[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1476-E1477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ENGLISH LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 1996

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOSE E. SERRANO

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 1, 1996

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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.

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 123, 
the English Language Empowerment Act and in support of the Serrano 
English Plus substitute. H.R. 123 is devisive, unconstitutional, and 
unnecessary.
  Supporters of this legislation say that it simply declares English as 
the official language. I contend that that is not true and that that 
bill's reach is far-reaching. Section 163(b) of the legislation states 
that ``No person should be denied services, assistance, or facilities 
either directly or indirectly provided by the Federal Government solely 
because the person communicates in English.'' H.R. 123 provides an 
entitlement for those that speak English and permits citizens to sue. 
But what does that really mean? Well, at federally sponsored programs 
or benefits would have to be in English. If the Federal Government 
directly or indirectly supports opera, community cultural festivals, 
and even sports events like the Olympics, taxpayers are entitled to 
receive all federally sponsored services in English or they can sue.
  The English-only requirement also would place restrictions on 
Internet communication. Because the Federal Government operates 
Internet servers, a Federal Web site that links into multilingual or 
non-English pages would indirectly provide services in other 
languages--depriving citizens of their right to English services--and 
would subject the Federal Government to frivolous lawsuits.
  Telecommunications and broadcasting are not exempt from the bill's 
provisions. The Federal Government regulates telecommunications and 
grants, sells and regulates broadcasting licenses. Under the 
requirement of this bill, the Government would be prohibited from 
granting licenses to foreign language stations without the threat of a 
suit.
  Even law enforcement could be handicapped by H.R. 123. While non-
English languages may be used for reasons of public safety and to 
protect the rights of victims of crime or criminal defendants, what 
about the work that is done where neither the criminal nor the victim 
is identifiable? Much of the investigative work done by the FBI, DEA, 
and ISN falls into this category.
  The substitute I will offer is the modified text of a bill of which I 
am the primary sponsor, House Concurrent Resolution 83, the English 
Plus resolution. It states the Government's policy should be to 
encourage English as our common language, to empower its citizens by 
encouraging multilingualism, and to promote English proficiency through 
educational opportunities; but also to avoid infringing on indigenous 
languages; and to oppose measures that place undue burdens on one's 
ability to obtain services, representation or protection from the 
Federal Government because of limited English proficiency.
  English Plus maintains that the primary language of the United States 
is English and that all members of our society should recognize its 
importance. It proclaims that our Nation's strength lies in its pursuit 
of justice, opportunity, and diversity. It is unnecessary to legislate 
what we have established by custom and tradition. Clearly there's no 
threat to our common language. According to the 1990 census report, 97 
percent of the American population speaks English. Of those who speak 
Spanish at home, 80 percent indicated that they speak English ``well'' 
or ``very well.''
  English Plus recognizes that multilingualism is an asset, not a 
liability to our competitiveness in our global economy. Multilingualism 
encourages global competitiveness and better international relations. 
In fact, now more than ever Americans are learning foreign languages. 
According to a report by the American Council on the Teaching of 
Foreign Languages, there has been a 5-percent increase in the number of 
high school students who take foreign language classes and more 
colleague students are taking an interest in foreign language classes.
  We are a nation of immigrants and have built our culture upon that 
diversity. In fact, the authors of the Constitution drafted the 
document in both English and German. During World War II, the Korean 
war, and the Vietnam war, the military used speakers of native American 
languages to communicate in a sort of unbreakable code. You can see an 
indication of the history of diversity in this nation if you look 
around at the names of cities like Los Angeles which is Spanish for 
``the angels'' and Pueblo, CO, which is ``City, Red'' in English and 
the Rio Grande, ``Big River,'' one of our natural resources. We have 
always been a nation with diverse languages and learning other 
languages should be encouraged.
  My substitute opposes the imposition of unconstitutional language 
polices on the Federal Government and the American people. In 1923, the 
Supreme Court declared that restrictionist language policies like those 
in H.R. 123 were unconstitutional. In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals reaffirmed that view by nullifying Arizona's English-only 
policy. While we want everyone to be able to be proficient in English, 
we must not employ measures that are inconsistent with the 
Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech, representative 
democracy, due process, and equal protection under the law.
  The Serrano substitute supports the view that our Nation's strength 
lies in its pursuit of justice, freedom and opportunity. English-only 
supporters say that the common bond of our Nation is our language. 
Nothing can be further from the truth. Democracy--not religious, 
ethnic, or linguistic uniformity--is what holds this country together. 
Extremist language policies like H.R. 123 are devisive and racist, 
uniting people behind misplaced patriotism. Just think of the hardship 
that it would place on athletes and tourists at the Olympics if 
services and information were only provided in English. Inhumane 
policies like those found in H.R. 123, will only encourage divisiveness 
and resentment and delay full participation of all people in our 
society.

  The Serrano substitute promotes the view that English proficiency is 
achieved through educational opportunities. Denying services and 
information will not help one single person learn English. Immigrants 
and new arrivals

[[Page E1477]]

want to learn English--I cannot stress that enough. Studies indicate 
that current immigrants are learning English faster than they did 100 
years ago. In California, classes operate 24 hours a day and, in New 
York, some immigrants must wait up to 18 months to take classes to 
learn English. In response to that, Republicans in the House passed the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill 
which cut bilingual education, the program that teaches children 
information in their language and gradually makes the transition into 
completely English language classes. The House also cut the adult 
education program which provides funds for English as a Second Language 
classes.
  The English Plus substitute maintains that services, information, and 
government protection should not be denied because of limited English 
proficiency. Among H.R. 123's provisions is the repeal of bilingual 
voting ballot requirement. It infringes on citizen's ability to receive 
information about elections and ballots in a language that they are 
comfortable with and violates the equal protection clause of the 
Constitution. In 1993, when I served as chairman of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, I authored legislation to broaden the requirements 
under section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which apply to bilingual 
voting ballots, which Congress passed with bipartisan support. Even 
Presidential hopeful Bob Dole supported it. Under H.R. 123 citizens 
from American territories like Guam and Puerto Rico--who are born U.S. 
citizens--would be exempt from the bill only while they live in those 
jurisdictions. Once they move to the States, as many of my constituents 
did, they will not be able to receive information or services from the 
Government in Spanish.
  My substitute maintains the belief that our democratic process 
demands the highest level of speech protection. As Members of Congress, 
it is essential that we be able to communicate, whether in writing or 
orally, with constituents, colleagues, and other government officials. 
It is not uncommon to receive requests for information in other 
languages. H.R. 123 would literally prohibit representatives from 
communicating in writing through correspondence, press releases, and 
newsletters, unless it is in English.
  While I think that both our bills aim to strengthen our country, the 
English Plus substitute empowers by encouraging opportunity and 
diversity while H.R. 123 imposes divisive and restrictive policies that 
infringe on constitutional rights. My bill affirms that English is the 
common language of the United States and encourages citizens to learn 
it. I urge my colleagues to support the English Plus substitute and if 
it fails, vote ``no'' on H.R. 123, the English Language Empowerment 
Act.

                          ____________________