Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9738-H9772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 1996

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Pursuant to House
Resolution 499 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 123.

{time} 1257

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr.
Hansen in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Canady], and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, during the discussion on the rule, I am
afraid the American people may have gotten confused as to what
legislation is before us, because much of what was said has nothing to
do with the bill that came from our committee. Today we are voting on
H.R. 123, which is a bill introduced by the late Bill Emerson, former
distinguished Member of the body and a friend of many.
Mr. Chairman, there are many things in the bill that some people
think went too far. There are others that people think did not go far
enough. I think it is probably striking about the right balance. I say
that because this bill declares English the official language of the
Government, not of the private businesses, not of churches, not of
homes, not of neighborhoods; just the Government. Furthermore, it then
makes exceptions to the English requirement for the protection of
public health and safety, national security, international relations,
the teaching of language, the rights of victims of crime, certain
instances of civil litigation and others.
We have also included rules of construction to help clarify the
intent of the bill. So we have made a number of changes to the original
version of H.R. 123 which addresses the concerns for many Members.
After all, it is the English language that unites us, a Nation of many
different immigrants as one Nation.

Over and over again we see that it is the English language which
empowers each new generation of immigrants to access the American
dream. Declaring English the official language of Government is the
commonsense thing to do. We now have according to the Census Bureau,
over 320 different languages. The Federal Government already prints
materials in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Chinese, German, Italian,
Russian, Korean, Ukrainian, Cambodian, and others; and the taxpayers
says, where does it stop?
President Clinton himself, as Governor of Arkansas, signed
legislation making English the official language of the State of
Arkansas, and about half of the States have enacted the same kind of
legislation. Again I remind all, this legislation is English as the
official language of Government, not homes, not churches, not
neighborhoods, not the private sector.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter from the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] concerning his not appearing at the
committee markup on the final vote:

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
Chairman William Goodling,
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodling: Due to a speaking engagement with
constituents, I was unable to be present for the final vote
on reporting the Cunningham Substitute to H.R. 123 out of the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
I would like to note for the record that if I had been
present, I would have voted, ``nay.''
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Sawyer,
Member of Congress.

{time} 1300

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that learning English should be a priority goal
for all persons residing in the United States. In fact, there is
extremely high demand for English language classes. Immigrants
themselves recognize that in

[[Page H9739]]

order to better their own lot, and that of their families, learning
English is imperative. New arrivals to our shores flood English as a
second language classes. In Washington, DC, 5,000 immigrants were
turned away from English classes in the 1994 school year. In New York
City, schools have had to resort to a lottery to determine enrollment.
In Los Angeles, more than 40,000 applicants remain on waiting lists for
English classes. In my view, we should expand Federal support for
English as the second language and for bilingual education programs.
My Republican colleagues characterize this bill as commonsense
legislation. But it is neither common sense nor common decency to
mandate exclusive use of English while utterly failing to address the
practical need for adequate English-language preparation.
This bill is not a mere declaration of English as the official
language of the United States. It is hopelessly vague, ambiguous,
unnecessary, unconstitutional legislation, searching for a solution to
a nonproblem.
With so little time remaining on the legislative calendar, the
Republican majority has chosen to engage in an issue so potentially
divisive. Instead of empowering people in the use of English by
ensuring adequate funds for English as a second language classes, this
bill attempts to protect the English language as though it were under
some bizarre attack by other languages.

This bill will obstruct such basic Government functions as tax
collection, disaster preparation, water and resource conservation, and
execution of civil and criminal laws and regulations. What logical
public policy could this bill possibly support?
This fall, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument
regarding the constitutionality of an article in the Arizona
Constitution which declares English the official language of the State
and which mandates that all government business, with few exceptions,
be conducted only in English. In light of that, consideration of this
legislation is premature.
As a matter of national policy, we should support both expanded
opportunity to learn English and multilingualism. For that reason, I
wholeheartedly embrace the Serrano substitute which views the diversity
of our Nation, its people, its languages, and its cultures, as
something to celebrate, not something to fear and resist. The Serrano
substitute recognizes the benefits of multilingualism in protecting us
in war, furthering our ability to communicate with the nations of the
world, and enhancing our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3898 and to support the Serrano
English-Plus substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, this debate is totally
perplexing to me. It makes me wonder, are we speaking here in English
to each other or are we talking in foreign tongues? I do not understand
it.
We are a nation of immigrants. As I look around this Chamber, I see
the great melting pot personified by many of the Members in this House,
and I am no exception.
Of course my married name is Roukema, and my husband, in fact, is the
only member of his family who was not born in Holland. They came here
and were assimilated. My family name is Scafati. We were Italian-
American immigrants, my grandparents on both sides, and their decision
was to come to America and be integrated into society as soon as
possible. As a result, my grandparents and my parents learned English
ASAP. It was important for them.
The example of my parents and grandparents was clear, clear to me
then and clear to me now. They knew instinctively that English
proficiency was absolutely essential to their success, not because they
were not proud of their heritage but because they knew mastering the
language was important to them and that they should do it as quickly as
possible.
They knew that proficiency would help their family, their
neighborhood, and their whole community. Yes, they knew that English
proficiency was good for the overall well-being of society and for the
tradition, the more than 100 years tradition of the melting pot that
united all of us in our hopes and ideals as a nation. I must stress
this.
Now we must take this definitive step today to avoid that our Nation
should be so divided into many ethnic enclaves. I see that as a great
threat to our national unity.
This legislation is not meant to penalize or to hold segments of our
population back. Mr. Chairman, we are here to encourage people arriving
on our shores to be upwardly mobile and achieve economically and
socially in this new society.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in 1965, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act to
combat discrimination against African-Americans who were being
unconstitutionally denied the right to vote. It was not until 1975 that
Congress added a requirement mandating that certain jurisdictions
provide voting materials in languages other than English. The
underlying premise for this expansion of the law was that it was
somehow discriminatory to conduct an election in the English language.
Bilingual ballots were a means to remedy this alleged discrimination.
However, when the use of bilingual ballots was last mandated in 1992,
after 17 years of use, no statistical evidence was produced to show
that bilingual ballots had increased vote participation by language
minorities in any covered jurisdiction.
On April 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held a
hearing on what is now title II of the bill before the House. A number
of distinguished witnesses testified that our society is becoming
fragmented into linguistic ghettos, and federally mandated bilingual
ballots only encourage such fragmentation. These witnesses testified
that through the use of bilingual ballots, American citizens can
exercise the most public of rights while remaining apart from public
life.
Moreover, because of the arbitrary and mechanical formula of the
bilingual ballots mandate, there are many covered jurisdictions who are
required to print foreign language ballots which are never requested or
used. These election materials are simply thrown in the trash after
each election, but they must be printed due to the Federal mandate. In
certain jurisdictions the requirements of the law are extremely
burdensome. Los Angeles County is required under this Federal mandate
to conduct elections in six languages--in Chinese, Japanese,
Vietnamese, Tagalog, Spanish, and English. In the November 1994 general
election, Los Angeles County spent over $21 for each requested foreign
language ballot.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that repealing the Federal
bilingual ballot mandate will result in savings of $5 to $10 million
annually for covered State and local governments. The mandate is
expensive, ineffective, and wasteful.
Mr. Chairman, rather than enhancing participation in our political
system, the bilingual ballots requirement denies the essential
connection between meaningful participation in our national political
discourse and knowledge of the English language. Title II of H.R. 123
removes from the Voting Rights Act the practice of providing federally
mandated bilingual ballots, a practice which denies the common bond of
language that unites us as a people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3898.
Mr. Chairman, I have always worked, both as a teacher and as a
legislator, to promote the use of English in this country. The law of
necessity, of survival, the law of economic success are enough to
motivate people to learn English. We must provide the opportunity to
achieve proficiency in English.
We need but look at the bill to see that its provisions do not even
come

[[Page H9740]]

close to its intentions: that English is the official language of this
country and that its citizens should speak English. It does nothing to
reverse the results of 2 years of frontal attacks on the bilingual
education program which helps children learn English, and does nothing
to strengthen the adult education program which helps adults learn
English.
In the States and cities which are most heavily impacted by
immigrants, new entrants can languish for years on waiting lists to
enter English language programs. In Los Angeles there are 40,000
applicants for English language classes. In Washington, DC, the
Nation's Capital and the place in which this debate is taking place,
5,000 immigrants were turned away from English classes in 1 year alone.
Do my colleagues think these new Americans have in any way
demonstrated an unwillingness to learn the language of their new
country? No, of course not, but they will be punished anyway.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the bill before us today does correct
a problem which the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] said he
would correct with respect to the Americans With Disabilities Act. This
bill before us today provides an exemption for children served under
this program. There are, in fact, 10 exemptions to this bill. To me,
the fact that we have this many exemptions in the bill reveals that
there is a problem with the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary
legislation. It will not wear well. It does not serve our country well.
Let us provide the means for people to learn English in this country.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, let us try to answer the why question. Why are we doing
this? We are asking that English be the official language of
government. I think it is important for the folks listening to
understand what we are trying to do and what we are not doing.
We are trying to make sure that this Government conducts the language
of its business in English, because that is the one unifying thing
about America, is that that is the formula for success in America, a
good work ethic and a command and knowledge of the language.
We are not asking people to give up their culture, we are not asking
people to stop teaching languages, we are not asking people to interact
only in English. We are asking the Federal Government to do its
business in English. And one of the reasons we are asking for that to
be done is there is a growing trend in this country to accommodate 320
different languages in terms of the Federal Government conducting its
business.
In one case, the IRS produced 500,000 10W40 forms in Spanish and got
700 replies back at $157 per form, and this program is growing. I think
it is time to stop that.
We are trying to set policy that is good for the Nation, and the
policy we are trying to set is simply this: That the Federal Government
is going to conduct its business in the unifying language of America
because that is good policy.
The formula for success has been and always will be a command and
knowledge of the language and a good work ethic, and the policies we
should be setting in this country should bring out the best in
Americans.
Where do we stop with 320 languages to accommodate? I think it is not
unreasonable to ask the Federal Government to conduct its business in
the unifying language of this Nation, and to do otherwise is
impractical.
There are many exceptions in the bill that are commonsense based.
Some people ask about phrases on money. We have an exception for art
and phrases that are commonly used in other languages. We have a health
and safety exception for the EPA to notify a community about a
dangerous situation with drinking water.
The exceptions are sound, this is a good bill, and there is a good
reason we are doing this. I ask for Members' support.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123, which
declares English to be the official language of the Government of the
United States.

{time} 1315

The Government of the United States. And simply stated, that means
when one does business with the Government of the United States, one
does it in the English language.
We have heard a lot about the fact that English is a unifying force
which has brought millions of immigrants over the years together in
this country, and I think that is a true statement, but I also think it
is important for us to look to the north and to Belgium to see how
bilingualism and multilingualism has been a dividing force in those
countries. And it has. Neither in Canada nor in Belgium over literally
centuries has there been a formula devised to bring unity to those
countries that have been divided, not along religious or ethnic lines
but along language lines.
But irrespective of whether this bill is adopted, English is the
language of commerce. If someone comes from a non-English speaking
country to the United States, in order for them to achieve the American
dream they have to be functional in English, and there is no better way
to help them become functional in English than to say that when doing
business with the Government of the United States, it be done in the
English language.
So what we are doing here I think is helping people who come from
other countries where English is not the language to become part of
America. To achieve the American dream. To achieve their own individual
human potential. And this is one small step in allowing them to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.
I rise in strong of H.R. 123, the English Language Empowerment Act of
1996. I believe it is essential to have English as the official
language of our National Government, for the English language is the
tie that binds the millions of immigrants who come to America from
divergent backgrounds. We should, and do, encourage immigrants to
maintain and share their traditions, customs, and religions, but the
use of English is essential for immigrants and their children to
participate fully in American society and achieve the American dream.
Importantly, title II of this bill repeals the Federal mandate
requiring certain communities to provide bilingual ballots. This
directive of the Voting Rights Act is unnecessary and costly. The
Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally intended to put a stop to
racial barriers to voting in the South, such as literacy tests.
English-only ballots are simply not the equivalent, or even comparable,
to the racially abused literacy tests of the South.
Applicants for American citizenship, with some limited exceptions,
have been required to demonstrate proficiency in English since 1906.
Since only citizens may vote, the rationale for mandatory multilingual
voting services is perplexing. One of the reasons we require immigrants
to learn English before they naturalize is that a person who cannot
understand English will not be able to participate in the political
community in any but the most limited capacity. Bilingual ballots are
not an effective means of increasing full political participation, for
they are used by citizens who are obviously not proficient in English,
and those who are not proficient in English, in most cases, cannot
follow a political campaign, talk with candidates, or petition their
representatives.
I believe it is necessary to clarify what repealing the bilingual
ballot requirement does not do. This bill does not affect laws
outlawing voter discrimination. It does not propose a literacy test. It
does not preclude anyone from voting, even if they do not know English.
There are effective alternatives to federally mandated bilingual
ballots, especially where complicated ballot initiatives are involved.
Foreign language newspapers have the free speech right to publish
sample ballots translated from English, and voters can take these
sample ballots into the voting booth. Under this bill, a political
party or interest group is perfectly free to issue multilingual voting
materials. States can choose to allow voters to bring a friend or
relative in the booth with them, absentee ballots can be filled out at
home with assistance, and ethnic organizations can provide bilingual
sample ballots and

[[Page H9741]]

voter information pamphlets. Furthermore, although this bill eliminates
the unfunded mandate on the States, States are still free to supply
ballots in foreign languages, if that is what the voters demand.
According to a recent survey, more than 80 percent of Americans,
including immigrants, support making English the official language of
the United States. I urge my colleagues to heed the call of the
American people and vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
For over a decade I have chaired the Helsinki Commission. That
commission is dedicated to the principles set forth in the Helsinki
Final Act that we will treat diversity in all our nations with respect
and integrity.
The fact of the matter is we passed a resolution on this floor
unanimously regarding Kosova in which we urged and asked the Serbians
to make sure that in Kosova they would be taught in the language that
they knew, not Serbian, that they knew. So that on the one hand we urge
nations of the world to be respecters of differences while in our own
Nation we retreat from that principle. We ought not to do that.
The language of America is English. Indeed, my friends, the language
of the world is fast becoming English. The tide is not against English
or America; the tide is for us. We do not need to act in fear or in
chauvinism or in jingoism. Reject this legislation.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], who drafted this same bill in Arkansas,
which Governor Clinton then signed.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I rise in strong support of this bill which makes English the official
language of the U.S. Government.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is our values and our ideals that
ultimately bind us together as a nation. But it is the English language
which serves as the means by which we can communicate these values to
those around us. Our common language, English, is that which unites us.
Eight-six percent of all Americans support establishing English as
the official language of the U.S. Government. In fact, in a recent
survey, telephone survey, taken in a section of my district in
northwest Arkansas, it was found that 97 percent of those polled
approved of declaring English as the official language of our
Government.
I think the numbers speak for themselves, Mr. Chairman. Nearly half
the States in our country have established official English laws,
including my home State of Arkansas.
In 1987, as a second term legislator in the Arkansas General
Assembly, I cosponsored this legislation which we have before us,
signed by then-Governor Bill Clinton, now President Clinton, making
English the official language of the State of Arkansas. Governor
Clinton signed that law. I hope he will sign this bill as well.

My legislative director's grandparents were immigrants from Norway.
They came over on a boat. They learned English. They taught their
children English. They assimilated in our culture and they lived the
American dream. They still revere their Norwegian heritage. They still
cherish that tradition, but they knew that English was part of becoming
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is very reasonable. It takes a
reasonable approach; it makes good sense. We can honor the diverse
backgrounds that are present in our society while at the same time
emphasize the common bond that we have in the English language. I urge
an aye vote on this bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise is strong support of H.R. 123,
and I commend my colleagues for bringing this legislation forward. This
was pushed for many years by our recently departed colleague, Bill
Emerson. Bill would be exceedingly proud today to see us moving forward
on this legislation.
Today, 79 nations have an official language. Government documents in
France, Germany, Japan, and Austria are printed only in one language.
So what happens in those countries that have gone the opposite
direction promoting multilingualism? We do not have to look very far to
find that.
The comment of the chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's
Future about the multilingual policy of Canada stated that it was an
anthology of terrors causing Balkanization. Very appropriate,
considering the gentleman's comments about what is going on in the
former Yugoslavia; ghetto mentalities; the destabilization of Quebec;
reverse intolerance by immigrants for Canadian institutions; and the
devaluation of the very idea of a common nationality.
Are we heading in that direction in the United States? Consider this:
40 million Americans will be non-English language proficient by the
year 2000; 375 voting districts in 21 States are now required by the
Federal Government to provide voting ballots and election materials in
foreign languages; 115 languages are spoken in the New York City
schools; driver's license exams are offered in 31 languages in
California.
Six languages were on the ballot in the last mayoral election in Los
Angeles. Opponents have accused this bill of being mean-spirited.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to raise immigrants up
and help them get ahead. This is the way to help.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong opposition to this cynical attempt to drive a wedge into
our society.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before
us today.
This bill is another battle in the war against children in this
Congress. Eliminating bilingual education could increase dropout rates
and hurt the ability of immigrant children to adapt successfully in
this country. A quality education is the key to a better way of life.
People come to this country in search of that better way of life.
We can only benefit by providing opportunities for all people to
become productive members of our society, especially young children
with bright futures ahead of them. Everyone in this Nation wants the
same things--security and opportunities for themselves and their
children. This legislation is unnecessary, discriminatory, and would
deny opportunities to everyone who is perceived to be different.
This is an appropriate time to remember that our Nation was settled
by those who spoke languages other than English. Their proud heritages
are reflected in those who inhabit this beautiful and diverse country.
The majority feels that a national language policy will fix what they
deem to be a problem with our common language. Yet, according to the
1990 Census, English is spoken by 97 percent of the U.S. population.
English as a second language classes are so popular that in Los Angeles
instruction is available 24 hours a day. Waiting lists for ESL classes
are overflowing with thousands of people. Language minorities fully
understand and appreciate that it is imperative to learn English to
succeed in this country and make determined efforts to do so.
Yesterday this House voted to deny benefits and opportunities to
legal immigrants. Today we are voting on this legislation to deny
access to Government to language minorities. If this legislation
passes, we make a mockery of our proud designation as a nation of
immigrants.
If this legislation passes, the message will ring loud and clear that
this House does not value the richness or diversity of life experiences
that are woven into the colorful fabric of our Nation. We cannot
mandate narrowmindedness and discrimination. That is already in
evidence in this country. So is the desire for language minorities to
speak English. We don't need to mandate that either.
If, as its proponents maintain, the purpose of this legislation is to
give more language minorities a better chance to learn the English
language, let's do something about it by increasing funding for
bilingual education and ESL classes. This is nothing but xenophobic
political posturing and I urge my colleagues to vote against this
distinctly un-American legislation.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H9742]]

If my colleagues are somewhat confused in this debate, I can
understand why. Everyone both for and against this bill is saying
English is the language of this country, and it is. And it always will
be. And as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] said, it probably
soon will become the language of the world.
So why are we here debating a bill and why are there people opposed
to it? Because what we want and what we wish and what we intend must be
very clear in what we write. And unfortunately, what is written, it is
not what people are saying.
Mr. Chairman, what is written is completely opposite of what people
are saying. There is nothing in this bill that will help teach those
who wish to learn English the language. There is nothing in this bill
that will promote those who are wishing to learn English the language.
What this bill will do is strangle those who are taking classes trying
to learn, and that is why those of us who are standing here saying
English is the language of America will be strangled, those people will
be strangled from ever having the chance to truly learn the language
well.
This is not a bill to send a message. This is a bill that will
strangle those trying to learn English.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the great
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Becerra] is in error. We are trying to get language as the
official language of our Government. This English Empowerment Act
states English is the official language of the U.S. Government and
requires English be used in Government actions, documents, and
policies.
Despite some of the rhetoric we are hearing today, it is not a
radical idea. In fact, more than 80 percent of all Americans support
English as the official language. It is about time we acknowledged that
one of the most important things we can do to help individuals succeed
in America is to encourage them to learn our common language.
A recent study of Asian refugees by the State of Texas shows that
those individuals who attained proficiency in English earn over 20
times the annual income of those who do not speak English. Learning
English will enable immigrants to do what they came here to do: achieve
the American dream.
We must reverse the failed policies of the 1960's and 1970's. America
is a diverse Nation; however, we must bind the strength that comes from
America's diversity with our common language. Let us stop dividing
Americans and do something to bring them together.
Vote for the English Empowerment Act to do this now.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in reviewing my file on the
English language bill, I came across a letter dated November 10, 1994,
2 days after the elections of 1994 in which I was elected to represent
the people of the seventh district to the United States, and this
letter, a ``Dear Colleague,'' is written by Bill Emerson from the great
State of Missouri.
He wrote me even long before I had been sworn into the Congress about
a dream of his, a dream that 1 day he would witness, with the support
of people he hoped like myself as a new Member of Congress and so many
other of his colleagues, that our country, our Congress would take a
step forward of unity, brotherhood, and common goodwill, and that is to
enact his language of government act.
Mr. Chairman, there was not a divisive or mean-spirited bone in Bill
Emerson's body. And he believed so strongly in this dream that the very
first letter that I, and probably every other newly elected Member
received within 2 days after we were elected to the Congress, was a
very positive, warm letter from him asking us to sign on to this
legislation.
I immediately called his office. Signed on, and became the first
original cosponsor of this legislation. And I am honored today here,
Mr. Chairman, to stand up and say, let us make Bill Emerson's dream a
reality, and pass this important legislation.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, a U.S. Government English-only policy would,
at best, be counterproductive, isolationist, and simpleminded; at worse
an English-only policy is an elitist, bigoted, and racist policy.
English plus, the amendment to be offered later by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Serrano], is the way we should go.
Yes, English is the official language of the country. We do not have
to proclaim that. But English plus is the way we should go if we want
to go into the 21st century with the advantage that we need for
international trade purposes. This bill originates from the people who
brought us GATT and who brought us NAFTA, who emphasized international
trade. Why would these same people want to go backward and deemphasize
bilingualism? Why not salute the people who speak additional languages?
Why not have every American try to become bilingual?
Let us go in the opposite direction for purposes of trade, for
purposes of commerce, for purposes of international tourism.

{time} 1330

There are a billion Chinese in the world. We certainly should
appreciate every Chinese-American; we should see them as an asset to
help teach us Chinese. There are Slavic people who are now in the
middle class traveling to this country as tourists. We should be
learning the Slavic languages and any Slavic-speaking Americans,
Russian, Yugoslavian, Hungarian; all of those people should be seen as
assets in the country, assets. Let them teach us the language so that
we are better able to be able to deal with those people who come over
here as tourists to spend their money and to make our economy go. For
the sake of the prosperity of the country, for the national security of
the country we need bilingual citizens.
We need English plus, not English only.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, why, why, why? I listen to my good
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. I agree with
him. I listen to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. I
agree with him. Mr. Goodling said this does not mean anything, only the
Government, the Government, the Government. We have to teach, we have
to educate people. If this does not do anything, what it will do is you
can pound your chest and say, we put one line in the law that says that
English is the language of our Government. Fine. Go pound your chest,
but the world will laugh at us. Why? Why? Why?
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are considering
is entitled, ``This act may be cited as the English Language
Empowerment Act.'' I see nothing in this bill that empowers anybody in
terms of becoming better acquainted with English or more proficient.
There is not a penny being spent for education to promote English. We
look at the education budget and it is being cut. What this bill really
is doing is to confine, to restrict the programs and opportunities for
people who are not proficient in English from participating in all of
the fullness and richness of this society. It really degrades the whole
notion of our open society, accessible to everybody legally within its
borders.
The moment we say something cannot be printed in anything else other
than English, we are punishing that small sector of our society who are
not a threat to our democracy. Less than 5 percent of our people in the
census said they were not proficient in English. They are not a threat
at all. Yet we are seeking to deny access to the Government by refusing
to allow Government agencies from printing documents explaining how to
get into programs, how

[[Page H9743]]

to apply for business loans, how to really make themselves much more a
part, an integral part, of this society.
If we want to empower all these individuals in our community,
regardless of what their ethnic origin is or where they came from, it
seems to me that we have to find ways in which to embrace them, not to
leave them out. This bill excludes opportunity contained in all the
bills that we have passed; it says they are repealed. If we said
anything previously about opening up government and creating access for
people who are not proficient in English, those are repealed. There is
a repealer paragraph in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an empowerment. It is denial.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].
(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the bill.
English is universally acknowledged as the common language of the
United States. It is the language of opportunity. It is the language of
banking and business, the language of the courts and the primary
language of instruction in the schools throughout the Nation.
Now, what is the purpose of this bill? We hear the proponents say
that there is not any prejudice involved in this proposal, that this is
not a mean-spirited bill, that it is going to open opportunities and
empower those that cannot speak English.
I would like to ask, how do we empower someone by requiring that he
speak in English when he cannot, by requiring that the documents that
are sent by the Federal Government to him must be printed in English
even though he cannot understand them? Why can the Government not open
doors, as they have been opened until now, to service its citizens as
best it can and not be raising barriers of misunderstanding and
creating difficulties in the service to the citizens?
Language is supposed to be used for communication, not to be raised
as a barrier, to prejudice, as a barrier to impede other people from
achieving their rights and fulfilling their obligations. If one cannot
receive proper information about what their obligations are and because
they do not understand the language, how can they then be required to
fulfill the obligations?
This is empowering? It would be like saying that people who cannot
read and write, let us then pass a law that in order to vote they have
to be able to read and write and that way we are empowering the
illiterates in America. Is that a sound argument? Is that sound
reasoning? How do we empower anyone by requiring?
By stimulating, we empower people; by fostering, we empower people,
by giving them the means by which to achieve what we want to empower
them with, not by raising barriers of misunderstanding. How do we think
that the people who speak a different language feel about it?
I oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a bill that would
raise difficulties where there are none existing at this moment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 123, the English as the
Common Language of Government Act. This bill declares English to be the
official language of the U.S. Government, and requires the Federal
Government to conduct its official business in English. The measure
also requires that all naturalization ceremonies be conducted entirely
in English.
There is nothing radical or racist about declaring English the
official language of the United States. By providing a means to
communicate across ethnic and racial lines, a common language unites
people and eliminates misunderstanding, segregation, distrust, and
discord. English is our single shared language. It is the one language
that crosses all ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds and allows
diverse Americans to share their multicultural backgrounds.
Declaring English as the official language will provide an incentive
for immigrants to learn English. Throughout our history, new Americans
were proud to learn to speak, read and write English. They knew that
English was the key to assimilating to their new country. English was
necessary to take advantage of all the opportunities that America had
to offer.
Yet, today there are more than 32 million Americans who are not
proficient in English. In many cities, immigrants can live, work, and
play without ever knowing a word of English. The Federal Government
caters to these immigrants by providing programs and services in their
native tongue, discouraging them from learning English. According to
the General Accounting Office, the Federal Government, between 1990 and
1994, printed more than 250 official documents in other languages. Even
swearing-in ceremonies for naturalized American citizens have taken
place in other languages.
Making English official will let immigrants know that they have no
right to receive public services in any other language. Most Federal
Government business--documents, meetings, records, legislation, and
ceremonies--will be in English. This is a tremendous incentive for new
citizens to learn English so that they may participate fully in
American society.
H.R. 123 does not prohibit languages other than English to be used in
nongovernmental settings. It simply states that English is the language
in which all official U.S. Government business will be conducted.
Official English does not infringe on individual rights, nor does it
prevent immigrants from preserving their cultures and languages in
their personal lives. It does, however, encourage immigrants to learn
English in order to fully participate in Government.
I encourage all my colleagues to support this nonpartisan,
overwhelmingly popular piece of legislation. As Members of Congress, we
have an obligation to ensure that non-English speaking citizens have an
incentive to learn English so they can prosper and fully partake of all
the economic, social, and political opportunities that exist in this
great country.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, my maternal grandparents were Romanian
immigrants. They came to this country at the turn of the century. My
grandfather learned to speak English from his two daughters, my mother
and my aunt, whom he sent to college in Cleveland, Florastone Mather
College and Kent State University. My mother went on to the University
of Pennsylvania Law School, and my aunt went on to Kent State and got a
master's degree in education.
I am sorry that my grandfather could not live long enough to see his
grandson, the grandson of a Romanian immigrant, become a Member of the
U.S. Congress. But I do know that he believed very strongly, as did my
grandmother, that English was a unifying force, as the language, as the
expression of what brings us together as a people, that emphasizes our
likeness, our commonality. It is, in fact, the essence of what makes
us, allows us to become the melting pot, that while continuing to
celebrate his ethnicity, his Romanian-ness, if you will, and always
having great respect for that, there was another love that he had. That
was a love for this Nation.
It was the kind of love and patriotic fervor that only I have seen in
immigrants, that only seems to be a part of the heart of people who
come here to give to this Nation and build it and be constructive and
make it something great, because they want to be a part of what it
means to be American without forgetting where they came from.
Part of what it means to be American is to speak a common language,
the common language of English. That is what this bill is about in
terms of making clear that our official language of government is
English.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Sawyer].
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of some of the things
that we have heard recently from the other side in this debate. It is
true that no element of human experience defines our common humanity
more deeply than language and no element in our culture more fully and
deeply defines that culture than our language.
English is spoken more broadly throughout the world than any other
language. It is composed of elements gathered from the languages of the
globe and, for these reasons and others, it is arguably the richest
spoken language anywhere on Earth. We should

[[Page H9744]]

be proud of that richness and encourage it.
It appeals to our pride, to our simple patriotism. But in the end it
also plays on some of our worst fears. There is, unfortunately, abroad
in the world a drift toward insularity and, in some corners of North
America and Asia and Europe, a rush to isolation, a xenophobia that is
grounded in fear and hatred.
It harkens to a time some 60 years ago when one of the world's great
orators played on simple patriotism among his countrymen to heighten
the fears and hatred of a few with appeals that were couched in phrases
like one land, one language, one leader. That is dangerous.0
I do not impute that motive to anybody on this floor. But English is
the official language of our Nation. Tens of thousands wait in line to
elevate their mastery of English. We will be offering an amendment
later today that will provide the tools to make language instruction
available to all who hunger for it and thereby to take concrete,
positive steps to bring about the unity that everyone on this floor
argues for today.
I oppose the bill but hope that we can support English plus as a
workable, practical alternative to the bill that is before us now.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 123 because I
do not believe that we need to make English the official language of
government. The simple fact is that English already is our unifying
national language. And when we recognize that only 0.06 percent of
government documents are printed in languages other than English, the
lack of any need for this legislation seems clear.
I agree that learning English should be a priority for all persons
residing in the United States. But in an increasingly global economy,
literacy in a number of languages is a clear advantage--and, in some
cases, a necessity. The more literate an individual is, the better
equipped he or she is to adapt to the rapid pace of economic change.
Immigrants realize that learning English is essential to their own
economic success. That is why English classes are running 24 hours a
day in many parts of the country and thousands of people are currently
on waiting lists. But that does not mean that real literacy in other
languages is not also an important skill.
H.R. 123 purports to encourage the mastery of English. However, it
does nothing to provide the necessary resources for adequate English
language instruction. Without a strategy for increasing English
literacy, the real impact of this bill may be only to discourage
literacy in any language and to chill participation in civic life by
those who are not proficient in English. That would be truly
unfortunate.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I believe this English only legislation is
unnecessary, counterproductive, and may serve to divide--not unite--the
Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House
Resolution 123. This legislation is at best misguided; at worst, mean
spirited, and does not reflect the America I know nor the community
that I serve.
If we wanted to simply declare the obvious and designate English as
the official language, it would not be difficult. We could do it
without controversy. It would be easy to provide necessary guidelines,
if we feel some of the current legislation dealing with bilingual
requirements need tightening up. But the trail of exceptions in this
bill are an admission to the flaw that it is inappropriate to deny the
tools to deal with citizens in the best way to help meet their needs.
Monday this House unanimously declared that it is the sense of
Congress that the government of Serbia should ensure the rights of its
Albanian minority to be educated in their native language rather than
in Serbian. Far more native born Americans of Mexican ancestry live in
the former Mexican provinces of Texas and California than the 2 million
Albanians which this Congress expressed their concern that they would
be able to be educated in their native language. With this bill, we are
saying that what is fair and just for the minority people of Serbia is
just too good for the non-Engish-speaking minorities of the United
States.
The proponents of this English only legislation, Mr. Chairman, ought
to acknowledge that we either believe that people have a right to be
educated in their native language or we do not, either we provide
English instruction to non-English speakers or we do not. Let us drop
the hypocrisy, the doublespeak and acknowledge in plain English that at
best this bill makes the business of government harder. At worst, it
panders to prejudice.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis].
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, one of my great frustrations
is that over the years I have felt that those of us who live in
southern California indeed should learn and read and write and speak
Spanish. Unfortunately, we have not accomplished that.
Nonetheless, it was 40 years ago that I first got to know a gentleman
who knows more about language than anybody I know in public affairs. A
professor by the name of S.I. Hayakawa, an expert in general semantics
talked of the importance of language as a unifier of people. Years
later the then Senator `Sam' Hayakawa sponsored legislation similar to
that before us today.
The first Member of the House to bring this matter to my attention,
our friend Bill Emerson, gave the highest priority to English serving
to unify us by its designation as the country's official language. I
urge you to support H.R. 123, and as you do so, keep in memory our
colleague and friend, Bill Emerson.

{time} 1345

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez].
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, not
that I am in opposition to English being the official language. I
support English being the English language. If my colleagues did that
poll and called my house and asked me or any of mine if they supported
English as the official language, I would say yes, so I would be a part
of that percentage that they include in being in support of English as
the official language. But I do not support this bill. This bill to me
is simply another way that we as leaders of the country are polarizing
the people of this country.
Now I hear the other side saying that this is uniting the people. How
can we arrive at the conclusion that this is uniting people; this is
doing nothing more than dividing people. We as leaders have the
responsibility to unite people.
I can remember great crises in the past where the people came
together. World War II is the greatest example. People of different
colors and different ethnic backgrounds, and different religions stood
shoulder, to shoulder, to fight an enemy because we were attacked, and
they were proud of it, and they were proud of their compatriots in war.
But today, this way we are going, we are dividing these very same
people against each other, and this bill I would not call the promotion
of English as the official language. I would call it the promotion of
polarizing America. That is what I would call it.
Let me tell my colleagues something. I have been here probably more
generations than anybody on that side, and I speak English. My children
do not speak Spanish. I speak in Spanish very badly; I learned after I
got to Congress. My ancestors, my parents, they spoke English, and they
spoke English well; but they also spoke Spanish, and their parents
before them.
What does it take to make those people understand that the people in
the United States want to speak English? We do. Ninety-five percent of
the people speak English, and of that 95, 25 percent speak in another
language. Does that make them lesser Americans, that they do not
believe that English is an official language?
Look, I get up and say I am an American, I love America, I promote
English. I support English as an official language, but I do not need
this bill. Let us stop this foolishness and get rid of this bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
(Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H9745]]

Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 123, I
strongly support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 123. As a
cosponsor of this bill and a member of the Opportunities Committee, I
believe establishing English as a common language of Government will
not only strengthen our nationalism but will stave off the multilingual
wedge being driven into the heart of our Nation.
Since 1920, Mr. Chairman, Nebraska's State constitution has held firm
in maintaining English as the State's official language. And, just as
saying the Pledge of Allegiance is largely symbolic, so is the sense of
pride among us for having a national language.
Mr. Chairman, for 400 years immigrants from all across the globe have
come to America. We come together as one Nation, with one language, for
one people, under God. The English language has strengthened and
sustained us in years past, as it will do so in the years to come. I
urge adoption of H.R. 123.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
It is precisely because my parents, Greek immigrants, could not speak
English when they first came to these shores that I support the
legislation in front of us. They would leave no stone unturned to try
to learn English on their own and could not wait for the day that they
could become naturalized citizens and to be proficient in the English
language sufficiently enough to merit the granting of the citizenship
which they so prized for the remainder of their lives.
But that is not the main reason that I support the bill. Their pride
in English and their pride in being American citizens was enhanced by
the fact that they knew the English language and could help their
children become educated, not only in the English language, which is
their adopted language, but also never to forget the Greek language
I am enriched by what they did while they did everything in their
hearts and minds they could to learn English.
I say to my friend from California, an old friend, Louis Vasquez, and
his friend William Lopez and another friend of Spanish descent, and I
formed the Spanish-American Society in my district, and they were happy
to put together an organization whose sole function would be, not sole
function, but one of the functions would be to teach their fellow
Latinos the English language. When the charter came from the government
of Pennsylvania granting them the official status of the Spanish-
American Society which I provided for them as a new lawyer in town,
they did not ask that that charter be in Spanish. They were proud that
I read it in English. They displayed it and put it on the wall in the
English form that it came because they wanted to be a part of the
Government of the United States and Pennsylvania which printed its
documents in English. They did not demand or require or even beg or
request in any way that that charter also had with it a translation
hanging next to it.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
allowing me to speak.
I rise in opposition to the bill, but I support English as our common
language. But our colleagues are trying to divide Americans on language
basis, and I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania that no one asked to
have that translation of that charter. In the State of Texas even with
our Hispanic heritage our charters from our Secretary of State come
only in English.
Some time ago, USA Today reported that the English-only effort is a
phony solution in search of a problem. There is no more adequate
statement that I have heard on any other thing in this issue. According
to the findings in this bill, English is a common thread that binds
individuals from different backgrounds.
In short, English is what makes us Americans. We have more in common
than our language, and, Lord knows, we all speak English in a different
way. Americans share a common set of values, those of democracy,
freedom, and opportunity, and that can be said in English as well as
lots of other languages.
Our fellow Americans who are not fluent in English are no less
patriotic than my colleagues or me. In fact in some cases, particularly
Hispanic heritage, we can go and talk about individuals who have
literally laid down their lives for our country.
Contrary to what the sponsors of the bill claim, English is not being
threatened. If one files a document in court, the public records are in
English. If they get a charter from Pennsylvania, like my colleague
said, it is in English. English is the language that is used today in
Congress and all our official activities of our Government.
Then why are we debating this bill? Only to divide us as Americans.
We are not divided because of our language, Mr. Chairman. We are
divided today because of those of us who may not speak English as our
first language. My ancestor did not speak English as a first language,
they spoke German. But they also learned English, but we also lament
that in our ancestry we lost the ability to speak German.
I hesitate to say anyone coming to America, they are going to learn
English, but I do not want them to say, ``Don't learn your heritage'';
and that is what this bill is saying. This bill is trying to divide us,
Mr. Chairman, based on language, and we do not need to be divided any
more in this country.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this misleading
English-only bill. Everyone knows English is indeed our official
language. According to the 1990 census, 97 percent of all people in
this country speak English well.
Immigrants do not resist learning English. Most immigrants are proud
to learn English and proud to speak English. This bill is but another
divisive, mean-spirited initiative that does nothing to improve the
ability of all of us in this diverse society to live and work together.
How dare any law deny an elected official the right to communicate
with their constituents in any language other than English? How can a
country that reaches out to cities in other countries all over the
world in the great sister city movement of this country look its sister
cities from countries like Mexico, Spain, France, Italy, Germany,
Japan, Russia, and Africa, and many more, and say, ``We love you like a
sister, we respect your culture, we appreciate your diversity, and we
invite you to come to the United States.'' And yet say to them, ``But
when you come to America, don't bring your language with you.''
Forty-three percent of my constituents are Latino. We respond to all
of our constituents. We respond to them however we need to respond to
them, orally or in writing, and we do it in Spanish. We do that, and
guess what? I do not intend to ever stop doing that. I do not care what
law is passed.
The supporters of this bill claim to want everyone to learn to speak
English. Yet they support the defunding of bilingual education while
millions of immigrants are on waiting lists to learn Spanish.
This bill deserves to be defeated in every language. I ask my
colleagues for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the sponsor of H.R. 351.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, we are a diverse nation. We should celebrate and be
proud of our diversity. But to be a nation we must have one common
language with which we can communicate with one another. That common
language is American English.
Immigrants have come to our shores for over 200 years, and each group
has learned the central language, and has integrated themselves into
our society. As our Nation has grown by their numbers, it has been
enriched by each of them. In order to have economic and social mobility
in this country, we know that we must speak and write the central
language. To the extent that we encourage people who enter our society
not to learn American English, we consign them basically to a life
without that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, in 1975 through misguided sensibilities, we mandated in

[[Page H9746]]

certain circumstances ballots that would have to be printed in a
language other than American English. A nation must conduct its public
discourse in a central language, and through history our central
language happens to be American English. It could have been American
Spanish or American French.
The most basic public function that we have in this country is the
conduct of our elections. To be eligible to vote in our elections, one
must be a citizen. In order to be a citizen one must be able to speak
and write American English, our central language. We can speak, read,
or use any other language we wish; but when we conduct our official
business, we ought to and must conduct it in that central language.
This bill repeals the Federal mandate for ballots in languages other
than American English. This may not be good politics, but it is good
policy. While we can encourage the diversity that makes us strong, we
must come together under one language and speak that language so that
we can communicate with one another. And that one language that each
citizen is required to know in order to vote must be the only language
of our public discourse and our most basic public act, voting.
I commend the gentleman from California and the gentleman from
Florida for their leadership in bringing this legislation forward. I
believe it addresses a serious problem where our society is dividing
ourselves according to languages. We must bring ourselves together
under one language, American English, and I would encourage all Members
to support the legislation.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
unconstitutional bill being proposed by the previous speaker, the
chairman of the Human Rights Caucus.
Mr. Chairman, please tell me what this bill is about? I believe that
this bill is about denying and restricting freedom of speech as well as
the right to vote. This bill violates the first amendment and the
spirit of the Voting Rights Act which was written to overcome
discrimination.
In this body, we vote to protect free speech for just about everyone
and everything: It's OK to have pornography on the Internet; it's not
OK for colleges to censor student newspapers; it's OK for newspapers to
lie about us. We guarantee rappers the right to free speech, but we do
not want to guarantee the right to free speech in another language.
Mr. Chairman, one-half of the world's population is Asian. One-fourth
of the world is Chinese. One-fourth is African, and one-eighth is
Nigerian. Americans make up only 4 percent to 6 percent of the world's
population.
Until today, Congress has acted to expand trade with our neighbors to
the south, east, north, and west. Now, we are turning our backs on 96
percent of the world; most of which is nonwhite, nonchristian, didn't
have anything to do with the Mayflower, and has no paranoia about the
English language losing its place in the world.
Mr. Chairman, segregationists have always fought against equal
rights. Even the record of this Congress shows how difficult it has
been to expand basic rights: A member of the other body, who will be
running for reelection at the age of one hundred, set a record for the
longest filibuster in history when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of
1964--every Member of this body must recognize that the civil rights
act outlawed poll taxes which prevented poor Americans from voting
because they could not afford the tax needed to register.
So far this Congress is known for similar egregious actions, a senior
Member of this body honored a former Member of the House who was a
champion of segregation, the late Howard Smith of Virginia. today,
unless this bill is defeated, we will be denying people the opportunity
to understand the ballots before them. It causes me no little
confusion, Mr. Chairman, that the sponsor of the bill repealing
bilingual ballots is the chairman of the Congressional Human Rights
Caucus. I ask this body that when we look at countries around the world
which have persecuted their minorities, when we tell the Serbs to
respect the rights of ethnic Albanians, how foolish is it that we are
attempting to pass legislation such as this?
Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body should stand for liberty,
equal protection, and free speech. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
bill. This bill will represent the first time that Congress has
narrowed the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
This bill has an important, I think, both political and policy
question. I do not want to diminish those importances, but I do think
the bill is disingenuous despite its importance. I do not accuse any of
my colleagues of that, but I think the bringing of the bill to the
floor at this time is, as the American people understand it,
motherhood, apple pie, the flag; those are great election year issues.
I have been here 18 years, and some Members of Congress bring those
issues to the floor just before election. I think that is why this
newest motherhood type issue, the traditional wonderful English
language, is now being brought to the floor in this form.
Of course, a common language encourages unity. People on both sides
of the aisle agree with that. There is no argument about that. Of
course, a common language promotes efficiency in our vital system,
private system and economy. There is no debate about that. Of course,
immigrants should learn to speak the English language. That is why 97
percent of the people in this country can speak English or are on a
waiting list learning to speak English.

{time} 1400

So what does this bill achieve? The listening public needs to
understand that this bill does not affect spoken language whatsoever.
If you do not speak English, that is fine. With English as the official
language, we do not stop you from speaking any other language in this
country, because even an arrogant Congressman would understand you
cannot stop people on the street or in their homes from speaking the
languages they will.
What does the bill do? It says the Federal Government may only print
its official documents and information in English; that is, most of it
in English. It even has some exceptions to that. Then what does it
achieve? After all, only .06 percent of documents and information are
now printed in other than English. So what does it achieve? Motherhood,
apple pie, and English.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
legislation. The Republican leadership wants to use this offensive
measure as its latest wedge issue to divide the American people.
English is the official language of this Nation. Newcomers to our great
country struggle day in and day out to learn our language and to become
full members of our society.
I want to share with the Members something about the personal
struggle of an immigrant, my father, who knew something about this
issue. Ted DeLauro, an Italian immigrant, came to this great nation
from Italy at the age of 13. He came eagerly, in pursuant of the
American dream, a good education, and economic prosperity.
Tragically, my father had to give up part of that dream, an
opportunity for an education. He left school in the 7th grade simply
because he could not speak English. In class he confused the word
``janitor'' with the Italian word ``genitori,'' which means family. He
defined the word ``janitor'' as meaning parents. His teachers and his
fellow students ridiculed him and made him feel alone. He was so
humiliated that he never went back to school. That event touched him,
it touched my family deeply, and it changed our lives.
English is the official language of the United States. New residents
of our country want desperately to speak the language and to
assimilate. If we are truly interested in codifying the importance of
English, we should increase resources for bilingual education in our
schools, reach out to residence who are struggling to learn the
language, and ironically, this majority leadership, that claims to want
to enshrine English as the language of all our residents, has cut
bilingual education for thousands of students trying, like my father
did, to fit in and to contribute to American life. It is shameful.
My father's story should never be repeated. Children should never
have to quit school because they cannot understand the language. This
people's House should reject this attempt to divide our country. Vote
against this bill.

[[Page H9747]]

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], chair of the Subcommittee on Military
Construction of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123, the
English Language Empowerment Act of 1996. The Federal Government has an
obligation to ensure that non-English speaking citizens get a chance to
learn English so they can prosper and fully partake of all the
economic, social, and political opportunities that exist in this great
country. The English language empowers each generation of immigrants to
access the American dream. Studies have shown that people who learn
English earn more for their families, are better able to move about and
interact in society, and can more easily build a solid future for
themselves and their children.
H.R. 123 is a good bill, it requires that all citizenship
naturalization ceremonies be conducted entirely in English. This bill
states that the enactment of this legislation shall not preempt any law
of any State. It would not restrict the use of foreign languages in
homes, neighborhoods, churches, or private businesses--only the
Government sector. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
legislation to designate English as our Nation's official language, and
unite our Nation of many immigrants to be one.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Thornton]
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which comes
with a nice title, a ringing kind of phrase that our sentiments might
want to endorse. But our discourse is not limited to ``English''. We
use concepts expressed by words like ``liberte'' French; ``equality''
from the French ``egalite''; ``justice,'' from the Latin. Our language
is enriched by the addition of words and phrases from other languages.
We should be talking today about how to improve and accent American
values. We should not be trying to make restrictions on how people
talk. People in Arkansas may speak more clearly sometimes than people
in other parts of our country, and we may use words that would not be
in a lexicon. There should be no effort to limit our ability to express
ourselves fully and completely.
I am pleased that the President of the United States has indicated
that, if passed, he will veto this bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I rise in support of the bill, Mr.
Chairman, but will urge that its specific problems be addressed in
conference.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to acknowledge the difficult task faced by
Chairman Goodling and the members of the Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee in the drafting of this bill. Since 1981,
Congress has attempted, with my support, to establish English as the
official language of the Government of the United States. The United
States is unique for many reasons, including its commendable cultural
and ethnic diversity. But while we welcome all the diverse populations
that decide to make America their home, we must also bring all
Americans together by uniting under our most important common
denominator--the English language.
For this reason, I support the provisions in this bill which would
require the Federal Government to conduct its official business in
English and produce most official documents in English. We must provide
some relief from the burdens and costs associated with the additional
printing now required of the Federal Government.
However, I am concerned that the committee has not made clear exactly
which Federal documents would be affected by this bill. While only 265
of the approximately 400,000 Federal documents currently printed are
printed in multiple languages, agencies must have clearer guidelines as
to which documents would fall under this bill and which documents would
be exempted. I am pleased that, under this bill, all documents dealing
with public health and safety could still be printed in multiple
languages. But where, for example, would documents issued by HUD fall?
Would those not fluent in English still be able to receive information
on housing discrimination? Or receive information on workplace
discrimination from the EEOC? These are the issues I would like to see
made clear in conference committee. We must take a careful look at
which documents would be impacted by this bill.
In addition, I am troubled by the provisions which would repeal the
Federal requirement for bilingual ballots. The Voting Rights Act was
amended in 1975 to include these ballots and for good reason. Since the
founding of our Nation, many Americans have been deprived of their
inalienable right to participate in the democratic process by negating,
either legally or illegally, their right to vote. We have seen States
make voting difficult for certain populations by implementing poll
taxes, literacy tests, and by designing complex balloting procedures.
Bilingual ballots guarantee that no American citizen is denied the
fundamental right to vote because of a lack of fluency in English.
It was only 4 years ago that Congress reauthorized bilingual ballots
for the next 15 years. I supported that reauthorization back then and
do not support any attempt to repeal that mandate prematurely.
However, I support the overall goals of this bill. We must be sure
all of our citizens can understand our public discourse and enjoy the
benefits of a common language. In order to meet this goal, though, we
must strengthen our bilingual education programs and work to reduce the
long English class waiting lists that our legal immigrants and newest
citizens are faced with as they try to assimilate into this country. If
we want well-informed citizens participating in the political process,
we must make it easier for them to share our language. This is how we
increase fluency--not by denying citizens their full political rights.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this
legislation. I would just say to my colleagues, come to San Diego and
see the stacks of bilingual ballots.
Mr. Chairman, last month there was a lady in my county named Mrs.
Velazquez who was sworn in as a new citizen. I do not know what her
position is on this, but I know what her position was on being sworn in
as a citizen. She wanted to be sworn in as an American who speaks
English. She did it as English, so that she could be mainstreamed. The
fact is, the common language of English is the place where we can meet,
the mainstream.
I know no reason morally that we can say we want to divide and make
sure people do not meet in the mainstream. But, Mr. Chairman, we should
remember the fact that when immigrants want to be mainstreamed, they
choose the English, and we should do everything we can to encourage
that. There are those that would want to encourage to divide.
In the past, the people of California have been brave enough to pass
an initiative to say English should be our common language. Mr.
Chairman, let us be brave enough to do the same, as California did a
long time ago.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, today there are 40 million Americans with
no health insurance. There are millions of Americans who will go to bed
tonight with a knot in their stomach about whether they get a layoff
notice tomorrow at their jobs. There are rivers that need to be
cleaned, highways that need to be built, seniors who need health care
in their homes, and what are we doing this afternoon? We are passing a
law that says it is illegal for the Federal Government to print a
document in a language other than English. If I have ever seen a
solution in search of a problem, this is it.
I know, Mr. Chairman, what this is really about. It is about millions
of Americans who are sick to their stomach and worried to death that
they are going to lose what they have worked for their whole life. What
is the solution? It is to beat up on and demonize people who do not
look like we do or talk like we do.
Mr. Chairman, if we want to do something to address the real problem
of

[[Page H9748]]

those very real people, then give paid leave to people so they can
leave work and take care of their children, stop corporations from
raiding the pension funds of their employees, provide health benefits
for every working American in this country, fund bilingual education,
so people can read and write the English language, and put our
constituents back to work.
This is a shameless and shameful attempt to take the real anxieties
of real people and direct them at people who are not like some of the
rest of us. We are better than this bill. We should have aspirations
better than this. Should, God forbid, it become law, I urge my
colleagues from the Republican and Democratic party, from urban, rural,
and suburban districts, be better than what is behind this bill. Vote
no, and let us get to work on the real problems of the American people.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker said that we intend to
beat up, demoralize. My colleagues on the other side, we have gone
through this legislation, and I have sat down with them. They know
there is no intent or nothing in this bill that would do that. This is
an honest attempt to combine and empower the American people, and
especially those that have limited English skills to help them.
Mr. Bill Emerson, the late Bill Emerson, has 200 cosponsors on this
bill, 200 cosponsors. They are not mean. They are not after anybody's
hide. But they believe that we can help the American people. Bill
Emerson did not have a mean bone in his body. I would say that instead
of divide, in one of the hearings a gentlelady from India said that
when the British were there, that there were over 300 and some
languages in India and more than that in the dialects, and they
actually adopted a foreign language, English, as their common language
when the British were there, and it tied that country together. When
the British pulled out, and even today, those different groups are
segregated and India is gridlocked because they do not have a common
language.
My wife teaches Spanish. Both my daughters are fluent in Spanish. I
want to send them, if I can afford it, to Spain or Mexico City. I want
them to immerse, because I do believe that the future of this country
involves trade, it involves that we learn a lot of different languages.
The gentleman said that we cut the program for education. No, what we
cut is the Federal Government. We send the block grants down to the
States and allow actually more money, and take away the Federal rules
and regulations from the education process. Governors have told us they
can do a better job.
I look across the Nation, and there are 320 languages in this country
and a thousand dialects. We encourage those folks to learn, and I want
Spanish-speaking or Chinese-speaking, I want them to speak those
languages at home. This bill does not prohibit that. What the bill
does, it says that the official language of the government, of the
Federal Government, shall be in English. That empowers people, just
like the example that I used that for our swearing-ins.
The bill says that when a person is sworn in as a citizen to this
country, to the United States of America, that that be done in English.
To me that is a powerful, that is a very powerful symbol. That is not
mean-spirited. that means to empower those individuals.
In my own district, many people do not speak English. They are not
empowered. I ask support for this bill.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, amazed by how far some
will go to unravel our country. H.R. 123 should be called the
Linguistic and Voting Deprivation Act, not the English Language
Empowerment Act. Instead of providing language minorities with the
opportunities to learn English, this legislation will cost our Nation
one of our most valuable resources--our diversity. I urge all of you to
support English Plus.
Earlier in the year this House took opportunities away from our
limited-English children by cutting funding for bilingual education.
Today with the passage of this legislation, we are making the chance
for a better life nearly impossible.
As a Representative with one of the highest immigrant and language
minority populations in the country, I know the difficulties that
language minorities face day in and day out. H.R. 123 will have the
effect of further isolating my constituents who speak primarily Chinese
or Spanish. To make matters worse, without bilingual ballots, these
constituents will be completely unempowered.
As elected officials, our job is to make democracy work by reaching
out and serving all our constituents--not just those who speak English
only. Language minorities are some of our society's most vulnerable
members. They are especially in need of assurance that their civil
liberties will be protected.
My colleagues, H.R. 123 will not bring us together, it will only
serve to divide this country. Vote ``yes'' for English Plus.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for H.R. 123, legislation that would establish English as the official
language of the United States. I believe that English should be the
official language of the Federal Government with rules, decisions and
laws for the record conveyed in English. As a cosponsor of several
English First bills, I would like to commend Representative Cunningham
and the leadership for bringing this important legislation to the
floor.
The United States has long been a nation of immigrants. The fact that
our country is a collection of different nationalities necessitates
some sort of unifying factor in order to provide a national identify. A
common language provides that unifying factor. By establishing English
as the official language of the United States, it creates a bond that
transcends ethnicity. It enables members of a multicultural society
such as ours to more easily identify with each other.
It is important to note that this bill requires only the Federal
Government to conduct its official business in English. The bill does
not forbid the teaching of foreign languages in schools or every day
citizens from speaking foreign languages in their homes, place of
business or on a walk in a public park. In addition, the bill exempts
public health, national security and civil rights actions. This
legislation also repeals the Federal requirement mandating certain
localities to provide bilingual ballots. However, if H.R. 123 becomes
law State and local governments could still conduct bilingual or
multilingual elections if they choose to do so. Furthermore,
communities would also be permitted to utilize alternative more cost
effective methods in an effort to ensure that no American citizen is
denied his or her right to vote.
Unfortunately, in an era of political correctness, some people accuse
this legislation of being inherently discriminatory. A deeper
inspection of the issue reveals that there is no truth to this
assertion.
Mr. Speaker, not long ago this body addressed the subject of
immigration reform. The establishment of English as the official
language of the United States would aid, not hinder, new immigrants in
the assimilation process. Emphasizing the use of a common language will
enable new immigrants to become more comfortable more quickly with the
eclectic American culture. This simple observation denies the naive
notion that an official language is based on discrimination.
Declaring English as the official language of the Government of the
United States would be both economically and socially beneficially. I
urge my colleagues to join me in declaring English as the official
language of the United States.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of
English as the Official Language of Government Act of 1996.
The English language is one of America's great equalizers. Studies
show that immigrants who learn English are better able to build a life
for themselves and their families. They typically enjoy greater
successes in both their professional and personal lives. In fact, when
my grandfather came to America from Norway at the age of 16, he learned
English because it was the best way for him and his family to live the
American dream.
Diversity is one of our Nation's greatest strengths. The unique
cultures, customs, and beliefs that every immigrant brings to our
country add to the richness of America. However, without a common
thread to bind our society together, America risks losing its sense of
unity.
Some will argue that this bill creates social divisions. This is
simply not true. H.R. 123 does not prohibit anyone from speaking any
language they choose. It simply says that the official language of the
U.S. Government is English and that most official business will be
conducted in English.
Opponents also argue that the bill infringes on the personal freedoms
and rights of all Americans, and ties the hands of law enforcement and
other Government agencies to ensure their protection. However, the bill
provides specific exemptions for the protection of public safety and
law enforcement.

[[Page H9749]]

We have seen in Canada what can happen when there is no common
language. We cannot allow the United States to become balkanized with
ethnic tensions that will only divide our country.
No matter what part of the world we or our ancestors come from, we
all came to America for the same reason. We are here in search of the
freedoms and opportunities that make our country great. We are here in
search of a better life for themselves and their families. In short, we
are here because we want to be Americans. The English language is part
of the fabric that keeps us together.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
common-sense legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. The
fact is, English is America's language in fact, we don't need
legislation to make a fact law.
No one understands the importance of mastering English more than I
do. Growing up in a Spanish-speaking neighborhood in south San Antonio,
I was lucky enough to have parents who stressed the importance of being
fluent in English. My parents understood that English was essential to
get work and succeed. My parents' example clearly demonstrated that
learning English was essential to first succeed in school, and later in
our jobs.
We don't need another Washington mandate, another law with
bureaucrats to enforce it to tell us what we all know to be true fact.
English is the common language of all Americans, passing or rejecting
this legislation will not change this fact. I think it important to get
beyond the impassioned rhetoric of this debate and address the facts of
this bill, what this bill does and does not do.
This bill basically does two things. One, it restricts the use of
other languages by the Federal Government with so many exceptions that
it is unclear what in fact would change. At this time less than 1
percent of Federal documents are printed in other languages. Two, it
ends the Federal requirement for bilingual ballots. This will have no
impact on Texas as our State's electoral code provides for these
ballots.
Now let's cover what this bill does not do. It does not promote usage
of English. It will not affect commercial and personal communications.
It will not increase English usage. It will not serve to bring us
together. While I understand that many of my colleagues have good
intentions in supporting this bill, millions of Americans do not see
this as a well-meaning affirmation of national unity, but rather as a
challenge to their Americanism. Until we eliminate this mistrust we
should concentrate on promoting English usage rather than passing
legislation.
English is America's common language. We do not need a law to prove
this. Instead of making symbolic gestures to legislate language, we
should take real concrete action to encourage every American to learn
English.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
support for the Serrano English plus substitute, which expresses the
sense of Congress that the U.S. Government should pursue policies that
promote English as the common language of the United States while
recognizing the importance of multilingualism and working to expand
educational opportunities and information resources.
The Serrano substitute would encourage all residents of this country
to become fully proficient in English while also encouraging the
development of skills in languages other than English--recognizing that
multilingualism is vital to American interests.
The Serrano substitute would ensure that the Government continues to
provide services in languages other than English as needed to
facilitate access to essential functions of Government, promote public
health and safety, ensure due process, promote equal educational
opportunity, and protect fundamental rights.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which impacts not only the men, women,
and children affected by such legislation but our Nation as a whole.
Our Nation has remained strong and united because, while we do not
always agree, we share a common set of democratic ideals and values.
Commitment to freedom, equality, tolerance and opportunity--not
language--is what holds us together.
Legislation which would establish English as a national language runs
counter to our Nation's history and would create a new and
unprecedented role for the Federal Government. The Founders of this
country recognized the danger of restricting its citizens' freedom of
expression. Language, like religion, is an intensely personal form of
self-expression which must not be subject to governmental regulation.

Language-minorities do not need to be coerced by the Federal
Government to learn English: they already are. According to the Census,
over 95 percent of Americans speak English. And current generations of
language minorities are learning English faster then previous
generations. In Los Angeles, demand for English classes is so great
that some schools are open 24 hours a day, and thousands are placed on
waiting lists. Also as we should not discriminate against those who
speak a single language--English, we should not discriminate against
our citizens who are trying to learn English.
Diversity in people and languages is not a national threat, but an
advantage. In today's Information Age, we have the ability to connect
with individuals across the globe. The movement of people across
countries and continents has intensified. Our businesses, too, have
increasingly moved into the broader world marketplace where the most
influential language is that of the customer. Therefore, the 32 million
Americans who speak languages in addition to English are at a
competitive advantage.
I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano substitute and resist
this attempt to divide our citizenry. Thank you.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the English Language Empowerment Act of
1996, is a bill we do not need. Everybody in American realizes that
English is the language of the land. At a time when we are trying to
deregulate government, why are we adding more laws to our books?
This bill would not only prohibit the Federal Government from
conducting its official business in a written language other than
English, but it would repeal a Federal law requiring bilingual ballots
for many non-English speaking voters. As a consequence, it will
jeopardize the effectiveness of our government and deprive thousands of
people of their right to participate in the political process.
In my district alone, one out of every five of my constituents is
Native American, and they will be directly affected by this bill. This
bill, as proposed, does nothing to protect the already endangered
languages of Native Americans and Native Alaskans. Let's be clear, this
is a bad bill--but if it has to be considered, I will support
Congressman Cunningham's amendment which exempt native American
languages. We cannot limit the ability of native Americans to actively
participate in the political process.
We should not only allow but also encourage people to speak languages
other than English. It is good for our economy and for the advancement
of our people. Congressman Cunningham's amendment would improve this
bill by protecting native American languages, and therefore, as bad as
the overall bill is, we should vote for this amendment.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill
H.R. 123, to express my concerns about what effect this legislation
will have on America, today and in the future.
I am concerned that promoting English as the official Government
language in this particular way will result in situations where
Americans not yet completely proficient in English will be
disadvantaged when it comes to seeking and receiving vital assistance
from Government--be it exercising their right to vote, receiving the
fullest education possible, health issues, particularly emergency
situations--or any other social services.
My strong preference is to look at this issue from another angle.
There is no question that English is a language of opportunity and that
it is practical to carry out as much government business as possible in
this language. In practice this is the case already--the GAO reported
recently that between 1990-1994 Federal agencies, other than Defense
and State, published 265 documents in languages other than English--
less than 1 percent of all the government documents reviewed by the
GAO. In reality, about 97 percent of U.S. residents above the age of 4
speak English well or very well. It is the 3 or 4 percent of our
population that needs assistance when communicating in English that I
am concerned about. Rather than passing legislation which promotes the
use of English in a way that can be perceived as exclusive, culturally
insensitive and which may result in further marginalization of
minorities. I agree with others who have suggested we should instead
focus on encouraging all Americans to become proficient in English--
through making English language programmers fully accessible to all. It
is not socially responsible to pass legislation such as H.R. 123 and
expect those who cannot communicate in English--often not because they
lack the will to try but because they are simply not enough programmes
to go around--to cope without any means of communication with
Government, which is after all there to serve the people. I strongly
urge my colleagues to focus instead on strengthening our capacity to
provide the means for new immigrants and those struggling to learn
English to do so.
My second specific concern related to this legislation is an uneasy
sensation I have that there are darker political undertones to the
desire to promote the use of English only. The legislation is worded in
such a way that it appears to be promoting English very much at the
expense of other languages. The legislation does not recognize
sufficiently the important of multiculturalism in the history of this
country, and the strength multilingualism

[[Page H9750]]

brings to our country today and its place in the emerging global
marketplace.
I bring to this debate a unique perspective in that I represent a
district where the languages of every day transaction are English and
Samoan. Bilingualism is a strength in my constituency and I cannot
support legislation that does not adequately recognize this.
Finally, I would like to note that moves afoot in this Congress to
declare English as the official language of the United States have
attracted the attention of the international community. I refer
particularly to a resolution passed by the fourth Polynesian language
forum, held in New Zealand in August last year which was supported by
government representatives of 13 governments of Polynesia including New
Zealand, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Easter island, Western Samoa,
Fiji, and Tonga. The resolution specifically stated its incredulity
that the United States, otherwise a world leader in the field of human
rights, should even consider legislation such as this. The resolution
also reminds us that the international community recognizes the rights
of indigenous people to have their languages used officially in
government. In addition to the points I have made above in relation to
the effect of this legislation on all minority groups in the U.S. this
Congress would be wise to reflect upon its obligations to protect the
languages and cultures of Native American peoples. We should not forget
that the international community is watching, and judging us by our
actions.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in
favor of Mr. Cunningham's amendment to H.R. 123 that would exempt
Native American languages from the provisions of this bill. The Native
American exemption, which applies to languages spoken by the more than
557 American Indian and Alaska Native tribes in this Nation, is
important for several reasons.
First, we have a fiduciary duty, a binding trust responsibility, to
protect and preserve Indian cultures. An integral part of their culture
is the ability to speak their own languages, many of which are
disappearing or have even been lost. The tribes are making a concerted
effort to revitalize their languages, and I believe that without this
exemption, passage of this bill would frustrate those efforts.
Second, although the bill contains an exemption for teaching on
languages, this does not cover cases where courses or classes other
than language, such as history or math, are taught in Native American
languages.
Third, the bill as presently drafted appears to leave out cases where
elderly Indians, many of whom speak solely in their own tongue, need an
interpreter or a Federal employee who speaks a native language in order
to get medicine or health care from the reservation clinic, to get food
stamp assistance, to get Medicare assistance, or help from the local
BIA officers. These are important services and we need to be sure that
they remain as readily available to the Indian elderly in the future as
they are today.
Finally, we must take all reasonable steps to ensure that Indians are
not denied or limited by this bill in their ability to exercise the
right to vote. This amendment would ensure that ballots and voting
instructions in Native languages and interpreters are available to
assist Indians who do not speak English proficiently.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
opposition to H.R. 123, which would establish English as the official
language of the Federal Government.
Legislation which would establish English as a national language runs
counter to our Nation's history and would create a new and
unprecedented role for the Federal Government. The Founders of this
country recognized the danger of restricting its citizens' freedom of
expression. Language, like religion, is an intensely personal form of
self-expression which must not be subject to governmental regulation.

Language minorities do not need to be coerced by the Federal
Government to learn English: they already are. According to the census,
over 95 percent of Americans speak English. And current generations of
language minorities are learning English faster than previous
generations. In Los Angeles, demand for English classes is so great
that some schools are open 24 hours a day, and thousands are placed on
waiting lists.
What the sponsors of this and other English only legislation do not
seem to understand is that diversity in people and languages is not a
national threat, but an advantage. In today's information age, we have
the ability to connect with individuals across the globe. The movement
of people across countries and continents has intensified. Our
businesses, too, have increasingly moved into the broader world
marketplace where the most influential language is that of the
customer. Therefore, the 32 million Americans who speak languages in
addition to English are at a competitive advantage.
This legislation also repeals section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
establishing bilingual ballots, which would have a devastating impact
on the rights of language minorities to participate fully in the
democratic process. The right to vote is one of our most cherished and
fundamental rights. It is guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the 15th
amendment to the Constitution and the Supreme Court has long held that
the right to vote implies the right to cast an informed and effective
vote. To that end, the Court has articulated that constitutional
protection extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well
as those both with English on the tongue.
In 1975, Congress enacted language assistance provisions to the
Voting Rights Act, recognizing that large numbers of U.S. citizens who
primarily spoke languages other than English had been effectively
excluded from participation in our electoral process. Congressional
hearings brought forth evidence that these citizens were denied equal
opportunities by State and local governments, resulting in disabilities
and continuing illiteracy in the English language.

Repealing these provisions--as Title 2 of this legislation would do--
and denying American citizens access to bilingual ballots for Federal
elections would effectively disenfranchise a large population of U.S.
citizens. In fact, as the number of bilingual U.S. citizens continues
to grow the need for bilingual ballots is even greater. Many of these
citizens have only recently had the opportunity to engage meaningfully
in participatory democracy. Bilingual ballots not only increase the
number of registered voters, but permit voters to participate on an
informed basis. They not only allow voters who need language assistance
to be able to read to know who is running for office, but also to
understand more complex voting issues such as constitutional
amendments.
Language assistance is not costly. In depth studies show that the
cost was either nominal or caused no additional costs. A GAO report
indicates that of the 295 responding jurisdictions, the average cost of
providing written assistance was 7.6 percent of the total election
expenditures, and an estimated 18 States incurred no additional costs
in providing assistance. Oral language assistance is even less
burdensome, with costs ranging from 2.9 percent to no additional cost.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation has remained strong and united because, while
we do not always agree, we share a common set of democratic ideals and
values. Commitment to freedom, equality, tolerance and opportunity--not
language--is what holds us together. I hope that my colleagues will
resist this attempt to divide our citizenry and oppose this bill,
however I rise to support the Serrano amendment which affirms English
as our common language.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation
and in support of the Serrano amendment. I believe that English is part
of our heritage and history, and that it should remain the common
language of the United States. Today, 96 percent of Americans speak
English, and I would like to see this grow. I support efforts to
encourage and help new immigrants to learn our language.
But H.R. 123 proposes to shut non-English speakers out of so many
aspects of life in our society. I am particularly disturbed by its
attempt to repeal the multilingual ballot. Minority language assistance
has opened up the democratic process to all citizens, and it has
increased voter participation among immigrants. Repeal of this
provision of the Voting Rights Act only serves to restrict the
democratic process and turn this into a nation of exclusion rather than
a nation of inclusion.
As has been said many times, America is a nation of immigrants.
Diversity of heritage, culture, and language is a source of our
strength. The Serrano amendment would permit us to build on this
strength, and I urge my colleagues to support it and oppose H.R. 123.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, the immigrant experience is
central to our national character. It epitomizes the intergenerational
improvement inherent in the American Dream. Americans by choice add to
the cultural and ethnic diversity we have always celebrated. It is
America's unique national trait that from such diversity springs
unparalleled unity and strength of purpose.
For nearly four centuries, natives of other lands have come to
America to build a better future. But unlike their predecessors,
today's immigrants are met with Government policies allegedly concerned
with the preservation of their ethnic separateness. Chief among these
misguided policies is the mandate of a multilingual government. By
discouraging immigrants and their children from using the English
language, this policy has erected a linguistic barrier that keeps many
immigrants from becoming full participants in the society they have
chosen to join. Whatever its putative intentions, a policy of
governmental insistence on a multitude of official languages works
insidiously to harm the very people it was meant to help.
The use of English is indispensable to immigrants and their children
who wish to participate fully in American society and realize the

[[Page H9751]]

American Dream. As we seek to promote the rich and varied traditions
new Americans bring, we must simultaneously work to ensure that all of
us share some basis for common understanding. Securing both these
important goals requires overcoming the divisive influence of
linguistic separatism. English should be and remain the official
language of our National Government.
English, our common language, provides a shared foundation which has
allowed people from every corner of the world to come together to build
the American Nation. Without it, we might never have achieved the
cohesion that permits Irish-American and African-American, Asian-
American and Hispanic-American, to live in peace and prosperity
together as in no other nation on earth.

The experience of two other immigrant nations--Canada and Israel--
offers us clear lessons on just how powerful a force language can be in
either uniting or dividing a people. These are lessons we cannot fail
to heed.
Canada, our neighbor to the north, bears much in common with the
United States. Our settlement, founding, and national growth share the
same time and place in world history. Our peoples emigrated from the
same native lands. But unlike America, Canada has struggled with the
divisive issue of language since its earliest days. Though the British
won control over French Canada more than a decade before the American
Declaration of Independence, they failed then to conquer the
destructive force of linguistic separation. The French and English
settled throughout North America, but the lesions of language that live
on in Canada are healed in our country. Today, centuries after the
French settlement of Quebec, the French language serves as a reason for
the Quebecois refusal to become integrated into a Canadian nation. The
continued existence of Canada as we know it is very much in doubt.
Canada chose to make both English and French its official languages.
It has striven for decades to foster unity through official
multilingualism. The evidence is clear: that experiment is a horrid
failure. Linguistic differences have not promoted national harmony, but
rather have dramatically increased Canada's cultural and communal
divisions. Twice in recent years, Quebecois have demanded and won the
right to vote on whether they should separate from Canada. And when
they did so most recently, in October 1995, only the barest majority--
50.6 percent of Quebec voters--managed to save the country from the
kind of disintegration that we ourselves avoided in the Civil War. A
third vote could be held as soon as next year. Multilingualism has
become a dagger pointed at the heart and soul of the Canadian nation.
The largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth, in percentage terms,
is Israel. Millions of emigres from around the world, speaking as many
tongues as Babel, have been welcomed there. Israel's founding fathers,
in contrast to Canada, have long recognized the centrality of language
to their quest to reestablish a Jewish state in their historical
homeland.
The Jews who have returned to the Holy Land shared a common history
and religion, but they brought with them enough different native
languages to threaten all hope of a cohesive nation. While Yiddish, the
German-Jewish dialect spoken by East European Jews, at least overcame
that group's experience with Russian, Polish, or Hungarian, Yiddish was
as alien to the Arabic and French-speaking Jews of the Middle East as
was Spanish. And Spanish was just one of the many other languages
brought to Israel by immigrants from Spain and Latin America.
Israel has shown the world that the key to uniting a polyglot people
is to establish a language of mutual understanding. Unlike America,
where our British colonizers left us with an English language that is
preponderant throughout the world, Israel had no obvious choice
from among the languages of its varied citizenry. So its founders
revived a tongue whose heritage they all shared, but which none of them
spoke. Hebrew--the language of the Old Testament which had survived as
the medium of prayer and religious study, but which had virtually
disappeared from secular use--became once again the vernacular of
Israel.

Israel did, and continues to do, much more than simply declare Hebrew
to be the country's common language. The Israelis put in place an
infrastructure to ensure that each and every immigrant will be able to
speak this common tongue to his or her new countrymen, and thus become
quickly integrated into Israeli society. New arrivals, whatever their
age, are strongly encouraged to take an ulpan, the intensive Hebrew-
language course typically taught by the immersion method. As soon as
possible after their arrival, immigrant children are placed in regular
Hebrew-speaking classrooms, and given extra Hebrew-language instruction
to help them catch up with their classmates. Those arriving to take
degrees at Israel's universities must prove their Hebrew proficiency
before graduation, even if their degrees are in subjects--such as
French, Russian, or English--that may be taught in their mother
tongues.
Just as in America, those immigrants who arrive later in life
inevitably remain more comfortable with their mother tongue. And just
as in America, the culture and society of Israel is hospitable to such
people: The Israeli press includes newspapers published in German,
Russian, French, Yiddish, and many other foreign languages. Although
none of these foreign languages is the official language of Israel,
their use is welcomed in a free society. But Israel's insistence on
Hebrew as the national language insures that the children of immigrants
quickly become Hebrew speakers first, and speakers of their parents'
language second. Although a parent might wish for her children to speak
English as well as an American, this does not come at the expense of
embracing Israel's language and customs. Immigrants need not abandon
their ties to the country of their birth. But if they truly wish to
become part of the country of their choice, the linguistic bonds to
their new country soon strengthen.
Because Canadians have been unable to overcome the linguistic
differences that separate them into distinct Anglophone and Francophone
communities, they may not long remain as members of a single nation--
despite the essential homogeneity of their population. By stressing a
single, unifying language, Israel has built a strong, cohesive
society--despite the amazingly diverse composition of its people.
The lesson for America should be clear. Fortunately, the United
States already has a common language. We do not need to overcome
centuries of linguistic separation, or to find a national tongue to
bring our diverse population together. English is our common language,
which has enabled us to become and remain the United States of America.
We need only ensure that we do not lose it by neglect or inaction.
Many people do not realize that, while English is our common
language, government at all levels is actively undermining its unifying
function. All of the benefits our Nation reaps from our linguistic
harmony will be lost if ill-advised government policies continue to
forment linguistic separatism.

Today, American taxes are being spent so that people who cannot
understand or communicate in English can nonetheless receive ballots to
vote in Filipino, Vietnamese, or Chinese. Federal Government job
announcements frequently invite applications from people with limited
English skills. Immigrants have even been sworn in as new citizens at a
U.S. Government ceremony conducted almost entirely in Spanish. And
bilingual education, which purports to aim at bringing students into
full participation in our society, has instead condemned them to what
the New York Times calls a ``bilingual prison.''
Under these doctrinaire and disruptive bilingual policies, in too
many U.S. schools children who wish to learn English are given only a
few minutes of English instruction each day. Ignoring the time-tested
wisdom that practice makes perfect, children are taught all day long in
the foreign language they already speak, rather than in English. And
children who should be moved quickly into mainstream classes are kept
in language separation for 7 or more years.
Immigrant parents who have expressed serious concerns about this
practice have no recourse. Despite parental fears that bilingual
programs do not bring their children fully into the fold of American
society, nothing is done to help their kids. That's why dozens of
Latino parents at the Ninth Street School in Los Angeles recently
pulled their children out of school to protest the education
bureaucracy's refusal to teach their children in English.
Bilingual education programs often require teaching children in their
native language and discourage the learning of English. These programs
are a shameful example of the damage to our society caused by official
multilingualism. They are wasteful, discriminatory, and too often
produce children who are illiterate in any language. Yet they are
perpetuated by a requirement that 75 percent of Federal bilingual
education grant money be used for instruction in a child's native
language rather than finding the most effective means to assist the
transition to English. Instead of helping immigrants and their children
achieve the American dream, these policies are condemning generations
to isolation--cut off from the boundless opportunity our country offers
to those who share the common bond of speaking and writing the same
language, and being understood by their fellow citizens.
A 1995 study by Ohio University economists Richard Vedder and Lowell
Galloway finds that a lack of English skills has trapped almost 1.5
million immigrants in poverty. And the Department of Labor has found
that while 98 percent of Asian males who are fluent in English
participate in the labor force, fully one-quarter of Asian males who
lack English fluency are jobless. The simple truth is that those who

[[Page H9752]]

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.
Even when non-English speakers are able to find jobs, they can expect
to earn a fraction of what others earn. In 1989, immigrant men who
lacked English skills earned $233 a week on average, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those who spoke other languages but were
proficient in English earned $449, and those who spoke primarily
English earned an average of $584 a week. A 1995 study by the Latino
Institute has confirmed that the ability to speak English can make the
difference between a low-wage job and a high-wage managerial,
professional, or technical job.
These facts paint an unmistakable picture. Immigrant communities
themselves recognize what must be done: According to the U.S.
Department of Education, 42 percent of new enrollees in adult education
are signed up for classes in English as a foreign language. Almost all
of those enrollees--97 percent of them--were born outside the United
States.
The drive for self-improvement these students demonstrate reflects an
understanding of what America itself must not take for granted: that
language is the foundation on which all human interaction rests. In
America, where the principal language of interaction is English, its
use and active promotion through Government policy can pave the way for
unprecedented opportunity and national prosperity. But just as a common
language opens the door to communication, so too the lack of it erects
a barrier not easily overcome. If the common bond of a national
language is neglected and denigrated long enough, experience teaches
that the Nation itself will ultimately suffer. Such an important key to
realizing the American dream ought not be kept from those who come to
the United States.
As we continue to welcome new Americans to our shores, we must ensure
that misguided national policies do not undermine the important role of
a common language of national understanding. English as the official
language of our Government encourages its use by all Americans, so as
to secure brighter opportunities and a better future for us all.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this legislation,
H.R. 123. This measure would establish English as the official language
of the United States, an unnecessary move that would only serve to
polarize our communities and segregate those for whom English
proficiency may not be so easily attained. This underlying measure is a
solution in search of a problem, which is more likely to disrupt and
deny the rights of U.S. citizens than to enhance the rights of
Americans.
This measure is unnecessary. In America, English is already our
common language, and making it official will do nothing to increase its
use. Custom and practice of our language will not be enhanced by such
cumbersome forced feeding. Even in Government, this holds true. For
example, the General Accounting Office has reported that 99.94 percent
of U.S. Government documents are printed in English only. While I
communicate mostly in English to my constituents in the Fourth District
of Minnesota, I do occasionally send correspondence in other languages.
The original legislation would prevent my office, or any congressional
office, from sending non-English correspondence to our constituents.
These citizens deserve equal representation and access to their Federal
Government, and denying Congress the ability to communicate with them
limits their rights and privileges under the law. An amendment to be
offered will address this problem, which this House will adopt, but
what about the Department and Agencies employees who this measure ties
into knots so people are denied help and service.
While restricting the ability of the U.S. Government to adequately
communicate with certain Americans, this bill ironically does nothing
to provide opportunities to those with limited English proficiency in
order to help them learn our language. In fact, the fiscal year 1997
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill
recently passed by the House cuts bilingual and immigrant education
programs by 11 percent. This funding reduction, if taken together with
this bill, would pull the rug out from under the majority of immigrants
who are diligently attempting to learn English and further aggravate
and polarize existing language barriers in this country.
The main public school system in my district, St. Paul Public
Schools, is already struggling to provide this English language
instruction to its limited English proficiency [LEP] students, the
majority of who are Southeast Asian. The school district has over 6,500
LEP students and only 150 LEP teachers. This limits the number LEP
instruction hours per student and increases student-teacher ratios to
60 to 1 in most classrooms. These budget strains will only become
greater in the future as the student population with limited English
proficiency grows, and it is, by any measure, the fastest growing
population of students in the St. Paul Public School System. Clearly,
more resources are needed in these areas and in educating adults who
are new arrivals to the United States. This opportunity must be
presented to these citizens, not the punitive denial of access to their
Federal Government.
No one is suggesting that learning English is unimportant in the
effort to live, work, learn, and earn in the United States. We must
remember, however, that our Nation is comprised of people from many
diverse cultural backgrounds. Legal mandates denying them access to
some Government documents and other materials in their native language
could prove to be detrimental to the rights of these citizens who are
not fully proficient in English. The Federal Government should not be
in the business of creating new barriers to integration within our
society in this manner.
America's unity comes for hard work, dedication, and pride in our
Nation and its citizens, not only from a common language. Historically,
a high percentage of U.S. citizens once spoke poor or no English, but
with patience and good will, these European immigrants were
accommodated. How, this measure exacts a punitive action against those
who today face English language barriers. What is this Congress afraid
of? Have the people's representatives no confidence in our culture,
institutions, or customs that we must set in law in essence a
punishment for fellow citizens who need help in other languages such as
Spanish or Hmong? This would simply alienate new citizens from their
government, and segregation and isolation is surely not the goal we
seek. Quite the contrary we seek tolerance and cooperation. Rather, we
should integrate and honor our differences and recognize a person's
need and right to be assured that their basic rights are protected. We
will do more harm than good by imposing requirements that
disenfranchise the rights of citizens under the banner of a common
English language. If we are to continue to be a nation which accepts
diversity and cultural difference, we must defeat this legislation
which imposes great risk to the core American values and promise of our
society and our great nation the United States of America.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the English
Language Empowerment Act.
I cosponsored this bill under the mistaken assumption it was for the
purpose of designating English as the official language of this
country.
I now understand the bill goes far beyond this purpose and would
attempt to impose a clearly unconstitutional proscription on the ways
in which the Federal Government communicates with its taxpayers. I
further object to the provision which has been added to this bill to
repeal the requirement of the Voting Rights Act for bilingual ballots
in certain areas. As President Ronald Reagan said, the bilingual ballot
requirement, ``proves our unbending commitment to voting rights.''
Since coming to Congress, I have consistently worked to include more
Americans in the electoral process. This bill discourages participation
for many Americans, and I find that unacceptable.
In summary, I believe this bill does not effectively promote English
as the official language, but has an unacceptable punitive impact on
those in the process of gaining proficiency in our common language.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, Este proyecto de ley es una desgracia y
no es necesario. How rude can the Republican leadership be? At a time
when America is hosting the world in Atlanta, here we are trying to
silence other languages in some kind of perverted, xenophobic frenzy.
Why not ban New York Accent English, or ban Southern English? Who are
we to tell the American people--a free and diverse people--which
language is the only language for dignity and respect? Are we so
insecure about our heritage that we have to lash out at other
languages?
And what about the native American languages that were here long
before English? Or the Americans who speak cajun?
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just one more example of the hot button
politics that dominates this Congress since the Republicans took over.
I just wonder who we'll be told to hate next week.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, although the focus of the debate
surrounding this legislation has been on the use of foreign languages
by immigrants, in reality, the core of the issue concerning minority
language provisions of the Voting Rights Act is the constitutional and
civil rights of American citizens--both native born as well as
naturalized--whose first language is not English. The minority language
assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been signed into
law and supported by President Ford, Reagan and Bush, as well as
Presidents Clinton and Carter. During their most recent reauthorization
in 1992, Senator Hatch said that the provisions are an ``integral part
of our government's assurance that Americans do have . . . access'' to
the ballot box.

[[Page H9753]]

Since the minority language assistance provisions of the Voting
Rights Act was first adopted, they have provided a catalyst for
increase voter participation in language minority populations. From
1980 to 1990, Latino voter population increased by five times the rate
of the rest of the Nation, and the number of Latinos registered to vote
increased by approximately 500,000 between 1990-92. Participation
statistics for Native Americans also indicate an increase in turnout as
a result of minority language voting assistance. Recent studies confirm
that nearly three-fourths of Spanish speaking American citizens would
be less likely to vote if minority language assistance were not
available.
The evidence further reveals that the minority language provisions of
the Voting Rights Act are a targeted, low cost method of ensuring the
constitutional right to vote. According to the Government Accounting
Office, the average cost of providing written assistance is minuscule,
costing an average of 2.9 percent of election expenses or less.
Seventy-nine percent of the jurisdictions responding to this study
reported no costs in providing bilingual oral assistance.
Denying citizens minority language assistance with regard to voting
will not force or encourage them to learn English As the late Hamilton
Fish, Jr., then ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee so
eloquently state in 1992, ``by enabling language minority citizens to
vote in an effective and informed manner, we are giving them a stake in
our society, and this assistance . . . will lead to more, not less,
integration and inclusion of these citizens in our mainstream.''
The most recent reauthorization of the minority language provisions
were approved by overwhelming bipartisan margins of 237-125 in the
House, and 75-20 in the Senate. Yet, only 4 years later, this bill
would repeal these provisions without evidence that the discrimination
has ended. I urge opposition to this measure.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
opposition to the rule for H.R. 123, which would establish English as
the official language of the Federal Government.
Legislation which would establish English as our only language runs
counter to our Nation's history and would create a new and
unprecedented role for the Federal Government. The Founders of this
country recognized the danger of restricting its citizens' freedom of
expression. Language, like religion, is an intensely personal form of
self-expression which must not be subject to governmental regulation.
This is a restrictive rule which does not allow for a number of
important amendments, which were offered in the Rules Committee, to be
offered on the floor today. I am particularly concerned that an
amendment offered by Representatives Conyers, Becerra, Frank,
Richardson and myself was not made in order. This amendment would have
struck title II from the bill and ensured that no other section of the
bill eliminates bilingual election requirements. I also offered an
amendment that would have exempted ballots for Federal elections from
the bill's official English requirements.
The right to vote is one of our most cherished and fundamental
rights. It is guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the fifteenth
amendment to the Constitution and the Supreme Court has long held that
the right to vote implies the right to cast an informed and effective
vote. To that end, the Court has articulated that constitutional
protection extends ``to all, to those who speak other languages as well
as those both with English on the tongue.''
In 1975, Congress enacted language assistance provisions to the
Voting Rights Act, recognizing that large numbers of U.S. citizens who
primarily spoke languages other than English had been effectively
excluded from participation in our electoral process. Congressional
hearings brought forth evidence that these citizens were denied equal
opportunities by State and local governments, resulting in disabilities
and continuing illiteracy in the English language.
Repealing these provisions--as title 2 of this legislation would do--
and denying American citizens access to bilingual ballots for Federal
elections would effectively disenfranchise a large population of U.S.
citizens. In fact, as the number of bilingual U.S. citizens continues
to grow the need for bilingual ballots is even greater. Many of these
citizens have only recently had the opportunity to engage meaningfully
in participatory democracy. Bilingual ballots not only increase the
number of registered voters, but permit voters to participate on an
informed basis. They not only allow voters who need language assistance
to be able to read to know who is running for office, but also to
understand more complex voting issues such as constitutional
amendments.
Language assistance is not costly. In depth studies show that the
cost was either nominal or caused no additional costs. A GAO report
indicates that of the 295 responding jurisdictions, the average cost of
providing written assistance was 7.6 percent of the total election
expenditures, and an estimated 18 States incurred no additional costs
in providing assistance. Oral language assistance is even less
burdensome, with costs ranging from 2.9 percent to no additional cost.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation has remained strong and united because, while
we do not always agree, we share a common set of democratic ideals and
values. Commitment to freedom, equality, tolerance and opportunity--not
language--is what holds us together. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this rule and oppose this bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased to express his
support for H.R. 123, legislation to declare English as the official
language of the United States. This Member not only is a cosponsor of
H.R. 123, but also this Member has a long track record of cosponsoring
comparable legislation since 1985.
Non-English speakers in a society where English is the predominant
language are almost certainly doomed to be at an economic disadvantage
in this Nation. One only has to look to the continued, divisive
problems in Canada, Belgium, or other bilingual nations to realize that
the United States would be well advised to avoid such a situation.
Despite the lack of political courage among a few Representatives and
Senators who represent border States, it is high time that Congress act
on this matter.
This bill eliminates the existing Federal mandate for bilingual
ballots; however, it does not make bilingual ballots illegal.
Therefore, a State may continue to provide election ballots in more
than one language, but only if the State so chooses. Additionally, H.R.
123 requires that all citizenship naturalization ceremonies be
conducted entirely in English. The legislation does not prohibit
Members of Congress, Federal Employees, and Federal officials from
communicating orally with others in a foreign language. Sensible
exemptions are allowed under this bill for teaching of languages,
national security issues, international relations, trade and commerce,
public health and safety, rights of victims of crimes or criminal
defendants, and for census purposes.
Mr. Chairman, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to vote in
favor of H.R. 123.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition of H.R. 123, the misnamed English Language Empowerment Act.
Mr. Chairman, English-only laws, especially eliminating ballots in
other languages, will disconnect millions of Americans from their
Government. Denying citizens minority language assistance in voting
will not force or encourage them to learn English. On the contrary, it
will lead to less integration or inclusion of these citizens in
mainstream society.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, over 97 percent of
Americans can speak English. Research has illustrated that today's
immigrants are learning to speak English even faster than previous
generations. Publications and information materials in other languages
allow those who are learning, but not yet fluent in English, the
opportunity to participate in our democracy by making informed
decisions. Laws to make English official in all governmental services
and departments is an avoidance and dismissal of the fact that above
all institutions, our Government should respect the differences in our
social mosaic. Providing multi-lingual services promotes participation
by all persons in this country and recognizes that people who
contribute to our tax base should have access to services for which
they are eligible.
Mr. Chairman, another concern of mine is that as we force non-English
speaking Americans to learn the English language, we hinder their
efforts to learn English by eliminating funding for bilingual education
programs. Rest assured, Mr. Chairman, that I will continue to preserve
our American heritage, however, I cannot deny that the American
heritage has been enriched by the culture of other nations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this divisive bill. I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired for general debate.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of H.R. 3898 is considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 3898

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``English Language Empowerment
Act of 1996''.
TITLE I--ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds and declares the following:

[[Page H9754]]

(1) The United States is comprised of individuals and
groups from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic
backgrounds.
(2) The United States has benefited and continutes to
benefit from this rich diversity.
(3) Throughout the history of the United States, the common
thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been
a common language.
(4) In order to preserve unity in diversity, and to prevent
division along linguistic lines, the Federal Government
should maintain a language common to all people.
(5) English has historically been the common language and
the language of opportunity in the United States.
(6) The purpose of this title is to help immigrants better
assimilate and take full advantage of economic and
occupational opportunities in the United States.
(7) By learning the English language, immigrants will be
empowered with the language skills and literacy necessary to
become responsible citizens and productive workers in the
United States.
(8) The use of a single common language in conducting
official businesss of the Federal Government will promote
efficiency and fairness to all people.
(9) English should be recognized in law as the language of
official business of the Federal Government.
(10) Any monetary savings derived from the enactment of
this title should be used for the teaching of the English
language to non-English speaking immigrants.

SEC. 102. ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.--Title 4, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 6--LANGUAGE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

``See.
``161. Declaration of official language of Federal Government
``162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the official language
``163. Official Federal Government activities in English
``164. Standing
``165. Reform of naturalization requirements
``166. Application
``167. Rule of construction
``168. Affirmation of constitutional protections
``169. Definitions

``Sec. 161. Declaration of official language of Federal
Government

``The official language of the Federal Government is
English.

``Sec. 162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the official
language

``Representatives of the Federal Government shall have an
affirmative obligation to preserve and enhance the role of
English as the official language of the Federal Government.
Such obligation shall include encouraging greater
opportunities for individuals to learn the English language.

``Sec. 163. Official Federal Government activities in English

``(a) Conduct of Business.--Representatives of the Federal
Government shall conduct its official business in English.
``(b) Denial of Services.--No person shall be denied
services, assistance, or facilities, directly or indirectly
provided by the Federal Government solely because the person
communicates in English.
``(c) Entitlement.--Every person in the United States is
entitled--
``(1) to communicate with representatives of the Federal
Government in English;
``(2) to receive information from or contribute information
to the Federal Government in English; and
``(3) to be informed of or be subject to official orders in
English.

``Sec. 164. Standing

``A person injured by a violation of this chapter may in a
civil action (including an action under chapter 151 of title
28) obtain appropriate relief.

``Sec. 165. Reform of naturalization requirements

``(a) Fluency.--It has been the longstanding national
belief that full citizenship in the United States requires
fluency in English. English is the language of opportunity
for all immigrants to take their rightful place in society in
the United States.
``(b) Ceremonies.--All authorized officials shall conduct
all naturalization ceremonies entirely in English.

``Sec. 166. Application

``Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the
provisions of this chapter shall supersede any existing
Federal law that contravenes such provisions (such as by
requiring the use of a language other than English for
official business of the Federal Government).

``Sec. 167. Rule of construction

``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed--
``(1) to prohibit a Member of Congress or an employee or
official of the Federal Government, while performing official
business, from communicating orally with another person in a
language other than English;
``(2) to discriminate against or restrict the rights of any
individual in the country; and
``(3) to discourage or prevent the use of languages other
than English in any nonofficial capacity.

``Sec. 168. Affirmation of constitutional protections

``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to be
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.

``Sec. 169. Definitions

``For purposes of this chapter:
``(1) Federal government.--The term `Federal Government'
means all branches of the national Government and all
employees and officials of the national Government while
performing official business.
``(2) Official business.--The term `official business'
means governmental actions, documents, or policies which are
enforceable with the full weight and authority of the Federal
Government, and includes publications, income tax forms, and
informational materials, but does not include--
``(A) teaching of languages;
``(B) actions, documents, or policies necessary for--
``(i) national security issues; or
``(ii) international relations, trade, or commerce;
``(C) actions or documents that protect the public health
and safety;
``(D) actions or documents that facilitate the activities
of the Bureau of the Census in compiling any census of
population;
``(E) actions, documents, or policies that are not
enforceable in the United States;
``(F) actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes
or criminal defendants;
``(G) actions in which the United States has initiated a
civil lawsuit; or
``(H) documents that utilize terms of art or phrases from
languages other than English.
``(3) United states.--The term `United States' means the
several States and the District of Columbia.''.
``(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for
title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:

``6. Language of the Federal Government......................161''.....

SEC. 103. PREEMPTION.

``This title (and the amendments made by this title) shall
not preempt any law of any State.

SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by section 102 shall take effect on the
date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
TITLE II--REPEAL OF BILINGUAL VOTING REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 201. REPEAL OF BILINGUAL VOTING REQUIREMENTS

(a) Bilingual Election Requirements.--Section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a) is repealed.
(b) Voting Rights.--Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b) is amended by striking subsection (f).

SEC. 202. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) References to Section 203.--The Voting Rights Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 204, by striking ``or 203,''; and
(2) in section 205, by striking ``, 202, or 203'' and
inserting ``or 202''.
(b) References to Section 4.--The Voting Rights Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in sections 2(a), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 4(d), 5, 6, and 13,
by striking ``, or in contravention of the guarantees set
forth in section 4(f)(2)'';
(2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (3) of section 4(a), by
striking ``or (in the case of a State or subdivision seeking
a declaratory judgment under the second sentence of this
subsection) in contravention of the guarantees of subsection
(f)(2)'';
(3) in paragraph (1)(B) of section 4(a), by striking ``or
(in the case of a State or subdivision seeking a declaratory
judgment under the second sentence of this subsection) that
denials or abridgements of the right to vote in contravention
of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have occurred anywhere
in the territory of such State or subdivision''; and
(4) in paragraph (5) of section 4(a), by striking ``or (in
the case of a State or subdivision which sought a declaratory
judgment under the second sentence of this subsection) that
denials or abridgements of the right to vote in contravention
of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have occurred anywhere
in the territory of such State or subdivision''.

The CHAIRMAN. No other amendment shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 104-734 or pursuant to the order of the House
of today.
The amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the
order specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered 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.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the amendment numbered 1
printed in the report by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]
may be offered as modified.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on amendment, and reduce to 5 minutes the minimum
time for electronic voting on any postponed

[[Page H9755]]

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 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 104-734, as modified under the previous order of the House.

amendment, as modified, offered by mr. cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Cunningham: Page 1,
line 4, insert before ``English'' the words ``Bill Emerson.''
Page 6, after line 5, insert the following (and redesignate
any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
``(2) to limit the preservation or use of Native American
languages;''
Page 7, after line 3 insert the following (and redesignate
any subsequent subparagraph accordingly):
``(B) requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act;''.
Page 7, line 20, strike ``documents that utilize'' and
insert ``using''.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 499, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

{time} 1415

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, is there someone in opposition to the
amendment to claim the time?
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] claiming
the time?
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose this particular
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to
this amendment. I understand that this request has been worked out with
the majority.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Becerra] will control the 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The Chairman, I think we have agreement on this particular amendment.
It clarifies that the bill does not affect native American languages or
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, that are in IDEA, the
special education program, that we want to make sure that children in
special education can communicate in this way, and it excludes that.
The intent of H.R. 123 is not to hinder the preservation of native
American languages. It is to encourage fluency in the language of
American opportunity, English.
This is a technical change that eliminates the limiting reference to
documents. This resolves a committee dispute over whether coins labeled
``E Pluribus Unum'' are documents, and would be authorized.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I consider this legislation basically an
insult to the English language and also un-American because basically
it violates free speech and also discourages diversity, which I think
is a hallmark of our American tradition.
The legislation has nothing to do with protecting the English
language. English is a wonderful language that has survived for years
in various places. To think that the language of Shakespeare has to
have government help to survive.
How ironic that our Republican friends on the other side want to use
government involvement to preserve the English language, which is why I
think it is an insult to the language. I consider it un-American
because the legislation only has two purposes: first, to make it
difficult for government to communicate with its citizens; and, second,
to discourage the use of other languages. Contrary to whatever my
colleagues might say on the other side, that is the real purpose of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, when I say making it difficult for government ot
communicate with citizens, why is it that in my office that I cannot
hand out a brochure on this bill in another language? I have people
that come into my office that speak Spanish, Italian, various Indian
dialects, a whole panoply, really, of people that speak various
languages. I should be able to speak to them, write to them,
communicate with them however I please, in any language that helps them
if they are citizens, which they are. It does not make sense, it is
against free speech.
Second, Mr. Chairman, this bill discourages the use of other
languages in public and private places. Do not get the idea that the
opposite is true. Let me give Members an idea. I never learned Italian,
in part because my grandparents did not want me to, but it would be a
great asset to me and to my children to know Italian. But if you put
out this notion, this symbol, if you will, that people should only
speak English, which is what this is about, it discourages diversity,
it discourages people form learning other languages and using them. We
should be doing the opposite. This is a global economy. People should
use languages as an asset. In this country with so many different
traditions, we should be encouraging diversity, not discouraging it.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, despite the red hot rhetoric of those
who are trying to score cheap political points, the truth is this.
Diversity does not divide our Nation. Bilingualism does not burden our
bureaucracy. Using Spanish or Polish or German to contact a
constituent, collect taxes or cast a ballot does not lead to confusion.
It enhances communication. It adds color and clarity and dignity to our
ideas. That brings us closer together.
English-only laws disenfranchise Americans who pay taxes, play by the
rules and send their children off to war.
Speaker Newt Gingrich often says that words have power. Therefore, by
the Speaker's own logic, if you deny specific groups of Americans the
ability to use words that are part of their culture, you strip them of
their power. Poll taxes and literacy taxes which once stripped African-
Americans of their God-given rights have now been reborn, renamed and
retargeted to strike at other minority groups.
English only is the Jim Crow of the 1990's. Americans of all
backgrounds are its victim. Latinos are certainly its primary targets
but English-only is also a threat to Polish and Italian Americans, to
Chinese and Ukrainian Americans.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, English only is a threat to America itself. It
represents a rejection of America's past. There was a time when
immigrants were once called upon to create a culture, not just to
conform to it. English only strips America of its future as well. After
all, what awaits us if we deny certain voters a role in their
government, if we deny certain students the chance to learn? We deny
them the chance to pursue their potential and contribute to America. We
deny America of its hope.
Mr. Chairman, the United States did not achieve greatness because we
all speak with one voice. Our country is great because we can, if we
wish, speak with many voices.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is long overdue. I have a question for my
colleagues in this Chamber. When you take a look at economic statistics
and notice who is earning the lowest income, you will find that the
people who are not speaking English, or who are not fluent in English,
are at the bottom. Why do you want to keep the people at the bottom of
the income scale? Give the people a chance. Give the people a chance to
earn a decent income. But first you have to give them a chance to learn
the English language.
Everyone knows that the English language is the language of
opportunity in the United States. I had a hearing on this bill over 3
years ago, when we were still the minority. Do you know who the
strongest supporters are of this bill? The new Americans. We had
Latinos from all over America, especially California, come in. They are
all for this legislation, because they want their kids to have a
chance, a

[[Page H9756]]

chance that they may not have had. So we are speaking for the new
Americans here.
Mr. Chairman, I am not accusing anyone, but I get suspicious
sometimes when I hear the politicians get up and speak. They are so out
of step with the people they say they represent that it is night and
day. I often think that the politicians want to keep these people down,
keep them under their thumb.
I think it is about time we liberate the people. Let us give them a
chance to learn the English language so they can compete in America.
Teddy White, and Arthur Schlesinger both have said that, as we come to
the 21st century, the greatest fear they have for our country is that
America is breaking up into squabbling ethnic groups. Winston Churchill
said a common language is a Nation's most precious inheritance. We want
to hand this common language on to our children and to our
grandchildren, and to all groups in America.
Mr. Chairman, there are many quotes from distinguished speakers on
this issue, but the most insightful quote of all, I think, comes from
Linda Chavez. She said, and I quote: For the overwhelming majority of
immigrant children, learning English was the first and most crucial
step on the road to becoming an American.
Is that not true?
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)

modification offered by mr. underwood to the amendment offered by mr.
cunningham

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham],
the chairman of the subcommittee, be modified by the form that I have
placed at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification offered by Mr. Underwood to the amendment
offered by Mr. Cunningham: In the amendment, strike ``Native
American languages'' and insert ``Native Alaskan or Native
American languages (as defined in the Native American
Languages Act).''

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California on
behalf of the linguistically liberated people from Guam.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to clarify my intent in offering a second
degree amendment to the Cunningham amendment. As a result of my
amendment to the manager's amendment, indigenous languages of Native
Alaska, native America and the Pacific will be affirmed and exempted
from the English-only bill.
The Cunningham amendment clarifies that the provisions of the bill do
not affect native American languages. I appreciate the intent of
Congressman Cunningham in offering his amendment and in raising this
important issue. Under the Cunningham amendment, however, Native
Alaskan is not exempted, and it is not clear which definition of native
American is used.
My second degree amendment clarifies that the bill does not affect
Native Alaskan or native American languages as defined under the Native
American Languages Act. Under the Native American Languages Act, the
term ``Native American'' means an Indian, Native Hawaiian, or native
American Pacific Islander.
My second degree amendment ensures that indigenous languages to the
United States are not prohibited from being spoken or written in our
communities. The amendment is an affirmation of indigenous languages
and their contribution to our society. I am pleased with Congressman
Cunningham's willingness to accept this second degree amendment, and
for his intent in offering his amendment.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to make the point with regard to the very
important matter which just preceded this, that of these 300 plus so-
called foreign languages that we have heard about, almost half of them
are native languages, indigenous languages to the original people of
the United States, languages that were here hundreds of years before
English.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] is recognized
for 30 seconds.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, as someone who came to this country speaking
what is termed the Queen's English and when I learned American, I want
to point out in an English phrase what this legislation embodies: That
phrase is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
This country is made up of diversity. This country is big enough to
include all the languages and all the people. Let us not cut off our
noses to spite our faces.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is not an English-only bill. It is
an official language of the Government bill. If it were an English-only
bill, it would apply not only to government but to private businesses,
to churches, to neighborhoods and homes, and the bill does not do that.
The gentlewoman talks about diversity. We encourage diversity and we
encourage other languages, as in my own children. H.R. 123 does not
apply to homes and churches, and neighborhoods, and communities, to
public health, and safety, national security, international relations,
the teaching of languages, the census, certain civil lawsuits, rights
of crime victims or criminal defendants, or oral communication by the
Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, when talking about diversity, the census study shows
that there are going to be 20 million Americans that either do not
speak English or are limited English-proficient. What hope does that
person have or that family? None. In my own district, I can walk
precincts and go in entire blocks where no one in that house except
maybe the child that is going to school speaks English. No one. What
help does that child have when they go home on geometry or chemistry?
None. It is because the Government has subsidized and sent information,
and there is no intent to ever learn English. Some of the people there
have been there since 1986 where we waived the rights for illegal
coming in. Some of those same individuals have never even left that
block. you talk about imprisonment. All we are doing is saying that we
want the Government to operate in the official language. I would say
that the State and the local have got full right to communicate. In
many instances in this bill we do not prohibit the Members from
communicating with their constituents. I appreciate Members' support
for the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is advised that the amendments numbered 2
through 4 will not be offered.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House
Report 104-734.

{time} 1430

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Serrano

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Serrano:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``English Plus Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) English is the primary language of the United States,
and all members of the society recognize the importance of
English to national life and individual accomplishment.
(2) Many residents of the United States speak native
languages other than English, including many languages
indigenous to this country, and these linguistic resources
need to be conserved and developed.
(3) This Nation was founded on a commitment to democratic
principles, and not on racial, ethnic, or religious
homogeneity, and has drawn strength from a diversity of
languages and cultures and from a respect for individual
liberties.

[[Page H9757]]

(4) Multilingualism, or the ability to speak languages in
addition to English, is a tremendous resource to the United
States because such ability enhances American competitiveness
in global markets by permitting improved communication and
cross-cultural understanding between producers and suppliers,
vendors and clients, and retailers and consumers.
(5) Multilingualism improves United States diplomatic
efforts by fostering enhanced communication and greater
understanding between nations.
(6) Multilingualism has historically been an essential
element of national security, including the use of Native
American languages in the development of coded communications
during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
(7) Multilingualism promotes greater cross-cultural
understanding between different racial and ethnic groups in
the United States.
(8) There is no threat to the status of English in the
United States, a language that is spoken by 97 percent of
United States residents, according to the 1990 United States
Census, and there is no need to designate any official United
States language or to adopt similar restrictionist
legislation.
(9) ``English-only'' measures, or proposals to designate
English as the sole official language of the United States,
would violate traditions of cultural pluralism, divide
communities along ethnic lines, jeopardize the provision of
law enforcement, public health, education, and other vital
services to those whose English is limited, impair government
efficiency, and undercut the national interest by hindering
the development of language skills needed to enhance
international competitiveness and conduct diplomacy.
(10) Such ``English-only'' measures would represent an
unwarranted Federal regulation of self-expression, abrogate
constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal
protection of the laws, violate international human rights
treaties to which the United States is a signatory, and
contradict the spirit of the 1923 Supreme Court case Meyer v.
Nebraska, wherein the Court declared that ``The protection of
the Constitution extends to all; to those who speak other
languages as well as to those born with English on the
tongue.''.

SEC. 3. GOVERNMENT POLICIES.

The United States Government should pursue policies that
promote English as the common language of the United States
and that--
(1) encourage all residents of this country to become fully
proficient in English by expanding educational opportunities
and informational resources;
(2) conserve and develop the Nation's linguistic resources
by encouraging all residents of this country to learn or
maintain skills in a language other then English;
(3) respect the treaties with and the customs of Native
Americans, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and other
peoples indigenous to the United States and its territories;
(4) continue to provide services in languages other than
English as needed to facilitate access to essential functions
of government, promote public health and safety, ensure due
process, promote equal educational opportunity, and protect
fundamental rights; and
(5) recognize the importance of multilingualism to vital
American interests and individual rights, and oppose
restrictionist language measures.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 499, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Serrano] will be recognized for 30 minutes and a Member
in opposition will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I ask
unanimous consent that 15 minutes of the 30 minutes I control be
controlled by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will control 15
minutes and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] will control
15 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the discussion we are having today is a
classic example of how a nonissue becomes somewhat of an issue in this
House. It seems that everyone is saying, on that side of the aisle,
that there is a major problem with the English language in this
country; that somehow people do not want to learn to speak English;
that children are running around this Nation speaking only other
languages and not English, and that somehow, unless we here today and
later on in the other House protect the English language, the language
and the Nation will somehow cease from being the great language and the
great Nation that they are today and become something that we will not
recognize.
What is interesting about this nonissue being made into somewhat of
an issue is that it is totally false. The fact of life is, as has been
said on this floor, that 97 percent of Americans, according to the
Census Bureau, speak English; that people who come to this country,
incidentally, whether with documents or without documents, are coming
here for one specific reason. They want to make a new life for
themselves and for their children. They leave behind their country, in
many cases they leave behind members of their family. Now, does it make
any sense that the first statement they hear upon arriving in our
country is that they do not want to speak English?
I can tell my colleagues through a personal example that in the
Hispanic and the Puerto Rican community when people sit around a dinner
table and the issue of language comes up, it is never a plot against
the English language, it is a lament about the fact that the children
and the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. Whether it be rap music
or rock or soul or the latest dance craze, television, ``Nick'' during
the day or ``Nick at Night,'' whether it is school or the street,
English empowers and takes over everyone's life so that English
becomes, in fact, the common language.
What we are saying here today is that we want to make it the official
language so that I cannot communicate with the foreign minister from
Mexico in Spanish or the new president from the Dominican Republic who
will be writing to me, as I know he will, in Spanish. I will have to
write to him back in English, unless I break rules of this House.
We are sending a message to the world that if they want to speak to
us or write to us, they must do it in our language because we are too
arrogant to deal with them.

This is a misguided concept and one that is not necessary. My
amendment in the nature of a substitute, English Plus, says that
English only is unnecessary. It recognizes that English is the language
of this land. It encourages all residents and citizens to speak
English. It asks Government to help each one of us to learn to speak
English, but it also says, my amendment, that we recognize that there
are other languages in this country, and that rather than running away
from them and being nervous about them, we should recognize them as a
resource for our country.
The message should be, sure, there are some of us who speak Spanish
and Japanese and French and German, other languages. We will learn to
speak English, we will function in English, but if we maintain that
second language, we use it as a symbol to the world that we are ready
to deal with them; that we are not in a phobia about languages.
What my amendment simply says is that we recognize who we are as a
people, but we recognize the diversity in our country and we strengthen
that diversity by supporting English as our common and main language,
as the language of this country, but also not suggesting that to speak
another language, to read another language is a problem.
Now, I could have delivered for Members this speech, whether they
think it is good or bad, in Spanish totally, and I could write it in
Spanish and I could read it back in Spanish. I do not think the fact
that I am bilingual, that I listen to music and lyrics in two
languages, that I read literature in two languages has in any way hurt
me at all. On the contrary, I think, at times, I may be an asset to
this House because I know what people are saying in Latin America. I do
not know the translation, I know exactly what they are saying in Latin
America and how they are saying it.
Let us not run away from the strength of this country. Let us support
this amendment and make English Plus the way of the land.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, American society has developed on the melting pot
theory. We are a nation of immigrants from diverse backgrounds and
cultures who have come together as one people, the American people.

[[Page H9758]]

Learning to communicate in English is one of the most important ways
in which this coming together, the transformation from the many to one,
takes place. Of necessity, each of us or our forefathers have had to
learn English in order to succeed. As Americans, we all value our
heritage, but we also recognize that as Americans, we must become
proficient in English if we are to fully participate in all facets of
American life.
The 1975 bilingual ballot amendments to the Voting Rights Act have
had the effect, whether intended or not, of encouraging minority
language dependency and therefore self-imposed segregation, both
politically and culturally.
English is our common language of discourse. In recognition of this
fact, now more than ever, the Federal Government has a responsibility
to look for things to bring us together as a nation and unify us rather
than encouraging further separation along ethnic lines. Ballots are the
recognized formal instrument for citizen participation in the electoral
process. The ballot's highly official nature gives great weight to all
that is written on the ballot. Present this information in English, and
the message is unmistakable that English is the official language of
our shared public life. It is the language Americans use that affects
the future of our Nation as a whole.
A ballot in two or more languages delivers a very different message.
It sanctions other languages as coequal to English in the process that
determines the future of our Nation. It says that the highest
authorities in the land place no special value on the English language
as we participate in the central act of democratic self-governance.
In addition, the Federal mandate requiring bilingual ballots is both
ineffective and expensive. The county registrar for Yuba County, CA,
Mrs. Frances Farey, testified before the Judiciary's Subcommittee on
the Constitution that in 16 years she received only one request for a
bilingual ballot. She testified that for just three elections the
county has spent over $46,000 to comply with the Federal bilingual
ballot requirements.
According to statistics from the Census Bureau, voter participation
and registration rates by Hispanic voters have in fact decreased,
decreased since this Federal mandate was first imposed in 1975. In
addition, bilingual ballots are expensive. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that repealing the Federal bilingual ballot mandate
will save State and local governments between $5 and $10 million for
each election. Finally, as I have stated earlier, bilingual ballots are
divisive and harmful to our society as a whole.
The Serrano substitute strips the bilingual ballot repeal from this
important legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject government-
sanctioned and enforced multiculturalism and to vote against the
Serrano substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues, including my
friend the gentleman from New York, Jose--I am sorry, should it be
Joseph--Serrano, may be surprised to hear this, but I rise to say that
I think that H.R. 123 might be a good bill. I would like to propose
maybe that we should have a few other amendments to make this bill even
better than it is.
I propose that the bill be amended to require that all of our
embassies use English as their only language, an amendment also
requiring our embassies here in Washington to speak only English.
I propose that we have an amendment barring any Federal money to be
paid to interpreters in this Nation.
I propose that we have an amendment requiring that we remove the
words ``E pluribus unum'' off our dollar bills.
I propose that we amend our rules so that when we adjourn we do not
say ``sine die,'' or is that ``sina dei''?
I propose an amendment that we forbid U.S. companies from doing
business in countries where they do not speak English.
I propose an amendment barring the President and Members of Congress
from visiting nations where English is not the official language.
And since we are legislating an official language, how about an
official religion to go along with it? Come to think of it, why do we
not just get rid of the first amendment altogether?
Mr. Chairman, without these amendments, I urge my colleagues to vote
against this bill until we get it just right.
We all know that this bill is just as ridiculous as the amendments I
just proposed. I urge my colleagues to vote against it and let us get
on with the work that our constituents sent us here to do. Meantime,
let us vote to support the Serrano amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the great State of Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
123 and in opposition to this substitute. Every immigrant who has come
to this country has known that English is the language we speak here.
This bill would just reinforce that fact.
Since the Census Bureau reports that 47 percent of the foreign born
population do not speak English well or at all, it seems that this fact
needs to be reinforced.
Now, if any of us wanted to move to France or Japan, we would look
awfully silly complianing about having to learn their local language.
Why is it somehow a horrible violation of human rights to insist that
people living here, and especially people who move here deliberately
from elsewhere, learn our language?
Federal statutes require right now that every applicant for
naturalization must demonstrate an understanding of the English
language, including an ability to read, write and speak words in
ordinary usage in the English language.
Now, that is tremendously important. Why are we even debating this?
It is in the statute right now. There are special exemptions for those
physically unable to do so or those over 50 years of age who have
resided in this country for 20 years or more.
We are threatening no one by declaring that the official language of
this nation of immigrants is english. With so many cultures and so many
traditions, none of which do we seek to suppress or denigrate, we need
to coalesce around common values. Language is one of these, and so
today I hope that we pass this bill making English the official
language of this Government.
The bill specifically exempts communications that address health or
safety. These are communal concerns. Uniting all Americans with the
English language is not anti-immigrant.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 123.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], a great Hispanic American from New Mexico,
with an interesting name.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano amendment
and of course in opposition to that embarrassing legislation known as
``English only.''

{time} 1445

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes, I would be unable
to effectively communicate with 60 percent of my constituents. Hispanic
Americans make up 40 percent in my district; native Americans, the
first Americans, 20 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder what is going to happen with the cities of Los
Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Fe? They ought to start
thinking about changing their names. What about Dodgerville for Los
Angeles?
Mr. Chairman, this is facetious, but realistically what we are
talking about is a wedge issue that is not necessary. I think the
author of this bill is well-intended and he is a good guy. But, Mr.
Chairman, English is not threatened as our primary language. Ninety-
seven

[[Page H9759]]

percent of the population in this country speak English. Newly arrived
want to learn English. That is happening.
Bilingual voting ballots are critical for minority populations.
Basically what we are doing is totally unconstitutional. It is going to
make government inefficient and ineffective. English-only restricts
access to services and government.
But, most importantly, this is against our traditions and this is bad
business. Forty percent of all commercial decisions in the United
States are done in another language. Tourism is critically important.
Just think of the spirit of the Olympics right now in Atlanta. We are
telling the billions watching the Olympics that English is the only
language and the rest of the languages are not important. The most
important business in the Olympics is translation service. That is not
the message that we want to send to the rest of the world.
Mr. Chairman, English-only will divide this country. It is divisive,
it is negative, and it should be rejected.
At a time when intolerance among ethnic groups has become one of the
major threats to peace on Earth, and when the global economy requires
multilingual skills, America, the land of opportunities, equality and
freedom, wants to pass a bill that would jeopardize the very essence of
what historically has united this great Nation--tolerance and respect
for our differences.
The English Language Empowerment Act of 1996, will not unite or
empower America. Instead, it will aggravate racial and ethnic tensions
and will hurt our economy.
If we start telling people the language they should speak, we are
entering a very dangerous path that could lead to us dictating to
Americans the religious and political beliefs they should practice.
This will only spark resentment and increase discrimination among
ethnic groups causing a tremendous social distress.
If our residents are not learning English fast enough, it is not
because we are teaching them in their native language. The problem is
that we have failed to provide enough resources to increase the number
of English classes so that people can learn our common language.
According to recent estimates, only 13 percent of the demand for
English as a second language classes is being met and over 45,000
students are on the waiting lists in major cities like Los Angeles.
This bill does nothing to address this problem. English-only does not
improve educational opportunities. Instead, it focuses on prohibiting
the Federal Government from using languages other than English when
conducting official business.
Yet, this bill will not only increase tensions among ethnic groups
and jeopardize the well-being of our economy, but most importantly, it
will endanger one of the most sacred American ideals--democracy for
all.
Title II of the English Language Empowerment Act of 1996, would
repeal a Federal law requiring bilingual ballots for many non-English
speaking voters.
Since the founding of our Nation, many Americans have been deprived
of their inalienable right to participate in the democratic process by
negating, either legally or illegally, their right to vote. Prior to
the Civil War, mainly male property owners who were over 21 years of
age were enfranchised. After the war, tactics such as fraud, economic
blackmail and violence including murder were used to discourage and
prevent people of color to exert their right to vote. Some States made
voting difficult by designing complex balloting procedures as well as
requiring literacy tests.
Decades of popular outcry have forced Congress to pass several laws
and amend the Constitution twice in order to protect the voting rights
of all Americans. In response to real evidence of discrimination
against racial minorities at the polling place, Congress passed the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act, as amended in 1975, contains
bilingual voting provisions that guarantee that no American is denied
the fundamental right to vote because of a lack of fluency in English.
Years of struggle by the American people as well as previous
congressional efforts to make the ideal of universal suffrage a reality
in America will be rolled back by the English Language Empowerment Act
of 1996. This act would strip non-English speaking voters of their
right to have a voice in the political process by repealing the
bilingual voting provisions from the Voting Rights Act. In my district
alone, this bill will directly affect 60 percent of the population,
which is either Hispanic or native American.
The bilingual voting requirements are a valuable, inexpensive and
inclusive tool that ensures that the sacred constitutional right to
vote, which is the very foundation of democracy, is enjoyed by all.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:

English is not threatened as our primary language:
According to the Census Bureau, 97% of the US population
speaks English. Furthermore, on 0.06 percent of federal
documents are in languages other than English, according to
the General Accounting Office (GAO). Newcomers to our country
are learning English faster than ever before. In fact, recent
estimates indicate that only 13% of the demand for English-
as-a-Second-Language (ESL) classes in being met--waiting
lists in some major cities exceed 40,000.
Bilingual voting ballots are critical for minority language
populations: Title II would have a devastating impact on the
rights of language minority populations to participate fully
in the democratic process. Removing language barriers is a
targeted, low-cost, common sense solution to achieving
informed participation, considering the complex language of
ballot propositions and voting issues.
Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, Puerto Ricans, The
People of Guam and other U.S. territories, and elderly
naturalized citizens will be particularly impacted.
According to the Government Accounting Office, the average
cost of providing written assistance is minuscule, costing an
average of 2.9% of election expenses or less.
Also, according to the Justice Department, since 1975,
voter registration and voter turnout have increased
substantially as a direct result of existing minority
language provisions.
English-only is unconstitutional and makes government
inefficient and ineffective: The Arizona ``English-only''
initiative has been found to be unconstitutional by the Ninth
Circuit Court in Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English.
According to the Courts, it violates the First Amendment
right to free speech. The 9th Circuit Court found that
employees' knowledge of diverse languages made government
more efficient and less costly. The Arizona law and
legislation pending in Congress would outlaw communication
between elected officials and their constituents in any
language but English.
English-only restricts access to services and government:
Millions of tax-paying citizens and residents would be unable
to access and communicate with their government. That would
include residents of Puerto Rico, Native American
reservations and U.S. territories in the Pacific, whose right
to communicate in a native language is protected by treaty or
custom. English-only has nothing to do with improving
education or educational opportunities. Instead of
facilitating learning and communication, proponents of
English-only focus on prohibiting the use of other languages.
This is contrary to the American tradition and is divisive:
It is not the English language that unites us, but rather our
democratic system based on our rights established by the
Constitution of the United States. President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt once said, ``We are a nation of many nationalities,
many races, many religions--bound together by a single unity,
the unity of freedom and equality.''

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, for the past week and a half we have
celebrated the centennial Olympics in Atlanta--a celebration at which
over 70 different languages are spoken. Yet, while that celebration of
spirit and diversity continues this legislation sends the wrong global
message. Don't come visit us, don't trade with us, if you can't speak
English. This legislation is a solution to a problem that does not
exist and has not existed for the last 200 years.
The strength of our language is its diversity. If you study
linguistics, then you know that English is really two languages of
Germanic and Frankish origin. That is the strength of our language--its
dynamism. It has absorbed thousands of words from other languages. The
coffee you drank this morning is an Arabic word. Most of our vocabulary
is actually Latin. Our medical terms are Greek absorbed wholesale.
Knowledge and command of English is important. Every immigrant to
this country understands the economic motivation for learning English.
Without it they may survive, but they will not thrive.
As today's world becomes increasingly integrated and inter-dependent
it is short-sighted and ignorant to believe that policies of
isolationism and protectionism will serve America in the 21st century.
They limit our ability to interact in the growing world market place,
they bolster ethnic and racial tension and they diminish the character
and strength that America is known for world wide--our diversity.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman this bill is unconstitutional. In 1923 the
Supreme Court found a similar case unconstitutional. The court said,

[[Page H9760]]

The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those
who speak 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 American language needs no defense or protection. Those who
promote this type of legislation are the ``Down on America'' crowd.
They are threatened by change. They are the voice of exclusion and
peddle a divisionism that is truly un-American. Discrimination based on
language is as strong as that based on race.
I refuse to be Down on America. I believe in the dynamic liveliness
of America and our culture. Our culture is the gift of all the rich
cultures that built this Nation. Why do you think people around the
world look to America, listen to our music, watch our films, follow our
news? Yes, let's promote English--but, let us not divide America.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, ``From many, one''. It does not say,
``From many, more''. It says that we may have diversity, but we have to
have a common ground, a common language, that meeting place.
Now anyone who feels that that is some kind of antiquated idea, all
we have to do is go look to our friends to the north and look at the
strife in Canada caused by people who are divided based on the
languages they use because they do not have the common bond that we
have practiced for so long in America and which has created the
cherished experience we call the American way of life.
Mr. Chairman, I just wonder why people hide behind a term like
``multiculturalism'' when they do not want to admit what it really
means. I live on the Mexican border. I live in an environment where I
see people speak different languages. But I also see what happens to
people when they do not have that common language of English to be able
to move them up.
Mr. Chairman, I see those that are deprived of equal access to
economic opportunity and those who would do that for political gain.
Now, I want to present into the Record a grand jury report done about
a school district in my county that verified there was a conscious
effort done in the name of multiculturalism to make sure that the
children in that school district did not learn English, did not have
access to the common language.
Mr. Chairman, the only way I can find any justifications for this is
that there are people out there who want to divide us, who want to
separate us for whatever reasons. Maybe it is easier to manipulate them
politically, maybe it is easier to isolate them for economic reasons.
But I think that we have got to recognize that all we are saying here
today is: Let us not divide us. Let us not make more from many. Let us
remember that we need that common ground, that one where we all can
meet.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:
Grand Jury,

County of San Diego,

San Diego, CA, June 18, 1992.
Hon. Arthur W. Jones,
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, County of San Diego,
San Diego, CA.
Re Grand Jury Report No. 5, ``San Ysidro School District''.

Dear Judge Jones: Forwarded herewith is Grand Jury Report
No. 5 as referenced above.
This investigation was conducted by the Education Committee
of the Grand Jury within the authority granted under
California Penal Code Sections 925 and 933.5.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Macfie, Foreman.
Enclosure.

San Ysidro School District

(A Report by the 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury)

area of concern

Complaints of improprieties committed by the Trustees of
the San Ysidro School District Board and other administrators
have attracted the attention of the past three consecutive
San Diego County Grand Juries. In monitoring responses to
previous Grand Jury recommendations, the 1991-92 Grand Jury
has found the performance of the District Board of Trustees
to be as ineffective as previously reported and the schools
within the District to be suffering accordingly. After
several months of review, this Grand Jury finds that previous
recommendations to the District Board of Trustees have been
ignored and that drastic actions by higher authority are
essential to proper support of administrators, teachers,
students and parents.
Grand Juries sit for a twelve-month period and can, and
have repeatedly, recommended effective intervention to aid
the children in San Ysidro. Another Grand Jury report that
does not initiate immediate remediation by higher authority
will only reinforce the perception that the San Ysidro
District Board of Trustees is as ``untouchable'' as they
claim to be. For those in control at the higher levels of
education to imply that nothing can be done to give the
children of the community some hope for the future, is an
inane posture for government to assume, when the future of
more than 3,000 children is ignored.

background

San Ysidro is a twenty-nine square mile portion of the City
of San Diego, which lies north of Tijuana, Mexico. Caught in
the middle of these two large and rapidly growing cities--
Tijuana and San Diego--the community is economically,
politically, linguistically, socially and geographically
isolated. It is often mistaken for an independent
subdivision.
San Ysidro constitutes a school district separate and
independent from the San Diego Unified School District, which
includes all other public schools within the City of San
Diego. The San Ysidro School District consists of five
elementary schools and one middle school. Graduates of San
Ysidro Middle School attend high schools in adjacent school
districts. The schools have an approximate enrollment of
3,700 students, and they represent a population which is 92%
Hispanic.
Politically, San Ysidro is comprised of 5,336 registered
voters, out of a total adult population (18 and over) of
13,414. The District Board of Trustees, the only elected body
in the San Ysidro community, consists of five members who
serve staggered terms of four years. The School District is
the largest employer in the community.
Over a period of several years, the San Diego County Grand
Juries have received an uninterrupted flow of complaints
alleging malfeasance and/or incompetence on the part of the
majority of the School District Trustees and some
administrators and teachers. Complaints have been received
from parents. These have included numerous allegations of
wrongdoing, including violations of State law (violations of
the Brown Act and Education Code), and of Federal Law
(employment discrimination) and of failure to support
mandated objectives for the education of the school
population. Additionally, the District has been involved in
excessive and expensive litigation in recent years as a
result of its unlawful personnel actions.

methodology of investigation

Through its Education Committee, the Grand Jury has visited
facilities and heard testimony from Board Members,
administrators, teachers, parents and students within the San
Ysidro School District. The committee attended board meetings
and PTA meetings and held discussions with County and State
Education Department personnel. The Grand Jury has heard
sworn testimony from numerous witnesses during ten days of
formal hearings on San Ysidro school issues. Information thus
generated, confirming the findings of previous Grand Juries,
has resulted in a clear picture of conditions of
inappropriate, inadequate actions taken by certain members of
the Board of Trustees, some of whom minunderstand their
purpose.

findings

The 1991-1992 Grand Jury concurs with previous juries in
that serious problems exist within the San Ysidro School
District. In general, the Jury has found that the children of
San Ysidro are innocent victims of a philosophical power
struggle which permeates the School Board, school
administration, the teachers' union and the PTA. At issue,
beneath a veneer of educational rhetoric, is which shall
dominate the school system: the preservation of Mexican
cultural and Spanish language proficiency or assimilation of
Mexican-born and other American children into the North
American communication and economic systems.
The two philosophies are addressed as if they are mutually
exclusive. Currently, proficiency in Spanish with the
preservation of Mexican culture, at the expense of English
learning, is the governing philosophy. Those who disagree do
not enjoy the normal position of loyal opposition.
Administrators and teachers who do not support the majority
Board position are demoted or discharged, if legally
possible.
Dissenters who have tenure are merely tolerated in an
outcast status. A small group of administrators and teachers
enjoy the political/philosophical favor of the Board majority
and have a special status which is tantamount to ex-officio
Board membership. This almost unbelievable situation persists
because the Board of Trustees is essentially a town council,
perpetuated by a combination of intimidated voters, apathetic
non-voters and resident non-citizens.
Specifically, the Grand Jury has received evidence and
testimony that:
1. The Board of Trustees is a de facto town council with
extraordinary influence over numerous facets of life within
the San Ysidro community of San Diego. Certain members of the
Board exert a pervasive influence over resident voters which
exceeds that normally attributed to elected officials. The
Trustees' attention and efforts are extended far beyond the
educational purposes of the School District.

[[Page H9761]]

2. Some Trustees routinely violated the spirit, if not the
letter, of the Brown Act by conducting majority meetings in
closed sessions outside of the time and location of scheduled
board meetings, such as through a group called Equality,
Justice and Education (EJE).
3. Health and safety needs of children are not being met:
a. Playgrounds are badly maintained and present a hazard;
b. The District has one certified nurse serving the total
school population.
4. The Trustees have conducted personnel transactions, such
as hirings, firings, promotions and demotions, without
acceptance of counsel from the Superintendent of Schools or
from any committee or panel of educational professionals or
parents. Some of the results of these practices are:
a. There have been five superinendents over the past twelve
years.
b. Non-Hispanic teachers and administrators are not
afforded equal opportunities by the District Board Trustees.
c. During the 1990-91 year, the District Board of Trustees
demoted three elementary school principals, fired the middle
school principal and failed to renew contracts of fourteen
probationary teachers. Several of the teachers were
bilingual. The District now has eleven teachers working with
emergency credentials. These actions were taken without the
concurrence of the Superintendent. The three demoted
principals have subsequently received judgments totaling
$300,000.00. The fired principal received a judgment of more
than $200,000.00. The District has paid out at least
$1,000,000.00 in judgments and legal fees arising from the
ill-conceived and often illegal personnel actions of the
Trustees.
d. The same improprieties that occurred with personnel in
past years continue to exist. During the 1991-92 school year,
several administrators at the District's central office have
received notices of reassignment.
e. Well-qualified bilingual probationary teachers, who
happen to be non-Hispanic, are being terminated.
f. Several outstanding tenured staff members, including a
mentor teacher, have been given unsatisfactory evaluations
with no clear justification for such action.
g. There have been attempts to initiate recall of Trustees
in recent years. Each recall has been challenged by Board
counsel before reaching a ballot. The Trustees authorized
more than $5,000.00 from the general fund to be used to
verify signatures in the recent 1992 recall efforts. These
recall attempts have proven costly and divisive to the staff,
students and community.
h. Some personnel assignments initiated and directed by the
Trustees appear to reflect nepotism. When queried on this
subject, a Trustee said, ``favoritism, yes; nepotism, no''. A
Trustee's son was promoted from Vice-Principal of the Middle
School to Principal in mid-term, April 3, 1992. The
established selection procedures were not followed.
5. The Board of Trustees, as the only elected body in San
Ysidro, has been instrumental in increasing the political and
cultural isolation of the community and has retarded
integration of children into an English-speaking American
society and economy. The almost universally Hispanic
ethnicity of the student population makes the English
language transition a most difficult objective for the school
system. The opposition of the majority of the Trustees to
this objective virtually guarantees its failure.
6. The Board has failed to direct or support proper use of
funds provided for bilingual education. In several instances,
students were placed in the Bilingual Program or English-Only
Program, based on space availability, with no regard for
parental request or children's needs. We found no transition
evaluation for students exiting the Bilingual Program and
moving into an English-Only Program. We found no clearly-
defined District-wide bilingual curriculum in place.
7. The Board has failed to direct or support compliance
with mandated accommodations for the educationally and
physically disabled. There is no program for the Severely
Emotionally Disturbed (SED) within the District, even though
students have been identified. The District's solution is to
hire individual aides for some SED students.
8. The Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher is used to
provide services to non-Special Education Students. This is
in violation of the Education Code.
9. The District has violated the rights of Special
Education Students' Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Every identified Special Education student must have an IEP.
10. Special Education students are misplaced in the
Alternative Learning Program (ALP).
11. Reports of child endangerment have been received. At
least thirty-nine students from the San Ysidro Middle School
were placed on Home Study without due process.
a. Approximately twenty-five students were suspended for
more than five consecutive days, which is in violation of the
Education Code. Alternatives to suspension were not
considered or applied.
b. Complaints of corporal punishment within the District
have not been properly investigated.
c. Complaints concerning unprofessional disciplinary
methods used at the Middle School have been reported.
12. Complaints of racial discrimination have been made by
non-Hispanic students and staff. This involved the
inappropriate placement of students and staff. Students
complain of racial slurs, name calling and double standards
in dress code.
13. The District does not have an Earthquake Preparedness
Plan in place. Classrooms are not equipped with required
supplies.
14. Complaints were levied by parents and staff members
against an administrator for contracting the services of a
psychologist who was not credentialed by the State of
California.
a. The Student Assistant Team (SAT) was not involved in
identifying students who might require the services of a
psychologist.
b. Parents of students seen by this psychologist were not
contacted, nor were parent-consent forms signed, as is
required.
15. The current President of the Board of Trustees, who is
an employee of Casa Familiar, could be in direct conflict of
interest, if the District incorporates the Casa Familiar
BRAVO Dropout Prevention Program proposed by the President.
16. The Board of Trustees DOES NOT take advantage of
available in-service training.
17. Test scores of the San Ysidro students continue to be
the lowest in the State of California.

conclusions

Over the years, the Board, as an elected body, has proven
to be highly politicized, serving its own agendas and
abrogating the educational rights and privileges of the
children of San Ysidro. Children have neither the maturity
nor the right of franchise by which they can make informed
decisions concerning their future. Students are at the mercy
of two groups of self-involved and self-important adults,
both dedicated to their own objectives rather than the smooth
integration of children into the mainstream of American
society and the U.S. economy.
One group is preoccupied with maintaining its position of
political power in the community through election to the
school board. From this and other positions it controls
within the school district, this group exerts a pervasive
influence over the community which exceeds by far that
normally exercised by elected school officials. The other
group, for the most part, is made up of members, admittedly
or otherwise, of a movement known as EJE who occupy positions
on the Board, in administration, in teaching and in the
teachers' union. Some are parents of students. These are
advocates of a particular course of bilingual education which
puts the highest priority on development of a capability in
Spanish, at the expense of teaching English. They believe in
this with a dedication and zeal which are most threatening to
any who dare to disagree. The net result has been and
continues to be children unable to communicate. Many of these
students drop out after entering high school.
The symbiotic alignment of these groups allows them to
maintain complete control over everything and everyone within
the School District. Non-conformists are demoted, fired or
otherwise eliminated from the system. With very few
exceptions, non-Spanish speakers are purged from the system,
regardless of qualifications or performance. So are those
bilingual teachers who consider English proficiency a matter
of urgency.
Those who favor a ``laissez faire'' solution to the San
Ysidro problem--that is, letting the voters correct the
situation--do not understand the unique nature of this small,
isolated, predominantly Hispanic community. Many of the
residents are not citizens. Many of the citizens are not
registered voters. Many of the more informed and/or affluent
residents have removed their children from the District
Schools and placed them elsewhere, legitimately or otherwise,
to ensure their preparation for high school. Many of the
residents are intimidated by the ruling coalition. Many have
testified before the Grand Jury about vicious retribution for
campaigning for any opposition. Only the bravest of the
residents dare to oppose.
Some of the problems appear to stem from violations of
State laws, and partial solutions may result from actions
initiated by the District Attorney and/or State educational
licensing authorities. However, if the situation in San
Ysidro is to be corrected permanently, approval of pending
legislation and the intervention of the State Superintendent
of Schools will be required.
There is no logical reason for a separate school district
in San Ysidro. San Ysidro is within the City of San Diego and
should have the management and resource capabilities of the
San Diego Unified School District available to support its
children's educational needs. As an alternative, the District
could be merged into the South Bay or Chula Vista School
Districts. The heart of the matter is that the children need
a system run by professionally capable and idealistically
balanced leadership. They don't have it now, and the
controlling political interests in San Ysidro are not about
to provide it. In the meantime, more aggressive participation
in seeking a solution by the County Superintendent of
Schools, the Councilman representing San Ysidro and the
appropriate State Legislators might better convey to the
State Superintendent the urgent need for decisive action.
It is the conclusion of this Grand Jury that the Trustees
of the San Ysidro School Board are fully aware of the
deleterious effects on education of their policies and
practices. They need only observe the dismal test scores (in
both English and Spanish). However, they are either unable or
unwilling to

[[Page H9762]]

make remedial changes. The Jury further considers that the
Board can and will prevent solutions by other persons or
agencies as long as it exists in its present form. It should
be noted that many of these conclusions are totally
consistent with those of prior Grand Jury reports, even
though attained through completely independent studies.
The fact that the Board is elected is immaterial. Letting
nature take its course will not lead to correction at the
hands of the voters. Despite the strong protests of many
parents and teachers, the combination of an attitude which
comes from a patronage system and voter apathy will
perpetuate the status quo unless outside authorities take
action. There is a clear need for legal authority to rescue
an oppressed minority--the school children--and protect their
rights under the law.
There are those in San Ysidro who argue that no one,
including the Grand Jury, should interfere in matters that
involve only the residents of San Ysidro. The members of the
Grand Jury do not agree with this line of reasoning. Citizens
support legal intervention to protect children from clear and
present danger of physical or emotional abuse at the hands of
adults. Likewise, they should support intervention to
eliminate the willful retardation of the educational process
and the resulting economic disenfranchisement of the
students.
The State Department of Education is mandated to take over
any school district which is financially bankrupt. There is
pending legislation (SB 171 Focus School) which will mandate
State intervention for an academically at-risk school
district. The San Ysidro School District with the lowest test
scores in California would certainly be a candidate for State
intervention. The San Ysidro School District on the brink of
financial bankruptcy is already educationally bankrupt.

recommendations

The Grand Jury recommends that:

County Board of Supervisors

#92/120: Exert all possible influence through established
governmental liaison to:
a. Support whatever proposed legislation would facilitate
intervention by state and/or local authorities in situation
such as that in the San Ysidro School District.
b. Petition the California Superintendent of Schools to
intervene immediately in the operation of schools in the San
Ysidro School District.

San Diego County District Attorney

#92/121: Investigate alleged violations of State laws by
Trustees, administrators and teachers for possible
prosecution and/or accusation.

San Diego County Superintendent of Schools

#92/122: Petition the California Superintendent of Schools
to intervene in the operation of San Ysidro schools and to
conduct whatever audits and investigations are required to
validate and cause correction of serious deficiencies and
code violations.
#92/123: Assist the San Ysidro Superintendent of Schools in
any way possible to minimize the harmful effects of current
practice.

San Diego City Council

#92/124: Address the San Ysidro School District situation
as a serious problem within its city.
#92/126: Exert all possible influence on the California
Superintendent of Schools to take urgent measures to correct
the situation in the San Ysidro School District.
#92/126: Support legislation which would permit timely
corrective action in situations such as that in the San
Ysidro School District.

Councilman, Eighth District, City of San Diego

#92/127: Demonstrate active involvement in the San Ysidro
School District problem and express concern publicly for the
critical situation which exists for the children and their
future. Bring public awareness to the fact that this is a
serious situation but not a racial issue.
While the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over the officials
listed below, the following recommendations are submitted
with the request that they receive consideration (these
recommendations are also subjects of separate
correspondence).
The Grand Jury recommends that:

Secretary of Education

#92/128: Require a thorough audit of federally funded
categorical programs within the San Ysidro School District to
include:
a. Bilingual Education
b. Special Education
c. Independent Study
d. Student Home Study
e. Alternative Learning Program

California superintendent of schools

#92/129: Assign a trustee to oversee operations of the San
Ysidro School District until serious deficiencies and
violations of the Education Code are corrected.
#92/130: Investigate and evaluate the use of health aides
in lieu of certified nurses by the District.
#92/131: Direct the Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
through its Legal and Professional Standards Division, to
review allegations of misconduct by a San Ysidro School
administrator and teachers and examine irregularities in
selection and appointment practices.
#92/132: Conduct a fiscal audit of categorically funded
programs, to include:
(a) Bilingual Education
(b) Special Education
(c) Independent Study
(d) Student Home Study
(e) Alternative Learning Program
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Johnston].
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying: ``If
it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' There is a new saying here today: ``If
it ain't broke, break it.'' There is really no rational reason for this
bill.
In Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties in Florida, there are
700,000 Cuban-Americans, and I have great respect for the two
Republican Cuban-Americans that represent that area. If they get a
letter in Spanish, if they answer it in Spanish they have broken the
law, and under that bill we can now sue them.
A Democrat can come along and sue the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Diaz-Balart] or the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], and it
is absolutely ludicrous.
Mr. Chairman, there is no reason for this bill. It disenfranchises a
lot of very good Americans, and I strongly support the Serrano
amendment, and strongly do not support the final bill. I urge my
colleagues: Please vote against it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as has been mentioned for more than 200 years our
Nation has been a melting pot of cultures and nationalities united by
one common bond--our English language.
WHen our ancestors came to America, they came to this country knowing
they had to learn English to survive.
Today, our melting pot has become a patchwork quilt of cultures,
isolated because they cannot speak English. They aren't assimilating
into our society like our ancestors did.
Our current bilingual policies are shredding the common bond that has
made our Nation great. Today you can get a drivers license if you don't
speak English. You can get forms to vote. You can apply for Social
Security and welfare, all in scores of different languages. And
bilingual education classes allow immigrant children to never learn
English.
By making it easy for those who come to America, we have ripped the
heart out of our national unity. We have shredded our common bond,
leaving behind the legacy of our ancestors--new and old--who worked so
hard to learn English.
Now, opponents of official English will demonize the bill. They are
wrong. We want you to speak your own languages, and celebrate your
cultures. But English--our common thread--must be the official
language.
Mr. Chairman, my district is one of the most diverse districts in the
Nation. In West Bloomfield more than 60 different ethnic groups attend
schools and in Farmington, 45. Administrators, teachers, and the
students themselves say making English our common language is the only
way they can get along. It creates a common bond across ethnic lines
that each student shares.
Testimony after testimony show that people must speak English to be
successful. A quote by a Houston farmer Ernesto Ortiz says it best.
``My children learn Spanish in school so they can grow up to be busboys
and waiters. I teach them English at home so they can become lawyers
and doctors.''
English is overwhelmingly supported by the American public. A recent
USA Today poll found 97 percent of Americans feel English should be the
official language. And more than 23 States have laws making English
official, including one signed by then Governor, now President Clinton.
Oppose these weakening amendments. Support our common bond. Help make
English as our official language. Oppose the Serrano substitute.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I love all the concern on this side of the aisle today for the
divisiveness of this issue when it was just yesterday that this side of
the aisle was not willing to make the distinction between legal
residents and illegal aliens, such that they shut off 300,000 legal
residents of this country from rights of their citizenship.

[[Page H9763]]

Today, my colleagues on the other side are talking about the
divisiveness of this issue. The reason they are talking about
divisiveness is because this is a divisive issue. this bill plays
directly to the politics of fear and prejudice for which this Congress
has become so well-known. A politics of divide and conquer.
Mr. Chairman, this is reminiscent of the Patrick Buchanan campaign to
define which people are more American than the others. Or should I say
which people are more white, are more white than other Americans?
This is playing politics that the Republican Party knows very well:
Create an enemy to solve all our country's anxieties and fears. We saw
it begin with the gay bashing. Then it proceeded to the
welfare bashing. Then the last 2 days we have seen it with the welfare
bashing and the immigrant bashing when they knocked off all the legal
residents who were taxpaying residents of my State who can go and fight
in our wars and yet they are going to be denied the rights of their
citizenship based upon the bill my Republican colleagues passed
yesterday.

If they do not like the way they look, if they do not like the way
they sound, then they are not Americans. All I have to say to my
colleagues is they should be careful with all these hot button issues
that they are pushing because no one should wonder when the churches
start burning in the South and the race riots start breaking out in Los
Angeles where all these hot button issues have led us to, and that is
fanning the flames of intolerance that this country cannot afford at
this time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the
gentleman from Rhode Island a question. Has he ever volunteered for
service? Has he ever volunteered to go fight those wars himself? I
thought not.
The CHAIRMAN. The House will be in order. The gentleman from Rhode
Island is not under recognition. No Member has been recognized.
Does the gentleman from New York seek recognition?
Does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123 and in
opposition to the Serrano amendment.

point of order

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SERRANO. My impression was that Members had risen to deal with
the issue of the gentleman's comments, and I want to know if those
Members have been entertained at all, or if the gentleman from Rhode
Island had any opportunity to speak about a very personal statement
that was made upon his life and his commitment to this country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair perceived that the gentleman from Rhode
Island was attempting to engage the gentleman from California in
debate, and not asking that his words be taken down.
Mr. SERRANO. In that case, Mr. Chairman, if that is the ruling of the
Chair, is it still in order for this gentleman to ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should have made that demand at the time.
Intervening business has gone on. It is too late at this particular
point.
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123 and in
opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Serrano].
Frequently, I am asked what kind of name is ``Istook''? People say,
Is it Indian? Is it Estkimo? No, it is Hungarian. I am proud of my
Hungarian ancestry.

{time} 1500

My father's parents came to the United States during the first
quarter of this century. They Americanized the name. Originally Istook
had one ``o.'' When they became U.S. citizens they marked the occasion,
they marked the change by adding the second ``o'' as it has now.
They came through Ellis Island. They are a part of the immigration
saga of America. And when they became U.S. citizens, they received
their certificate of naturalization, which my father had framed and now
displays proudly in his home.
My father grew up speaking two languages: Hungarian at home, but
every place else, English. How glad I am that his parents, my
grandparents, did not isolate my father by denying him the training and
encouragement to focus upon English rather than focusing upon
Hungarian, even though he spoke that at home.
Like so many people, I am proud of my ancestry. The part of Hungary
where we came from is the Transylvania region. A lot of people do not
realize it is a real place. Transylvania now is part of Romania. I get
a kick out of telling people that I am literally by blood half
Transylvanian. It is fun. There are lots of great things about our
heritage, fun and serious.
But the important thing is, I am not hyphenated American. None of us
really are. We are all American. If we believe that we are Americans,
if we believe that what binds us together is what we have in common,
then it must include the common language, and that common tongue is
English.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by the comments by my friend from
California, Mr. Cunningham, about the integrity and commitment of the
gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy. I do not think anyone could
question the commitment either of the gentleman or his family to this
country.
I would simply say that I think we have to watch our words. I served,
and I served with many Hispanics who did not speak English. Some of
them never came back from the Vietnam war and died while speaking only
Spanish. I think that the gentleman does a disservice when he questions
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Pastor].
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting debate that we are
having today. The legislation we are discussing, not the amendment, but
the base bill, is probably unconstitutional. All it does is prohibit a
Federal official from communicating with a constituent in another
language, other than English. This bill does not do anything to teach
one English word to anyone or provide education in English.
The author of this bill has said this is a symbol, a symbol that will
unite us together. Mr. Chairman, symbols mean different things to
different people. The symbolic gesture of this bill to many Americans
will symbolize intolerance, will symbolize arrogance. I ask my
colleagues to support the Serrano amendment and vote against the bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, H.R.
123, and oppose the substitute. We are hearing a lot of nonsense, I
believe, about all the terrible things this bill would affect. What
does this bill really affect?
Let me tell my colleagues, it really affects official business, and
official business is defined. Official business is defined as
governmental actions, documents or policy which are enforceable with
the full weight and authority of the Federal Government. With some
examples and exceptions, that is all it is. The bill also says that we
will not discourage or prevent the use of languages other than English
in any nonofficial capacity.
What does nonofficial capacity mean? It means informal advice,
direction, assistance, which cannot be enforced against the United
States. So individual government employees can provide unofficial
translations or instructions, so long as there is no cost to the
government and no adv erse effect on their ability to perform their
official duties.
So this bill will not affect informal, nonofficial advice, informal
translations. It is not going to affect counter service at the
immigration office. It is not, and I repeat, it is not anything having
to do with Members of Congress because we cannot individually bind the
government. We can do it as a body but not alone.
So your newsletters are safe. You can say whatever you want. Your
town meetings are safe because you cannot bind the government. Your
constituent

[[Page H9764]]

letters, your radio shows are safe because you cannot bind the
government. Pure and simple, only those actions which are enforceable
against the government, which bind the government, are covered, nothing
else.
This is just good common sense. It is what we would all expect for an
official English bill. This is not English only. This is official
English.
I urge approval of the bill.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Puerto Rico, Mr. Carlos Romero-Barcelo, former Governor.
(Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking here about
different things because we are opposing the bill. I do not think there
is a single Member in Congress or in the Senate that opposes English as
the common language of the Nation. I think everybody is in agreement
with that. That is not an issue.
The bill, however, has several statements. One of them is that it
forbids a government official from communicating in writing with his
constituents. This is the problem. This is the real problem here.
I presented an amendment in the committee that was voted 18 to 18, so
it did not pass, that would amend this bill and allow any government
official to communicate with a constituent in English, either orally or
in writing, if it was to make the government work more efficiently, and
that was not allowed. Not only that, it was not even allowed by the
Committee on Rules to be brought to the floor.
This is the purpose of this law, is to prevent public officials from
communicating with their constituents in any language other than
English in writing.
Now, what is the freedom of speech? Is freedom of speech only to
speak in English? Can we not speak in another language? Would that be a
violation? Would that be against the law? Can that be made against the
law? And you are doing it because you are depriving the Federal
officials from writing, communicating in writing with a constituent. I
think this is absurd, to say that the freedom that is most valued in
this Nation, the freedom that is most valued throughout the world, the
reason why this Nation is most respected and more admired throughout
the world is because of the freedom of speech. Now here in this
Congress, which is supposed to protect our rights, you are trying to
infringe upon those rights and affect the rights of even the government
itself to communicate with the constituents to serve them better. I
think this is absurd, and this law should be voted down.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. King].
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123 and in
opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Serrano].
Mr. Chairman, for the first 180 years of our Nation, we were bound
together by a common language. Immigrants came to this country knowing
they had to learn English. They knew that they had to learn English to
become part of the American mainstream. They maintained their our
culture, their own identity, their own religion, their own ethnic
values, their own beliefs, but they were bound together by that common
language. That was the glue that created the great American stained
glass window of many cultures with one language.
Twenty-five years ago we went away from this. Prior to that, I had
grown up in New York City as did Mr. Serrano. I saw the various ethnic
groups come and become absorbed and learn English, become part of the
American main stream. But we have gotten away from that in the past 25
years.
I was hoping today we would have an intelligent debate over why
people should be voting in a foreign language. Instead we are here
talking about churches being burned and gays being bashed. To me that
shows the weakness of the argument on the other side. Rather than
address the merits of the issue, they are resorting to name calling and
ad hominem attacks. I am not talking about Mr. Serrano, because he and
I have had this debate many times. I certainly respect his views. I
respect his beliefs. I respect his integrity.
But too many of the voices from the other side today have resorted to
vicious name calling. To me that just undermines and underlines the
basic weakness of their argument. It shows that they cannot defend
their point intellectually so they have to resort to the ad hominem
attacks.
I urge the adoption of this bill because I believe we do want to
bring all people together. We want to stand together as one. We want to
have English as our common language.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I have one of those names that
can be pronounced three different ways. I think in Italy still a
fourth.
I have been moved by some of the speeches I have heard here today on
both sides of the aisle. I do not come to be critical or to pound the
table because I lack an argument. I did not intend to speak but I am
speaking now because I thought back to the period when my immigrant
grandparents came to this country in the early 1900's. Then we had an
even larger percentage of people in this country who were foreign born
than we do today. And we did not need the kind of legislation which has
been presented to us here. I think we all understood, as we do today,
that we have to learn English in order to participate fully in our
society.
I thought we did the right thing in the early 1900's, allowing this
melting pot that has gotten a little lumpy to actually proceed to
integrate still another generation into our Nation. I do not think we
need this legislation.
I am supporting the alternative being carried by Mr. Serrano because
I do not think we have lost confidence in ourselves. I hope not. I
still believe that we all understand that we can integrate all of these
different voices and languages into the American pattern, this crazy
quilt, without the kind of legislation that is being portrayed today as
our salvation.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in a
committee and I have missed part of the debate, but the part that I
have heard about in this debate concerns me because I keep hearing
about how this bill will cause disunity, how it will break up this
country, even such illogical statements that it might cause church
burnings and things of this nature. To me that flies in the face of
logic.
I cannot imagine anything that would hold this country together, that
would pull the different peoples of this country together any more than
having a common language. The voices from the other side stand up and
say, we do not need this law. We have not needed this. We have never
had to do this before. So why do we need it now?
As the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, so eloquently said, for
over 180 years we all came together and we assimilated. He compared
this language, this common language of English, which people learned
because they had to learn it, because they had to learn it to
socialize, to have business contacts, to have debate. Could you imagine
this floor if we all spoke different languages trying to debate this
bill? We all speak English here on this floor because that is what we
all understand. But for 180 years this is what we did.
We assimilated perfectly. Mr. King described it as the glue that held
this stained glass window together. I could not think of a better
description.
About 25 years ago, we started going in a different direction in this
country. We started moving toward where the law required bilingual
ballots and bilingual warnings in all types of things in the official
government. Keep in mind here, we are talking about only official
language. We are not saying you cannot speak other languages. We are
saying for official language purposes of this United States, it will be
English.
So for the last 25 years, we have gone through this. I submit to my
colleagues that a good part of the distrust, the mistrust in this
country, the

[[Page H9765]]

division that exists today is caused by things like this. I urge my
colleagues not to vote for this amendment but to support the underlying
bill, H.R. 123.

{time} 1515

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
New York for yielding this time to me, and I too was in a hearing in
the Committee on the Judiciary, as a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, but felt moved to come and really clear the air, for there
seems to be accusations that we are making ad hominem comments and
accusations against those who would raise this bill as a vital bill to
the national security interests.
Well, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have come to
uphold the Constitution, to recognize that there is a freedom of
expression, a first amendment right, that we are not threatened in our
national security or any of our concerns by those who would speak a
different language, but love this flag.
Just as we would not discriminate against those who do not speak
another language other than English, that they can be employed across
this Nation, should we not discriminate against those who started first
from a land that speaks another language but still love this flag and
want to have the opportunity to be American citizens.
It would seem that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if
they were truly concerned about unity, would support the Serrano bill,
as I am, for it emphasizes the commonality of our language, the
importance of multi-lingualism, the importance of opposing the
imposition of unconstitutional language policies, and it supports the
views that this Nation's strength lies in our diversity.
Would my colleagues want me as a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary and this Congress to deny American citizens the right to
understand the Federal election ballot? This is what the bill that is
on the floor does right now. It says that if individuals speak a
language, English, but yet cannot read in English, and they have the
opportunity and the right to vote as a citizen, they cannot have a
bilingual ballot, a total elimination of provisions of the Voter Rights
Act of 1965.
Mr. Chairman, this is an unconstitutional bill. Support the Serrano
bill. I cannot hold to the fact that America would disgrace itself with
this kind of legislation on the floor.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123 and in
opposition to the amendment. Those who support bilingualism in the
United States of America no doubt are well motivated. They care about
immigrants and they care about their fellow man, and thus they want to
make it easier for them not to learn how to speak English.
Well, my colleagues are not doing anybody a favor by making it easier
for them not to learn English. People all over the world are struggling
to teach their children English and struggling how to learn English
because they know that is the key that unlocks the door to opportunity.
Those people who are making it easier for our own people, people who
live in this country, not to speak English are doing them a great
disservice.
I have a large number of Asians in my district, people who are
American citizens who are of Asian descent. When they come to me and
ask me my advice on how to make sure they can do well and their
children can do well, I always advise them: ``Make sure your children
learn how to speak English,'' and I have never had one of them disagree
with me.
I will tell my colleagues this much: Those people in the Hispanic
community who are being led down this downward path by people who care
about them are going to resent it in the end when their children do not
have the opportunity of other Americans because they are locked out of
the American system because they cannot speak English.
We care. We are the ones who care about every American citizen when
we do not give them an easy way out, but we say, ``Become part of
America, we love you, we have caring in our heart. That's why you
should learn to speak English and that's why we are doing you a
disservice by making it easier for you to exist in our society without
being able to communicate, without being able to be fully part of the
economic system.''
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time. It is hard to respond in just 2 minutes because I continue to
hear people say we want these folks to learn English. We cannot have
ethnic enclaves. We do not want kids to grow up only speaking a native
language that is not the language of this country.
My God, have my colleagues ever seen a child on the playground who
does not understand English very well and how they yearn to be able to
socialize with their classmates as quickly as possible? If my
colleagues have not seen it, then I urge them to come to some of the
schools in Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago or New York or
anywhere in this country, and they will see the eyes of these kids just
yearning to learn, and it is not just the eyes of the children they can
look at. Look at the eyes of their parents who see that success comes
when they learn English. And then look at Los Angeles that has had to
turn to 24-hour, round-the-clock teaching of English as a second
language because there is such a backlog of people hoping to take these
classes. Then go to New York City, where they have to give out lottery
tickets so that they can get a space in a class to learn English, and
then realize that these folks are there to learn English.
In fact, the studies show that people today are learning English at a
rate that is four times as fast as people a hundred years ago were
learning English. That makes sense because technology makes it easier
for folks to acquire the English language.
Please do not say that folks who come to this country and have said,
``I'm here legally, and I'm about to become a U.S. citizen when I
qualify after 5 years,'' please do not tell these folks that they do
not wish to learn English because our colleagues have just denigrated
every reason they took to forgo their country's nationality and come to
this country and make it their new place and their children's place.
These folks want to learn. Recognize that, and unfortunately this
bill does not do what our colleagues say. Their intent is good. Their
bill is bad. Forget about the bill. Let us live with intent. We can all
agree with it. Let us all have English in this country. But this bill
does not do it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Doolittle].
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. Its
intent is good; I agree with the gentleman, and its substance is good.
We must have English as the official language. We are a great country,
and the people of this country draw strength in many different roots,
but we are one Nation under God. We need to have English spread
throughout the land. We are not doing anyone a favor by encouraging
them in essence not to learn English.
This bill will provide some added incentive, I think, to do that
without being unduly punitive to anyone, but English is the language of
this country, and I think it is very, very important that we act today
as the House and adopt this bill and send a clear message to the
country so that we can help people help themselves.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Guam [Mr. Underwood].
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we are confronted with a bill which has
great objectives, the learning of English and use of English as the
primary language of government. It also makes the claim that national
unity is promoted and that speakers of other languages will be
empowered, but the vehicles used in this legislation clearly do not
match the intent.
The legislation is supposed to promote English, but no funds are
given

[[Page H9766]]

for English teachers or classrooms. Instead, it restricts the behavior
of elected officials and agencies, and instead of empowering non-
English speakers, it disenfranchises them by taking away the
opportunity to cast an informed ballot.
As an educator, I took it for granted that the best way to learn was
to encourage people and not discourage them. I took it for granted that
when one wanted people to feel a sense of unity, they included them and
not excluded them. But this is not the approach utilized in this
legislation. If we wanted to characterize this legislation in terms of
a carrot and stick, it is all stick and not much carrot.
Mr. Chairman, if there is a problem with people speaking English, let
us teach it to them, and let us stop this very, very bad bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, as an educator, I have long advocated that
foreign languages be taught our students in kindergarten, but that does
not mean they should also be taught English. They should, in
kindergarten. We have made major mistakes in our language policy in the
schools over the last 20 years. Some have said, ``But in bilingual
ballots you are simply fulfilling equal protection of the laws.'' That
is absolute nonsense. Let us look at the situation.
Ethnic groups in this country are not limited to Chinese, not limited
to Hispanics, which was the original Valeo v. Nickles case in
California. In the 1970 census there were 96 mother tongues where
languages other than English were primary languages in households where
many of our fellow citizens were raised; 1980, 387 non-English language
possibilities. In the Los Angeles-Long Beach schools there are 70
languages. We cannot pick just one or two languages if we are really
going to have equal protection of the laws.
The only way to carry out the 14th amendment and its equal protection
of the laws is to learn English. That is the access for all students of
all backgrounds, rich and poor, when they come to this Nation, when
their parents come to this Nation. Such a national policy would not
stop a friend or a relative who speaks the primary language of the
citizen from writing out instructions, helping them with the ballots,
helping them learn English. All of that has been historically done in
this country by ethic groups from various countries, and we need to
have that spread across the land. Such groups have been readily
available with each immigrant wave.
What such a policy would stop is the illusion that for every language
group in a nation, a government agent must be employed or some form of
government assistance must be made available to aid all members who
understand English less well than their native language. Presumably the
naturalized citizens had to learn some English in order to receive
citizenship.
Before this Nation goes the way of Quebec or engages in the bitter
language quarrels of India, I recommend that we adopt the English
language in this bill.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, as a naturalized American who has
benefited from multi-language instruction, I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the English Plus Act, which
provides a commonsense approach to the national language debate.
The English-plus substitute reaffirms that English is the primary
language of the United States. It also acknowledges that in today's
expanding global economy, multilingualism must be factored into any
formula for economic success. Encouraging the use of world languages is
critical if the United States is to remain a world economic leader.
The strength of our economy increasingly depends on trade and
international business. More than 40% of large corporations in the
United States hire bilingual employees to communicate, negotiate, and
market American goods and services.
The English Plus Act combines two objectives. It establishes English
as the primary language of our country, while at the same time
recognizing the importance of multilingualism for the future success of
the United States.
I urge my colleagues to stand united behind The English Plus Act, and
vote for the Serrano substitute.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, as my mother, an immigrant from Lithuania,
learned as a young girl in East St. Louis, IL, learning English was
crucial to success. She became a bilingual translator in court as a
young girl, and of course today I have the honor to serve in the House
of Representatives as a first-generation American and the son of that
Lithuanian immigrant. Every immigrant American that I have met in my
life understands one basic fact in this country. Proficiency in English
is crucial to success. But this amendment is less about helping
Americans, this bill is less about helping Americans to succeed, than
it is about pointing out our differences in color and culture and
language.

{time} 1530

This bill is unnecessary and divisive. America is a nation of
immigrants. We will not be stronger because of this divisive bill.
Support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Serrano]. Celebrate our diversity. Welcome to those who come to our
country to join in our culture, learn our language, and help them
succeed.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me say I agree with some but not all
of the findings of the substitute offered by my friend, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Serrano]. I know the gentleman is well-intentioned,
but his substitute goes in the opposite direction of the bill itself.
I would again acknowledge that we are a nation of immigrants, no
doubt about it. Our history has been shaped by many cultures,
religions, languages from around the world. We are proud of our
Nation's ability to assimilate people from around the world in one
cohesive society. On that, the gentleman and I agree.
But it is our common language that binds us together as a nation, and
it is the English language which empowers newcomers to the access of
the American dream. First, the substitute states that English is the
primary language of the United States. If that is the case, then the
opponents should have no problem designating English as the official
language in statute.
Second, the substitute implies that the supporters of H.R. 124
believe the Nation was founded on racial, ethnic, and religious
homogeneity. Not true. We recognize the diversity in this country, and
so state in the findings to H.R. 123.
Third, the substitute, H.R. 123, recognizes the importance of
multilingualism in the context of international relations and national
security. There are exceptions for each of those situations in the bill
already.
Fourth, the substitute talks about a threat to the status of English.
That is not the issue. The issue is are we going to continue down the
road of a Balkanized, piecemeal language policy, program by program,
with 320 languages in this country? Or are we going to establish a
national, commonsense, common language policy of the Federal Government
which 23 States have already established as the official policy, and
over 80 nations, and the President of United States, when he was
governor of Arkansas?
Fifth, the substitute mischaracterizes H.R. 123 as an English-only
bill. It is not an English-only bill. It is an official language of the
Government bill. If it were an English-only bill, it would apply not
only to the Government but to private businesses, churches,
neighborhoods, and homes. H.R. 123 does not apply to homes, churches,
neighborhoods, communities, public health, safety, national security,
international relations, or the teaching of languages.

[[Page H9767]]

My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], asked me to
recognize that the bill decouples bilingual education. It has nothing
to do with the bilingual education issue.
I would say to my friends that the intention of this bill is to
empower people, empower our American children, because there is a
growing need to educate children in the English language, and the
tendency has gone otherwise.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, if one wants to know how much people want to learn to
speak English, they should come to my district in the Bronx, or
anywhere else throughout the Nation, and find out what happens when an
English-as-a-second-language class is offered. The line of immigrants
and of recent arrivals and people who have been here for a while in
front of those schools, trying to get into those programs, is something
that would be hard to be believed. The biggest problem in that area is
that we do not have enough slots to fit all the people who want to
learn to speak English.
This is a nonissue. This should not be on the floor. But since it is,
we should approve my amendment and speak about the future, not some
problems we have had in the past.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If we wanted to accept by unanimous consent the
Gutierrez amendment, which was dropped, would the gentleman agree to
that?
Mr. BECERRA. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Gutierrez amendment that was dropped, would the
gentleman agree to that, which allows Members of the House to send out
their information?
Mr. SERRANO. No, we could not.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, that amendment could not be considered
at this time in the Committee of the Whole, even of unanimous consent.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible support
of the Serrano substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the English Plus Act, the substitute
offered by the esteemed gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], which
celebrates English as the primary language of this diverse Nation. This
substitute is a far better approach than the proposed English-only
bill, which in my judgment, is unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise,
inefficient, and un-American.
It is unconstitutional because it impedes freedom of speech and would
ultimately lead to disenfranchising U.S. citizens. American citizens
have the right to express themselves as they choose. Certainly
government does not have the right to intrude on such a personal
freedom, as this bill would, and I cannot condone such action. I am
particularly concerned that the bill removes the requirement for
multilingual ballots in communities with significant numbers of people
whose primary language is not English. This is troubling both
constitutionally and in a very practical sense: if there are no
bilingual ballots, some citizens will no longer exercise their right to
vote, but others will continue to do so, albeit in an unavoidably less-
informed manner. How shortsighted can we be? Or is there a partisan
political side to this issue, too?
The proposed English bill is also unnecessary. While the last census
shows that there are at least 39 languages spoken in this country, it
also shows that over 95 percent of the population speaks English. Only
3 percent of our citizens speak English either not well or not at all.
It is clear that the English language is a major element of our
American culture. English is alive and flourishing and does not need an
act of Congress to continue to do so. In fact, research shows that
current generations of language-minorities are learning English even
faster than previous generations did.
It is also unwise, because it is divisive and mean-spirited. The
proposal seeks to divide communities across ethnic lines. Rather than
enhancing the development of language skills, which the United States
should do to improve our economic competitiveness and to conduct
diplomacy, this head-in-the-sand approach goes in exactly the wrong
direction. In its zeal to achieve linguistic homogeneity, the majority
runs roughshod over one of our Nation's strongest assets, our cultural
diversity.
An English-only rule pertaining to governmental functions is also
incredibly inefficient. Think of the many ways that citizens come into
contact with the Government--at the post office, the IRS for tax forms
and assistance, the Social Security Office, and the courts, to name a
few. Imagine the difficulties our citizens would have if we forbid the
use of other languages in government forms, instructional materials,
and the like.
Last, but certainly not least, this bill is also un-American because
it runs directly contrary to our international goals and foreign
policies. America's entire history has been to open our door to other
cultures, and to encourage strong cultural identities within our own
country. This bill, in effect, says that this historical approach was
incorrect. I disagree.
Rather, I agree with so many of my colleagues, including a large
number on the majority side, who have urged other countries, to respect
ethnic minorities inside their borders. For instance, there is strong
sentiment within these walls that the Serbs who rule what is left of
Yugoslavia should not run roughshod over Albanians, Muslims and other
ethnic minorities who live there. Nor have we been shy about warning
the government in Russia against unfair treatment of ethnic minorities
within that nation's borders.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to consider the best interests of
the American people and to support the Serrano substitute, the English
Plus Act. The substitute is a balanced approach that recognizes English
as the primary language of the United States and encourages its usage.
But, most important, it also respects the many ways in which
multilingualism has contributed to this country by fostering
communication and greater understanding not only within the United
States, but among nations throughout the world.
I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano substitute.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a gentleman who is a living
example of why this bill is not necessary; a gentleman who came from
Cuba, learned to speak English, while maintaining his native tongue,
and is an asset to this country.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Serrano] for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating how a vantage point affects one's
view. One of the most difficult challenges that I face, that my wife
and I face, with two young boys that we are raising is, for their own
benefit, to do everything in our power so they will retain the Spanish
language. It is extraordinarily difficult, despite the fact that they
even joke with me often that every perhaps four or five words I say
``Espanol.'' reminding them of the necessity, of the importance, that
they keep a second tongue; for their own benefit, for their cultural
enhancement and enrichment, for their economic competitiveness in the
future, how important it is that they retain a second tongue.
The gentlewoman from Florida. Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, my dear
colleague, sitting here with her young daughter, Amanda, I know she
faces the same challenge. How often do I hear Ileana with her daughters
say, ``Espanol.'' Why? Because in this great country, Mr. Chairman, the
pressures, the incredible forces for assimilation, for acculturation,
for acceptance of the primary language of English is extraordinary. I
do not think it has ever been equaled in the history of mankind, that
power, the power of English in this culture, which is spreading across,
through Hollywood and the other instruments, that the American culture
has, spreading across. And now with technology, it is spreading across
the world.
To think of what is under attack in the United States, English? No. A
study in our community in south Florida just showed that in the first
generation here of people who are arriving on our shores, they are
losing Spanish at an alarming rate, so much so that our competitiveness
in south Florida is being undermined, and our ability to be effective
in the international economy.
So I think it is impossible, it is really difficult to understand the
viewpoint that what is threatened is not the second and third languages
that we should be encouraging our children to learn in this country,
for their own benefit and for our economic future, but rather, what is
threatened is the English language? I am confused.

[[Page H9768]]

Let us not be confused, Mr. Chairman, with regard to what this bill
is doing. People have often, speakers before us, have referred often,
time and time again, to bill 123. What we have before us is bill 3898.
It is a combination of bill 123, offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], which I may say, with all respect, and I
want to reiterate that I not only do not impugn but would never doubt
the intentions and the good faith of my dear friends who disagree with
me on this issue.

But I will say that I have never seen a bill such as 123, half of the
legislation before us, that seeks to do so much to address so little,
because the problem before us is with regard to that legislation, that
part of the bill, the invisible problem, the invisible problem, Mr.
Chairman.
But there is another aspect to this legislation, which is H.R. 351,
which was incorporated into 3898. And there we are not talking about a
problem to address an invisible problem, an unnecessary bill. No. There
we are talking about an unfortunate, unwarranted, unwise, uncalled for
constitutional regression.
Our constitutional Republic, Mr. Chairman, is not perfect, but it is
perfectible. After 189 years of Republic, almost 200 years after the
founding of our Republic, Mr. Chairman, this Congress stood tall in
1965 and granted the right to vote to black citizens. That was 1965.
Ten-years later, after passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the
Congress extended protections to American citizens who are not
proficient in English in the Voting Rights Act, and said that citizens
that are not proficient in English have a right to understand what they
are voting on. That was what was done through the amendments of 1975 to
the Voting Rights Act.
Let it be clear that this bill before us today eliminates the
protections of 1975 for linguistic minorities in the United States.
This is a vote not only on the issues that have been debated before,
this is a vote on destroying a significant portion of the Voting Rights
Act.
When we hear about 85 percent issues, I just want to make two points,
because my friend, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham] made the point previously about the fact this is an 85-
percent issue. I would say perhaps it is an 85-percent issue to declare
English as the official language, such as was done in Florida. That
would not have been half as controversial, by the way, declaring
English as the official language. But that is not what we are doing. We
are putting a bunch of restrictions.
I want to say, if I may, even if it were an 85-percent issue,
Democracy not only requires governing by the majority, but it is
respect for the minority. I say that that portion, the Voting Rights
Act portion of this legislation, which constitutes aggression on
linguistic minorities in this country, is anti-Democratic, anti-
Democratic, and it constitutes congressional regression. That is why I
oppose it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized
for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are at a very important turning point for
America. This is a country whose doors have always been open, and
should always be open to people from across the world. We are a nation
of immigrants. Our greatness in part comes from our ability to be a
melting pot, to draw from everywhere and to allow people to pursue
happiness, to allow people to live under the rule of law, to protect
their unalienable rights, and to have everyone be equal before the law.
This is a truly remarkable civilization. I agree with Max Lerner's
great work on America as a civilization, that we are in fact a unique
civilization, partially derived from Europe, partially derived from
Africa, partially derived from America, partially derived from Asia,
but ultimately, a unique tribute to the concept that we have been
endowed by our Creator, and that we represent the greatest extension of
freedom to the widest range of people in the history of the world.
But there is a key part of that, and this bill is one step in that
direction. The key part is very simple: Is there a thing we call
American? Is is unique?

{time} 1545

My Ph.D. is in European history. I believe in studying other
countries. I believe in learning other languages. But I believe we
start here with America, and we need to learn here about America.
I want to say unequivocally that while I cherish every person who
comes from anywhere, who comes here legally and seeks to pursue
happiness, and I hope all of them decide to stay and become American
citizens, but I want them to become American. And part of becoming
American involves English. It is vital historically to assert and
establish that English is the common language at the heart of our
civilization.
One does not have to look far to see the dangers. Look north to our
friends in Canada and the challenge of separatism in Quebec. Look to
the Balkans, look to the continuing tensions in Belgium, a country
which has mostly avoided violence and has mostly done a good job but
has a very complex and very structure relationship between its Fleming
and Walloon populations. Then ask yourself, in an America where their
are over 80 languages taught in the California schools as the primary
language, not as the secondary language but as the primary language, in
a country where in Seattle there are 75 languages being taught, in
Chicago there are 100; this is not bilingualism, this is a level of
confusion which if it were allowed to develop for another 20 or 30
years would literally lead, I think, to the decay of the core parts of
our civilization.
This bill is a very modest bill. It says English is the official
language of the Government. The Government. You can speak any language
you want in your homes, you can speak any language you want in private
life, you can campaign in any language you want, but all Americans
should have access to their government in their common language.
It says the Government has an affirmative obligation to preserve and
enhance the role of English as the official language of the U.S.
Government, and that such obligations shall include encouraging greater
opportunities to learn the English language. I believe it is important
to understand that we need every citizen and, frankly, in the long run
every person who comes here to learn English. We need to be willing to
say it proudly and simply and not with hostility but with a sense of
joy: Yes, we want you to come; yes, we want you to immigrate; and, yes,
we want you to become American, but there are standards.
For me one of those standards occurred with the naturalization
ceremony. Naturalization ceremonies normally involve people of many
countries with many language backgrounds, and part of the great joy of
seeing them stand there and, in whatever quality of English they have
mastered, repeating in English their Pledge of Allegiance, indicating
in English their new commonality. They may come from Thailand, from
Nigeria, from Paraguay, but when they are in that room becoming
American, they are joined together by their Pledge of Allegiance and
they are joined together by their new common language.
They leave that room as Americans, not hyphenated Americans, not
partial Americans, not semi-Americans. At that moment they are citizens
of the United States, under the protection of our law, living within
our Constitution, and their rights have been endowed by their Creator.
That is the framework this bill seeks to continue.
This bill is a very simple bill, a very modest bill. I would urge
Members to vote no for the substitute, which, frankly eliminates any
effective steps, and vote yes on final passage. The Bill Emerson
English Language Empowerment Act is the right direction and the right
bill, and the additions from the Committee on the Judiciary are very
helpful. These are modest steps in the direction of reinforcing and
reasserting the greatest civilization ever to provide freedom to the
human race.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].

[[Page H9769]]

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 250, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 389]

AYES--178

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
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)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--250

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
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
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
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

NOT VOTING--6

Brownback
Ford
McDade
Obey
Peterson (FL)
Young (FL)

{time} 1607

Messrs. EWING, LIGHTFOOT, LEWIS of California, EVERETT, HOSTETTLER,
HEFLEY, and BEVILL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ney)
having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 499, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SERRANO. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Serrano moves that the House recommit the bill to the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities with
instructions to report the bill forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``English Plus Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) English is the language of the United States, and all
members of the society recognize the importance of English to
national life and individual accomplishment.
(2) Many residents of the United States speak native
languages other than English, including many languages
indigenous to this country, and these linguistic resources
need to be conserved and developed.
(3) This Nation was founded on a commitment to democratic
principles, and not on racial, ethnic, or religious
homogeneity, and has drawn strength from a diversity of
languages and cultures and from a respect for individual
liberties.
(4) Multilingualism, or the ability to speak languages in
addition to English, is a tremendous resource to the United
States because such ability enhances American competitiveness
in global markets by permitting improved communication and
cross-cultural understanding between producers and suppliers,
vendors and clients, and retailers and consumers.
(5) Multilingualism improves United States diplomatic
efforts by fostering enhanced communication and greater
understanding between nations.
(6) Multilingualism has historically been an essential
element of national security, including the use of Native
American languages in the development of coded communications
during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.

[[Page H9770]]

(7) Multilingualism promotes greater cross-cultural
understanding between different racial and ethnic groups in
the United States.
(8) There is no threat to the status of English in the
United States, a language that is spoken by 97 percent of
United States residents, according to the 1990 United States
Census.
(9) ``English-only'' measures would violate traditions of
cultural pluralism, divide communities along ethnic lines,
jeopardize the provision of law enforcement, public health,
education, and other vital services to those whose English is
limited, impair government efficiency, and undercut the
national interest by hindering the development of language
skills needed to enhance international competitiveness and
conduct diplomacy.
(10) Such ``English-only'' measures would represent an
unwarranted Federal regulation of self-expression, abrogate
constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal
protection of the laws, violate international human rights
treaties to which the United States is a signatory, and
contradict the spirit of the 1923 Supreme Court case Meyer v.
Nebraska, wherein the Court declared that ``The protection of
the Constitution extends to all; to those who speak other
languages as well as to those born with English on the
tongue.''.

SEC. 3. GOVERNMENT POLICIES

The United States Government should pursue policies that
promote English as the language of the United States and
that--
(1 encourage all residents of this country to become fully
proficient in English by expanding educational opportunities
and informational resources;
(2) conserve and develop the Nation's linguistic resources
by encouraging all residents of this country to learn or
maintain skills in a language other then English;
(3) respect the languages of Native Americans, Native
Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and other peoples indigenous to
the United States and its territories;
(4) continue to provide services in languages other than
English as needed to facilitate access to essential functions
of government, promote public health and safety, ensure due
process, promote equal educational opportunity, and protect
fundamental rights;
(5) recognize the importance of multilingualism to vital
American interests and individual rights, and oppose
restrictionist language measures; and
(6) require Presidential campaigns and Federal Elections be
conducted in English.

{time} 1615

Mr. CUNNINGHAM (during the reading). Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been at times painful
for some of us because, as was stated on the floor on many occasions,
this debate takes what is really a nonissue, this fear that somehow the
English language is going to be lost to all of us as our common bond,
and puts it on the floor of this House as one of those issues that
questions people's patriotism.
So, of course, if we go throughout this country and tell people that
somehow the American flag is in danger of being burned, people react in
a certain way to that against burning of flags. If we tell them that
the only way we are going to save our schools is by praying in school,
people will react to that in a positive way. If we tell them that
because other languages are spoken in this country at any given time,
and recent times, that the English language is in danger of
disappearing, therefore, the country is in danger of disappearing as
the country that we know.
But the fact of life is that some people much brighter than I, than
many of us, somewhere interestingly enough in my city on Madison Avenue
in an advertising agency decided that this is one of those hot button
issues that touches people, confuses them, and gives them what they
think is a solution to their problems.

That does not talk about poverty in America. It does not talk about
the working middle-class struggling to pay a mortgage and send their
children to school. It does not talk about taxes. It does not talk
about the environment. It does not speak to any of the real issues in
this country. It says that because I and other people speak another
language and relate to constituents in a language other than English,
that somehow we are in danger.
That is a misguided, foolishly patriotic approach to a nonissue, but
it has worked. Up to now it has worked. People have reacted to it.
People who have been members of the Armed Forces, who are in late
years, honestly and emotionally believe that if we allow other
languages to live side by side with the English language, or in a
second category to English, that somehow we are going to lose our
country.
On many of these issues, my brothers and sisters, I place myself as
an example. I think in two languages. I write and read Spanish and
English. I can deliver this presentation in Spanish as well as in
English. I do not think that any of what I do in two languages has ever
been a problem for me or a problem for this country.
When I served in the Armed Forces of this country during the Vietnam
war, I served with young men who could not speak a word of English who
had just arrived here and were drafted or who came from Puerto Rico to
serve. Many were volunteers. Many of those young men never came back.
They were lost in the battlefields of Vietnam, as they were in Korea
and the Second World War and the First World War, and their last words
were in Spanish to their God, to their parents. They never spoke
English.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, this bill says that if the Veterans Administration
wants to service them, it cannot service them in a language other than
English. It says that I cannot communicate with them in a language
other than English. It says that if the Ambassador of Mexico or the new
President of the Dominican Republic writes to me in Spanish, I can only
answer on the public payroll in English. This is the way to promote
ourselves throughout the world?
My recommittal amendment, proposal says two things: That we recognize
that English is the language of this country, and that we ask
government and its citizens to involve themselves in learning to speak
it better every day.
Then it says something else which I think is important. It says that
if someone is a candidate for President and receives Federal matching
funds, especially if they are going out there and saying that English
should be the official language, that they should not use any public
funds to advertise in a language other than English.
I have written to one of the Presidential candidates who has seven
Spanish commercials in the can to go in Texas and in California and New
York pretty soon. As the insurgent, I have written to him twice and
asked him to respond and he has not responded.
But in fact, in fact, all Presidential candidates have done that. I
think that we would be taking a proper stand if we say, since election
campaigning with Federal dollars is an act of government, and since
English will be the official language of government, then do not go
around saying, ``Vote para mi in estos elecciones.'' Say it in English
and run the risk of losing New York, Florida, California, New Mexico,
Arizona, and Texas.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying when Hispanics sit around
the dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is never an
assault on the English language. It is a lament on the fact that the
children and the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. This is a
nonissue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham] opposed to the motion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am opposed to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there are people on both sides of the
issue that believe strongly that they are in the right on this thing.
First of all, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], my friend, is
a good example of a bilingual citizen, but unfortunately in this land
many are not, and that is what we are trying to help.
I would also like to thank my friend for his service to this country
in Vietnam, and I recognize that and I laud that.
I also thank my friend for being my friend, and he knows I mean that
sincerely. We are friends with a difference of opinion on this issue.

[[Page H9771]]

Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, that some of the amendments
that the gentleman was talking about were actually made in order were
withdrawn, and we asked to accept them and they would not accept their
own amendments back.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is a version of the same vote that
we just had and it still goes in the wrong direction. It does nothing
to address the piecemeal language approach of the past and it
encourages a continued policy of printing documents in many languages.
I would like to state, first of all, and I have got four pages here
of people that support it, and I would like to mention a few: The AARP,
the American Association of Women, the American Legion, California NEA,
Daughters of the American Revolution, Federation of Women's Clubs,
Heritage Foundation, Islamic Society of North County, and many, many
others.
But let me tell my colleagues more about what is good about this
bill. First of all, Bill Emerson created this bill, worked with the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], and there was not a mean bone in
Mr. Emerson's body. It has over 200 cosponsors on this. I think they
are a very well-meaning group of people who believe in this bill and
what it stands for.

{time} 1630

Yes, over 80 percent of the American people support it. I do not
think they are mean spirited. They see a problem that we can help with.
The English language unites us as a nation of many different immigrants
and, just like the Speaker said, at the swearing in, you see people
from all over the world united when they are sworn in under the English
language. That is in the bill.
We are better able to move about and interact within our society
itself. With 123 languages spoken in the United States, we need to
declare English as the official language.
Let me close with a quotation from one of our witnesses, Maria Lopez-
Otin:

From the immigrant's standpoint, knowledge of English is
critically important to success in American society, and
discussions about immigration, bilingual education or English
as a second language are but distractions from the issue at
hand, the merits of English as the official language of the
United States. And on that point, on whatever level you
consider, education, employment, politics, a social grounding
in English is imperative. Now, does this mean rejection of
our roots, our heritage, our original language? Of course
not. What it means is that as Americans, we cannot hope to
reach our fullest potential unless we speak the language, and
that language is English.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of
rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if
ordered, will be taken on the question of final passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 257, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 390]

AYES--171

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--257

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
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
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--5

Brownback
Ford
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Young (FL)

{time} 1648

Mr. MINGE and Mr. SCHIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the passage of
the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 259,
noes 169, not voting 5, as follows:

[[Page H9772]]

[Roll No. 391]

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
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
Condit
Cooley
Cox
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
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--169

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
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
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--5

Brownback
Ford
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Young (FL)

{time} 1657

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________