish as their official
language. And again, rightly so.
Now, in this country we are told by the National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education that by the turn of the century, one out of seven
Americans will look at English as a foreign language.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as has been said before, in America, we have always
had the idea that we are the melting pot, that we are all the same. We
do not believe in hyphenated Americans. We are all equal American.
America must continue to be the melting pot. A Nation like America
cannot be made up of groups. American is made up of individuals. As
Woodrow Wilson said, as long as you consider yourself a part of a
group, you are still not assimilated into American society, because
America, like other nations, is made up of individuals and not made up
of groups.
So today, in this debate, we are discussing this issue from the
perspective of over 200 years of American history, of our culture and
the things we hold dear. We should look around us in this Chamber
today. All of us can take part in this debate. Why? Because we have all
adopted English as our language, and this bill will allow us to do that
25, 50, and 100 years from now. Without this bill, we could not do
that.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say the previous
speaker, who stated that Puerto Rico has Spanish as the official
language; in Puerto Rico, both languages are official, Spanish and
English. And there are no requirements that we cannot publish in any
other languages any official documents. There is no prohibition.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's comments.
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that some of the very people that will
speak out in behalf of this English-only bill today are the very people
who just a few weeks ago voted to cut education programs that helped
young American schoolchildren learn English, voted against Head Start
programs, voted against adult education funding programs that helped
adults even speak English, voted to cut funding for title I that help
our low-income Spanish speaking children in Texas learn how to speak
English.
To me, in any language, that rhetoric versus that action does not
make sense.
It seems to me that the question today is not whether American
citizens should be encouraged to learn English, because we all agree
that is the language of our country. The question today is what is the
best way to encourage and help our citizens become English proficient.
I would suggest English plus is a much better approach than English
only. I would suggest that debating education funding would be a better
way to spend our time today than debating English only.
The English-only bill before this House today is unnecessary, it is
insulting, it is divisive, and it is discriminatory. It is unnecessary
because I hardly believe the future of the American republic is at
jeopardy because 3 percent of our population speak another language.
It is insulting to millions of Americans, whether intended or not,
Americans whose cultures are a part of the fabric of our Nation. To
Hispanic-Americans in my home State, this kind of bill brings back the
terrible, painful memories when years ago little Hispanic
schoolchildren were segregated on the playgrounds and ostracized
because they spoke the language, Spanish, of their parents, their
families, and their grandparents.
This bill is divisive because in a country of many cultures where we
come together, it pits one group against another. Hispanic-Americans
and others see this bill as an attack on their culture, upon their
values, and, yes, even upon their families.
At a time when we need to bring Americans together by building
bridges rather than building barriers between different peoples, this
bill separates us and tears us apart.
This bill is discriminatory because it says to many of the elderly in
America who have worked hard, supported their families, never been on
welfare, and have paid taxes for 20 or 30 or 40 years that we want to
make it more difficult for them to vote and to exercise their right as
a citizen to participate in this democracy.
Mr. Speaker, for all of those reasons, this bill should not be passed
into the law of this land.
[[Page H9731]]
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day, a day in which Congress focuses
on those things which unite us as a country, and those which expand the
horizons of opportunity for all of our citizens. The English Language
Empowerment Act has nothing to do with fear, nothing to do with
linguistic cleansing and nothing to do with targeting minority
populations for political gain. My support of declaring the English
language to be the official language of the Federal Government is based
on two simple principles: unity and opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning our Nation has recognized that
The prosperity of the people of America depended on their
continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and
efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly
directed to that object.
.Now this observation was not made by me, these are the words of
wisdom in the Federalist Papers by John Jay, our country's first Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court.
John Jay went on to say:
I have * * * often taken notice that Providence has been
pleased to give this one connected country to one united
people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking
the same language * * * attached to the same principles of
government, very similar in their manners and customs, and
who by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side
by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly
established their general liberty and independence.
Based on this premise for the past two centuries, we have forged a
nation out of our different peoples by emphasizing our common beliefs,
our common ideals, and perhaps most importantly, our common language.
Our English language has permitted this country to live up to our
national motto, ``e pluribus unum''--out of many, one. For most of our
Nation's history, the English language has been the key to integrating
new Americans as well as the glue that has held our people together. It
is in this spirit that this bill has been devised to secure English's
central place in our society by making it America's official language.
Now, this devotion to unity and to the English language is not
founded upon any bedrock of racism, mean spiritedness or division.
Rather it is premised on the belief that our strength in unit can best
be preserved through the prevention of divisions along linguistic or
cultural lines such as encountered by Canada with Quebec.
Now what do I mean by divisions along linguistic lines? These
divisions are not between people, but between opportunities. Americans
who do not know English, are segregated from those who do, separated
from everything the United States and its precious Constitution stands
for. A declaration of English as the official language is necessary to
demonstrate that the Federal Government's goal is to desegregate these
Americans.
Yesterday in the Rules Committee we heard hours of testimony from
members with deeply held concerns with this bill.
Some were puzzled over what problem this bill was trying to solve;
others claimed proponents of the bill were afraid that the English
language was facing extinction in the United States. Well, let's be
clear. This bill is intended to ensure that no American citizen, no
matter what their cultural background, no matter whether they live in
Puerto Rico, or Iowa, has to be trapped in a linguistic box, kept away
from the tools of opportunity. This is the land of opportunity and the
language of the land of opportunity is English. There should be no
ambiguity about this fact. Current projections show that by the year
2050 more than 20 million people in this country will not be able to
speak English well or at all.
That's 20 million people unable to even try to attain the American
dream.
The usage and understanding of English is the key to economic and
educational opportunity in America. Therefore we as the Federal
Government must promote and enhance the ability of all Americans, no
matter what their heritage, to read, speak, and understand this
language of opportunity. According to a study done by Dr. Richard
Vedder and Dr. Lowell Galloway of Ohio University it was found that if
immigrant knowledge of English were raised to that of native-born
Americans, their income levels would increase by $63 billion a year. It
was also concluded that the current situation has trapped 1.5 million
immigrants in poverty. The simple truth is that those who cannot
function in our country's predominant language are less able to find
jobs.
As a result, they are cheated of the opportunity for improvement and
happiness that America promises to millions. This bill places the
Federal Government in the affirmative position of saying this tragedy
is not going to continue.
Furthermore, this bill has nothing to do with what languages we speak
in our home, church or organization, or what foreign languages we may
wish to learn. This establishes English as the official language of the
government, not the private sector. Many of my good friends have
expressed the hardships with which their families have sought to learn
English while retaining their native tongue.
I applaud them for their efforts and I do not want them to stop doing
this. In fact, Americans should strive to learn other languages as a
way of expanding their understanding of the entire world. However, this
should not be at the expense of our common tongue.
Winston Churchill once said ``the gift of a common language is a
priceless inheritance.'' According to a USA Today poll taken in 1993,
97 percent of the American population agreed with Winston Churchill and
supported making English the official language of Government. A more
recent study found that 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of
immigrants want to make English the official language.
Now some of my colleagues have claimed that this bill preys upon
linguistic minorities in this country, reminding us that Alexis de
Tocqueville warned that the danger of democracy was that a majority
could exercise tyranny over a minority. While I acknowledge that this
is a serious concern, I would also remind my colleagues that before de
Toqueville gave this warning he also stated that ``the tie of language
is, perhaps the strongest and the most durable that can unite
mankind.'' Promoting this tie of language is not an attack on
minorities, nor is it an act of self-preservation but it is a ramp to
expanded opportunity and freedom for all Americans.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it must be understood why this bill goes
farther than just declaring English to be the official language of
government. Yes, it does repeal the bilingual ballot requirement, yes
it does require the Federal Government to conduct its written business
in English and yes it does require the INS to hold its naturalization
ceremonies in English. Do you know why? It is because America is
composed of people who have for centuries pulled themselves up by their
bootstraps with courage and a vision to pursue the opportunity that
America has to offer. All of us at one time or another were immigrants.
Our forefathers came here for the same reasons immigrants now come
ashore.
America is the land of opportunity and if the Government does not
remove the impediments to assuring that these immigrants receive the
keys to opportunity here, then I am afraid they will remain in what the
New York Times called a bilingual prison. Bilingual ballots, and INS
ceremonies and Government documents in other languages continue to
uphold the untruth that you can live in America, you can have access to
opportunity and you can achieve the American dream without being able
to speak English. The Government can no longer mislead the citizenry.
Mr. Speaker, I will close with the observation that 23 States have
established English as their official language, 80 countries only print
government documents in one language, 323 different languages are
currently spoken in the United States, a knowledge of English has been
a requirement of U.S. citizenship since 1811, and the bill before us
today is supported by the American Legion, the VFW, the Catholic War
Veterans, the National Grange, the General Federation of Women's Clubs
and many others.
[[Page H9732]]
This is a document of opportunity, a vision of unity and a
compassionate measure. It deserves America's strongest support.
{time} 1145
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as a public servant and educator, and
a mother, I think it would be a great disservice to our children to
make English the official language of the land, not only because of the
domestic and international ramifications that it would have, but more
so for the future of our children. It is time that as Americans we
understand what educators throughout the world already seem to know,
that proficiency in many languages ultimately results in increased
understanding of others, awareness of other cultures and traditions,
and ultimately improvements in our Nation's prosperity and welfare.
Today, as a nation, we stand together joined by English as our primary
language, and we hold hands as a nation, where our acceptance of
diversity has given us greatness.
Chief Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren once said, ``We are now at
the point where we must decide whether we are to honor the concept of a
plural society which gains strength through diversity, or whether we
are to have bitter fragmentation that will result in perpetual tension
and strife.''
As a Cuban-American who immigrated to this country in 1960, I was
granted the honor of living here in the United States, a nation where
differences, not similarities are the norm and, most of all, a nation
where for over 200 years this plural society has been the standard and
where speakers of different tongues and persons of diverse cultures,
ethnic backgrounds and walks of life have come with one goal: To live,
persevere, and succeed in the United States of America, the land of the
free and the melting pot of the world.
With the onset of the 104th Congress, there have been proposals made
by various of my colleagues that seek to make English the official
language of the United States of America and to eliminate bilingual
written and oral assistance for language minority voters. Persons who
have immigrated in the past, who do so in the present, and who will
continue to do so in the future, already understand that in order for
them to be able to do well in this great Nation of liberty and freedom,
where equality is the law of the land, they must learn English and no
law is needed to stress this. Moreover not only do over 97 percent of
Americans speak English, but newcomers to our great Nation are learning
English faster than ever, thereby making English as the official
language a moot point.
There are many benefits to having no official language in a country
renowned for our diversity and home to communities where many different
languages are heard. Among some of the benefits are those to public
health and safety, a better and improved educational system for our
children, the continuation of Government access to millions of
taxpaying citizens and residents and the creation of a more cohesive
American society.
Some would say that we are indeed a diverse nation, that we must
provide for a common heritage through the use of the English language.
Our heritage, however, is not so much English itself, but instead that
regardless of race, color, creed, and our language preference, we have
been given the honor of all being Americans.
The fact that we are all members of this great Nation and benefit
from its Democratic ideals and liberties is a far more cohesive bond
than any language could ever be.
From a more global perspective, it is obvious to all that America
today is undoubtedly one of the world's top economic powers. In an
everyday more globally interdependent world, where an astonishing four
out of five jobs are created through exports, it is necessary that
knowledge of other languages be encouraged in order to facilitate our
business with the rest of the world and not force others to deal with
us strictly in English. Establishing English as our official language
would serve to undermine our competitiveness on a global scale.
As a Florida certified teacher and a former owner of a bilingual
private school in south Florida, I know this bill will not facilitate
the transition for children who have already come to the United States
and do not have enough of a grasp of the language to understand
challenging subject matters. ``English only'' legislation would only
prove to be a disservice to these children instead of facilitating
their learning abilities.
Congressman McDade Acquitted
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Shuster was allowed to speak out of order
for 1 minute.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a very happy tear in my eye that
I announce the wire services are reporting that our colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has been acquitted of all
charges.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me just
add to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] said. Joe
McDade has been under investigation for 6 years; under indictment for 2
years; he has been hurt emotionally, physically, and they were
challenging the rights of the House during all this period of time.
Mr. Speaker, it really is a win for the House. The House sided with
him in every appeal, and I think this is a strong message that goes out
that the House of Representatives is a separate body. The jury
understood that. We represent people.
Mr. Speaker, Joe McDade is one of the finest individuals that I have
ever served with, and I have served with him for 23 years on two
separate committees, and day by day we sat together. And so I am just
delighted to see this, and as the dean of the Pennsylvania delegation,
I join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, in our
commendation and congratulations to Joe McDade, who is such a wonderful
individual, and to his family who suffered so much during this period
of time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would
yield, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] for the words that they spoke
today. The two of these gentlemen, as the deans of our delegations
respectively, Republican and Democrat, have been there for Joe as
friends over the past several very difficult years.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise and say it is a tribute to this
institution that so many Members of the House on a day-to-day basis
asked about Joe McDade, asked about his health, about his well-being,
about his family. And through a very difficult ordeal it was the
Members of this institution, people like the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Rangel, who I understand went up and testified as a character
witness for Joe McDade, that is a real testimony to the character of
this institution.
So, Mr. Speaker, I applaud not just his verdict but the fact that all
of us did not cut and run when Joe McDade had a charge levied against
him. All of us who know Joe personally stood by his side through thick
and thin, and all of us can share in that joy today, both Republicans
and Democrats.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. King].
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding and before I begin my remarks, let me also join the House in
congratulating the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]. I am so
delighted his long nightmare is over.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the
underlying bill. For the first 180 years of our Nation, immigrants came
to our shores knowing that they had to learn the English language to
become part of the American mainstream. They maintained their own
cultures, their own traditions, their own religion, their own beliefs,
their own parades, their own festivals, but they were bound together by
the English language.
Growing up in New York City in the 1940's and 1950's, I witnessed
this firsthand. I saw the beautiful American mosaic of all the
different cultures and belief, bound together with the glue of a common
language. Unfortunately, in the past 45 years we have gotten away from
that. We have bilingual education, bilingual voting, bilingual programs
one on top of the other, which
[[Page H9733]]
results in dividing us as a Nation, dividing us by language.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to come together as a nation, if we are going
to build bridges and reassert and reestablish that beautiful American
mosaic, it is essential that this bill be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] for the work they have done
over the years. I urge all Members to vote for the bill and vote for
the rule.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].
(Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule here
today and its misguided effort to legislate the very obvious: That this
Nation already speaks English.
For anyone living in this country, engaging in commerce, seeking an
education, or simply just traveling, English is the common language. On
the WorldWide Web, English is the official de facto language. The
majority of international commerce is conducted in English. Students
from around the world vie for a U.S. education and a chance to learn
English, and in places with high immigrant populations like my district
in Los Angeles, the demand for learning English is so high that people
must wait months and, yes, years to attend oversubscribed English
classes.
In an age of increased global competition, we should be nurturing our
Nation's most valued treasures, the wealth of cultural knowledge and
foreign language skills. And today, some of my colleagues would prevent
us from capitalizing on the wealth this Nation has accumulated.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot be afraid of language. Language is knowledge.
Yes, my friends, we should encourage and I stress ``encourage,'' not
legislate, that Americans learn and speak English. But a mandate of
this sort that we are considering today could only be described as a
veiled intolerance toward non-English-speaking Americans. It is
unconstitutional. It is un-American.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take a look at the lawmakers
outside of the beltway that have looked at the practical effects of
this legislation. Both Governor Bush of Texas and Governor Whitman of
New Jersey have spoken out against ``English only'' mandates. They
realize that Americans are an asset and should not be shunned for their
language deficiencies.
We are a nation blessed with many differences, and I ask all of my
colleagues to look up at the ceiling and read the inscription up there,
``E pluribus unum,'' which means ``Out of many, one.'' We are one
because our Constitution and its lasting democratic principles has done
this for us.
Our Nation should look to the world with pride for our Nation's
differences and we should capitalize on that, and so I urge my
colleagues to heed my call for tolerance and work toward the goal of
enhancing English as the common language. We should not be mandating
it. It is divisive. It is dividing us. It is not the glue that brings
us together. The glue that holds America together is the democracy that
we practice. It is the tolerance, it is the diversity that we enjoy.
{time} 1200
This kind of legislation is unnecessary and is divisive. I urge a
``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from California, out
of many, one. On this side we believe that one means language, too,
which is English.
I would like to quote for him and others the late Senator Hayakawa,
who said, ``America is an open society, more open than any other in the
world. People of every race, of every color, of every culture are
welcomed here to create a new life for themselves and their families.
And what do these people who enter into the American mainstream have in
common? English, our shared common language.''
For that reason, I rise in strong support of the rule. This Nation of
course is a melting pot, finding its strength in our citizens' unique
diversity. However, we all share a common unifying bond, our English
language. Mastering a nation's original native language is critical to
succeeding in a society because it provides one with the opportunity to
excel. This is not to say that the study of foreign languages should be
discouraged. Quite the contrary, being fluent in a second or third
language opens, more often than not, doors to new opportunities and
experiences. But if the English language is not the top priority, the
doors in our own Nation will remain closed to some, and they will be
left behind. When one discourages another from learning English, they
ensure that the non-English-speaking individual is denied their chance
at attaining the great American dream.
In a time when college graduates still have difficulty finding
employment, what is left for those individuals who cannot communicate
proficiently in English? While we continue to cherish the very cultures
and heritage of the people that comprise this Nation, we need to have
one language that unites and defines us as Americans if we are to
ensure our continued success.
Mr. Speaker, we need to communicate in one official language and that
is English. That is why I urge support of the rule.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
rule and the bill. Historically Americans have struggled to build a
democratic society in which all citizens have equal access and
opportunity. To ensure that every citizen was informed, our forefathers
printed Government documents in German, French, and other languages. In
1975, the Nixon-Ford administration recognized the importance of an
informed electorate and successfully led the fight for bilingual
ballots to help eliminate discrimination in the electoral process.
Given our country's great history, it is a disgrace that we have this
divisive and unnecessary bill before us, divisive in that it denies
American citizens who are not yet proficient in English the right to
access Government information in their native language, unnecessary in
that 95 percent of U.S. residents already speak English.
The bill's premise is also flawed. The common thread binding
Americans is not only a common language but the quest for democracy,
freedom, and justice for all.
This bill breaks all strands of that common thread by dividing
American citizens and unraveling civil rights in the name of national
unity.
Let us uphold the tradition of respect for the fabric of diversity
that makes this country great. Let us defeat the rule and this bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 123,
the English Language Empowerment Act of 1996.
This bill declares English to be the official language of the
Government of the United States. It will require the Federal Government
to conduct its official business in English including all citizenship
naturalization ceremonies. The American people, including new citizens,
have long championed the notion of making English our official
language. To date, 22 States--including my home State of Louisiana--
have already declared English their official language. It is time to
make English the Nation's official language.
The bill also amends the Voting Rights Act to end Federal mandates
for bilingual ballots. This will put an end to the unfunded mandate of
requiring States to print ballots in different languages. Since 1975,
States with certain populations of language minorities are required to
print ballots in the native language of the minority. Currently, 375
voting districts in 21 States are now required by Federal law to
provide voting ballots and election material in foreign languages--6
languages alone were on the ballot in the last mayoral election in Los
Angeles. While there are some who believe this is worthy and necessary,
the measure is dividing our Nation along ethnic lines. In addition, it
is also unduly burdening the States and opening the system to potential
fraud.
The issue of voter fraud disturbs me greatly. I fear bilingual
ballots only help those who resolve to steal elections. According to
the 1990
[[Page H9734]]
Census, California has 4.4 million non-citizens, Florida has 949
thousand non-citizens. Texas has over a million non-citizens, and New
York has 1.5 million non-citizens. In 1982, a Chicago grand jury
reported that ``* * * many aliens register to vote so they can obtain
documents identifying them as U.S. citizens * * * These aliens used
their voter's card to obtain myriad benefits, from Social Security to
jobs with the Defense Department.'' Unfortunately, many of these same
individuals also vote. With the ballots printed in their native
languages, its easy for crooks to convince these individuals--many of
whom are unaccustomed to U.S. election laws--that it is okay for them
to vote.
We are an English speaking Nation. Most citizens understand this and,
in fact, support this reality. Since 1906, all U.S. citizens are
required by law to be able to comprehend English. And, since 1950, all
U.S. citizens must demonstrate an understanding of English, including
an ability to read, write and speak words in ordinary English usage.
However, there are currently 323 languages spoken in the United
States--115 languages alone spoken in the New York City Schools. Forty
million Americans will be nonEnglish language proficient by the year
2000. To keep America one Nation, one people we must have one common
language.
Opponents of making English our official language claim that certain
ethnic groups do not understand English and therefore must be
accommodated. Well, since the 1960's, the Federal Government has been
spending millions of taxpayer dollars on programs that teach English to
nonEnglish speaking individuals. In addition, the Federal Government
mandates that States and local governments also spend taxpayer money to
teach English to nonEnglish speaking individuals. In 1995 alone, the
Federal Government spent over $200 million on such programs. And, when
you include State and local mandated spending for such programs, the
amount skyrockets to $8 billion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, something is obviously not working. It is becoming
more and more evident that teaching children in their native, foreign
language hinders their ability to learn English. Printing ballots in
foreign languages does the same. Let's not perpetuate an already bad
problem by officially recognizing languages other than English.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in
support of the bill and would point to some of the change in my
pockets, which the saying is on some of our currency, e pluribus unum,
out of many comes one.
The fact of the matter is that America is built on many cultural
societies who have come together in unity and in an attempt to build
one great Nation. Whether it ultimately ended up as English speaking or
Spanish speaking is a matter of history. We are an English speaking
Nation. It does not mean that people of Spanish heritage cannot
treasure their heritage or speak Spanish at home. Likewise, Haitians or
Iranians or Iraqis or people of any culture in this great country of
ours can respect their cultures at home and in their communities and
can speak in bilingual fashion. But to say that we will become a Nation
of many official languages is to run a risk that no longer will we be
unified as a Nation.
In fact, Canada in recent years has experienced exactly that problem.
they started recognizing French as an official language, as part of one
major segment of the country. Now we see that Canada is on the verge of
breakup, of disruption, within a matter of 5 to 10 years may not be a
single nation, may be a segment of several different nations.
I would not want to see that happen to the United States. We went
through one great Civil War. We do not need to go through any more.
This country has fought, has spilled blood to provide for a single
Nation. We will remain that way if we speak one official language. I
urge adoption of the rule and passage of the bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewomen from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
rule and to the bill. There is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court a
contest on a constitutional provision added by referendum to the State
of Arizona Constitution which falls along similar lines. The lower
Federal court in the State of Arizona, as well as the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in looking at the provision that had been put
into the Constitution, both unanimously held that the provision which
called for English only, requiring all public employees to communicate
with constituents only in English constituted a violation of the first
amendment and that it was a denial of free speech.
It is on this basis that I rise in opposition to the rule and to the
bill. This legislation, though it is called an enhancement policy, in
essence translates a feeling in this country about the importance of
English, into a prohibition against the Government and its employees in
the exercise of their duties to communicate in other than in English.
When we took office we took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
This, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to be the fundamental obligation of
this body. Through the Committee on Rules and through our deliberations
in our committees, the Constitution should be our guide and we should
not enact, support, legislate in any way that deprives fundamental
liberties in this country. Sure, every parent wants their child to
succeed, to be prosperous. And the only proven way in this country to
do that is to be proficient in English. So, the obligation of this
Congress and of this Nation is to encourage it.
Yes, I think we all believe that English is the common language of
this country and in order to succeed here in trade and commerce, in all
of our professions, we ought to be proficient in English. But this bill
goes for beyond that. It does not enhance our democracy. It restricts
it. It confines the duties of this Government to only those people who
speak English.
In fact, there is a section in this bill that says every other law
that has been passed by the Congress from the beginning of this Nation
to the present time which may require communication in languages other
than in English only is hereby repealed.
This Nation has been for open Government, for equal access, to take
everybody who is here legally in this country and to accord them equal
protection of the laws. This legislation does not do this. I hope that
the Congress will not pass a law which is so divisive. The goal of this
country is to unite behind the principles of democracy and not to go
contrary to the Constitution.
MODIFICATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 IN HOUSE REPORT 104-734 TO H.R. 123,
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 1996
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1
printed in the report on the rule may be offered in the following
modified form:
At the beginning of the amendment, insert:
Page 1, line 4, insert before ``English'' the words ``Bill
Emerson''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 123.
Our country has a historic tradition of receiving immigrants from all
around the world. H.R. 123 builds on that tradition and binds us
together through the use of English as a common language.
Over the past 20 years the Federal Government has increased the
number of languages in which it publishes documents and conducts
official duties.
This has led to a de facto multilanguage policy which is very
expensive for the taxpayer.
H.R. 123 declares English to be the official language of the United
States Government and serves to unit us even more as a Nation.
All of us would agree that knowing English is a key to success in the
United States.
A 1994 study of Southeast Asian refugees in Texas showed that those
who knew English earned more than 20 times the annual income of those
who did not speak English.
Knowing English will open a broad range of opportunities that would
otherwise be unattainable.
This bill fosters and encourages everyone to learn English.
Encouraging immigrants to learn English is the compassionate thing to
do and this bill does that.
Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest reasons why I am rising in support of
this bill is because it is what my mother would want me to do. She
passed away in 1991, but she was born to Italian
[[Page H9735]]
American immigrants and spoke Italian as her first language.
She always taught me that this move towards multilingualism in the
United States was bad and divisive. On my way over here I was speaking
to another Member who told me his high school now conducts official
proceedings in two different languages. I think that is wrong. I think
the language that binds us together is English, and my mother was
right. I encourage everyone to support the rule and to support the
bill.
Mr. Speaker. As a cosponsor of H.R. 123, The English Language
Empowerment Act, I rise in strong support of this bill. We are proud of
our Nation's ability to assimilate people from around the world into
one cohesive society. The purpose of H.R. 123 is to build upon our
Nation's historic tradition as a melting pot of diverse cultures from
around the world, and to bind us together through the use of English as
a common language. This bill establishes a much needed uniform
Government language policy, promotes assimilation, saves taxpayers
money, and empowers immigrants to realize the American Dream for
themselves.
This bill is needed because currently the Federal Government does not
have a uniform national language policy on publishing documents or
conducting its business. Whether documents are published in a foreign
language depends in large part upon which particular Federal statute is
involved. In addition, over the past 20 years the Federal Government
has increased the official duties it performs in other languages
resulting in a very costly de facto multi-language policy. This bill
corrects this piecemeal approach by establishing English as the
official language of the United States Government and requires the
Government to conduct all its official business in English.
H.R. 123 will not only establish a uniform national language policy
for the Government, but it will promote assimilation of immigrants,
rather than isolation and separation. The current policy fails to
encourage recent immigrants to learn English. The failure to encourage
immigrants to earn English may be the easy thing to do, but it is not
the compassionate thing to do. The compassionate thing to do is to
encourage immigrants to learn English. A firm grasp of the English
language is a key to succeeding in America.
Learning English not only helps immigrants assimilate, it is the key
to having the opportunity to realize the American Dream. Studies show
that people who learn English earn more for their families, and confirm
that the ability to speak English can make the difference between a
low-wage job and a high-wage managerial, professional, or technical
job. In 1994, the Texas Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs
publicized a study of Southeast Asian refugees in Texas. The study
showed that individuals proficient in English earned more than 20 times
the annual income of those who did not speak English. H.R. 123 empowers
each new generation of immigrants the opportunity to realize the
American dream.
Nothing in this bill would in any way limit the ability to
individuals to speak their native tongue. This bill simply limits
official Government business to the English language.
Not only does this bill benefit the immigrant, it also benefits the
taxpayer. There are hundreds of languages spoken in the United States.
According to the GAO, The Federal Government already prints many
documents in foreign languages including Spanish, Portuguese, French,
Chinese, German, Italian, Russian, and others. For American taxpayers
the question is where does the printing of these documents in foreign
languages stop? This bill ensures that all Americans can count on one
language for Government action, polices, documents and proceedings.
In conclusion, I support H.R. 123 because it helps recent immigrants
by opening up to them a land of opportunity. It will stop the trend
towards the separation and isolation. It will encourage assimilation.
In supporting this bill I stand with 86 percent of Americans and 81
percent of immigrants who want to make English the official language of
the United States.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to
the legislation for a multiplicity of reasons.
One is that I saw a friend of mine recently, and this bill is making
us the laughing stock of the world. He said, you Americans are going to
speak English? I said, We do. But you are going to make it the official
language? It is. This just puts it a line on a piece of paper.
My district begins with Hispanics, what we call Anglos, Czech,
Slovak, German, Polish, little Hungarian. That is the makeup of my
district in south Texas.
All of them speak English. All of us speak English in one form or
another. But this is mean spirited, I do not care how we camouflage it.
It is aiming at someone. It is aiming at a group in California or some
other place. We do not want this. We do not want any more immigrants.
We are going to shut it out.
What are we going to do to the Statue of Liberty? I guess erase what
it says on there.
This is a problem that we have. This is mean spirited. It is
camouflage. It is trying to stop people from doing something.
English is the language of this country. That is what we speak. That
is what we do. Everyone does that. My congressional district, we are
teaching the kids. But do you want to stop something? Why do the big
companies spend millions of dollars in Spanish on the billboards? To
sell their product, to sell their product.
{time} 1215
Mr. Speaker, saying that the Government of the United States has to
function solely in English is ridiculous, it is absurd.
Now let me tell my colleagues something. President Reagan stood in
front of the wall in Berlin and says, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this
wall.'' Had bailing wire and bricks and mortar; it was torn down.
We are going to rebuild the Berlin Wall around the United States of
America. Not going to be bricks and mortar; it is going to be something
called ``English only.'' We are going to build a wall around us, and my
colleagues will live to regret the day.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, America is a nation of immigrants. Some
came with knapsacks on their shoulders, some came in chains and leg
irons.
But one thing America is not. America is not a nation of separation.
All our citizens are Americans. The common denominator is our language.
Our language is English. The glue that binds generation after
generation is both our Constitution and our English language.
Supporting programs that teach English, in my opinion, is not enough.
Congress must insure that America does not become a nation of separate
communities, separate tongues.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say it is time to stop the politics of fear,
politics of hate, politics of division. It is one America, one people,
one community, one Nation under God I might add, and to best achieve
those goals, ideals, and rights I believe is one official language.
If someone else can make a better case for another language, I will
listen.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I support this bill and urge
the Congress to do so as well for the sake of unity.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 123, the
English Language Empowerment Act. H.R. 123 provides encouragement for
immigrants to learn English.
Today, when many immigrants reach our shores, they settle in
neighborhoods largely inhabited by people who speak their native
language. This is understandable, as it is much easier and more
comfortable to associate with people of the same culture speaking a
familiar language. However, to gain the full benefits of coming to this
great land, it is imperative to learn the English language. Learning
English is necessary in order for immigrants to build a better future
for themselves and their families.
Many of the bill's opponents claim that H.R. 123 will isolate our
recent immigrants from the rest of society. When in fact, it
accomplishes the exact opposite--it brings us together as a nation
united under one common language.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 123.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
[[Page H9736]]
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this
legislation.
Few Members here today on both sides of this debate would argue the
fact that the United States is a country of immigrants, each of whom,
through both their differences and similarities, have contributed a
great deal to the fabric of our society. As the granddaughter of Polish
immigrants, I can attest to this fact.
But the debate we are having today is not about our differences, it
is about our similarities. I am proud of my heritage--as are the many
ethnic groups that make up the enormous cultural diversity of this
Nation. My grandparents and parents spoke Polish at home when I was
growing up and I do not believe anyone here today will argue against
the practice of communicating in a language other than English. But
they understood that mastering the English language was the key to
opportunity, success, and prosperity in the United States.
It simply makes sense to make English the official language of the
United States, and vast amounts of Americans agree. In 1986, 73 percent
of California voters overwhelmingly supported an amendment to the
Constitution to establish English as the official language of
California. So because of that, I would ask that we strongly support
this legislation.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, all morning we have been told that the
reason we are having this bill is because people are divided and
English being official would bring us together.
But this bill only does one thing. It prohibits a Federal public
official from corresponding in a written form to his or her
constituents. That is all it does.
And, Mr. Speaker, the basic problem with this bill is that it is
unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit of the United States has found that
such a bill is unconstitutional for two reasons: In many cases
sometimes a public official has to correspond in a language other than
English because it is essential for communication; and to have an
effective government, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have to communicate in
a language other than English.
This is all that the bill does. It is unconstitutional and I would
ask Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, that is not all this bill does. Only
one-tenth of 1 percent of all Federal documents go out under current
law. But law is more than just law, it is symbology.
How many of my colleagues watched Kerri Strug in the Olympics win a
gold medal? When seeing that American flag come down, I bet many of my
colleagues had tears in their eyes. That was powerful. That was power.
That empowered not only Kerri Strug and the gold winners, but the
American people.
How many of my colleagues have ever witnessed or participated in a
swearing-in ceremony? I have, many of them; and I want to tell my
colleagues when they stand up and they hold up their hand, that is
powerful and it is strong and it empowers those immigrants and the rest
of the American citizens. That is important. It is not just law, it is
empowerment of our children.
Mr. Speaker, I look at over and over, there are 320 languages, over a
thousand dialects, and the reason for the bill, this is the Bill
Emerson bill, that there is an increasing number of American citizens
that do not understand, write, or communicate orally with the English
language, and we are saying that in the thirties and the forties and
the fifties there was a different attitude, that when one came they
learned English, and over a period of time that number is reduced, and
we want to empower our children.
We are not building a wall, we are tearing down a wall, because if I
was mean-spirited, I would say: Stay where you are. Don't learn the
English language. Stay wherever you want in your little communities and
not have a portion of the American dream.
But no, Mr. Speaker, we are not doing that.
Governor Clinton in Arkansas signed a bill just like this one. Eighty
nations in the world have signed their own language is a common
language.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, can my colleagues see the absurdity of
this Congress and this Nation having a debate such as this:
(Here, Member spoke in French.)
That is French in my own attempt. In Italian we could say:
(Here, Member spoke in Italian.)
And I will try it in Japanese, Mr. Speaker:
(Here, Member spoke in Japanese.)
The interpretation is one language is important for our country.
Now we can sit here and say and tell our children that it is not
important to have one, but it is absolutely absurd. Nations need a
common language.
My uncle was a Hungarian immigrant. He spoke eight different
languages. He was run out of Hungary by Nazi Germany. But he did not
come to America to say, ``You need to start speaking Hungarian.'' He
said, ``I'm going to start speaking English.'' He kept his Hungarian.
And my cousin Clare, who was born in Spain, knew some Hungarian, today
she knows Spanish. My sister Jean knows Italian. I minored in French.
My colleagues would not believe it by the way my pronunciation was just
then.
But the point is we have to have a common language in our country.
This is not mean-spirited, this is not malicious. It is absurd for
people who cannot come up with an intellectual argument to come back to
that same old line: mean-spiritedness. This is common sense. So, Mr.
Speaker, as we would say in Japan:
(Here, Member spoke in Japanese.)
In French:
(Here, Member spoke in French.)
In Italian:
(Here, Member spoke in Italian.)
Down home we say, ``We'll see you all later.''
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it
makes Americans not Americans. It is a bad rule and a bad bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 2\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
bill and the rule. I consider the bill a dangerous bill, and unlike my
colleague from Georgia, English is our common language. I admit, in
Texas we speak a little different English from maybe in Georgia and New
England, but we still speak English, and some Members in the House on
both sides say that we do not.
The reason for the opposition to this bill is that my colleagues talk
about the bill, saying it is a common language. That is not what the
bill says. If my colleagues brought a bill to the floor today that said
English is a common language, they would not have any opposition to it
because we would all agree with that.
What this bill does, though, is separate it, prohibit the use of
other languages, and even this rule that we have today is limiting our
freedom to debate on this bill. A lot of amendments Members submitted
to try and make this bill better and not so onerous were not allowed in
the Committee on Rules because of the modified closed rules we are
having, and once again we have a rule that we do not get to debate the
full bill itself.
English is our official language. My opposition said 99 percent of
the documents that are printed are printed in English. This is a
solution in search of a problem, Mr. Speaker. Our language classes for
English in my district and everywhere in the country are overflowing.
There is a waiting list now. They cannot advertise English language
classes in Houston because they cannot fill them, and yet these are the
same folks that cut education funding
[[Page H9737]]
for adult education. So do not come up and shed crocodile tears about
how people ought to learn English when they cut adult education to
people who want to learn English.
This bill should be amended to recognize that English is our common
language because that is what their debate is about, but it is not.
This rule divides us and this bill divides us as Americans, because we
share more than our language. We share our love of freedom and our
willingness to fight for that freedom, no matter what our language is.
And I thought that was aptly mentioned earlier by my colleague from
Puerto Rico.
{time} 1230
This bill divides our country, because we are united in more ways
than language. Again, I will share with my colleague from California,
he says ``Nothing typifies this more than the Olympic spirit,'' the
unity we see, not just from around the world, but from the United
States team in Georgia.
We are going into the 20th century, and here this is a bill that I
can imagine would have been debated last century. We are going into the
20th century, to try to make sure we can compete in the world and
compete everywhere, and yet we are going to punish someone in my office
who writes a letter back to someone in German?
I know there is an amendment to correct the bill, but it came out of
committee, to punish Members of Congress for contacting, in response to
people who write our office, whether it be in Spanish, Czech, German,
or Vietnamese. They are going to clean it up, but this bill should have
been worked on even more, because it is a bad bill and it is a bad
rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just say this is a modest attempt to
do what the people of this country have wanted for some time in
overwhelming numbers, to establish English as the first and official
language of this country.
For over 200 years, the glue that held the fabric of this society
together was a common language. Thirty years ago, we began to change
that. We began to deal with people in different languages. That
isolated them. This bill is going to bring them back together. The
isolation that was created by putting people in pockets of communities
that spoke a different language kept them apart and out of the American
dream. This is a modest effort to change that. I urge support for the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in
order under the rule to accommodate the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Could the gentleman clarify
his request?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is for the purpose of unanimous
consent, to change the language on one of the amendments, like we did
with Mr. Emerson.
Mr. BECERRA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure which amendment the gentleman is talking about.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is their side's amendment. I am
trying to accommodate the gentleman, not us.
Mr. BECERRA. Again, Mr. Speaker, if we could find out what the change
would be before we decide.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is right there before the gentleman.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, if I may
ask the gentleman a question, if the gentleman is just providing some
definition to ``Native American,'' is that the purpose of the
gentleman's amendment?
Mr. LINDER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I think it is
appropriate that we see what is precisely being tried before we decide
whether or not to object.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham] withdraws his unanimous-consent request.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the
resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 178, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 388]
YEAS--236
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--178
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
[[Page H9738]]
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--19
Brownback
Chapman
Conyers
Cox
Ford
Goss
Hayes
Hoke
Kasich
McCollum
McDade
Oberstar
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
Schumer
Skelton
Stark
Towns
Young (FL)
{time} 1252
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________