[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.

                          ____________________