[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       ENGLISH LANGUAGE AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 19, 1999

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the English 
Language Amendment to the Constitution. It is my belief that this 
legislation is critically needed at this day and hour. It is time for 
Congress to stand up and reaffirm that this nation of immigrants 
requires the unity of a national language.
  Mr. Speaker, for over 200 years, America has made a home for 
immigrants from all over the globe. The newest American citizen is 
considered just as good an American as the citizen whose ancestors can 
be traced to the Mayflower. The United States has managed to accomplish 
what few nations have even dared to attempt: we are one nation even 
though each of us may have ancestors who fought against each other in 
generations past.
  This has been made possible by our common flag and our common 
language. The immigrant struggling to learn English in order to become 
a citizen is an ancestor of many of the Members of this House. The 
child of immigrants, going to school, learning English and playing 
baseball is the ancestor of many of us as well. And others here are 
that child a few years later, having the honor of representing many 
other Americans as a U.S. Congressman.
  Learning English was not always easy. And America has not always 
lived up to its high ideal that we are E Pluribus Unum--``out of many, 
one.'' But for most of our Nation's history, the English language was 
both the language of opportunity and the language of unity.
  During the 1960's, the notion of our common language came under 
attack. There were those who felt America had nothing worthy of pride. 
Some of these people gave the impression that they did not think the 
United States of America itself was a good idea.
  While those days are over, many of the ideas of that period are part 
of federal law. One of the most divisive of those notions was 
government multilingualism and multiculturalism. These ideas have 
infiltrated government at all levels. Yet these ideas were opposed and 
then and remain opposed to now by a vast majority of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we would all concede that notions like 
bilingual ballots and bilingual education were well meant when they 
were proposed. But also believe that it is time that we ended this 
failed experiment in official multilingualism.
  I believe this experiment should be ended because government 
multilingualism is divisive. It seems that no amount of translation 
services is ever sufficient. Michigan offers its driver test in 20 
languages. There are 100 languages spoken in the Chicago school system. 
Yet hard-pressed taxpayers know that they are one lawsuit away from yet 
another mandatory translation requirement.
  There are those who say that this amendment is not necessary. I would 
remind them that right across the street the Supreme Court will decide 
whether any official English legislation is Constitutional. Even though 
we may desire less comprehensive approaches to this issue, the actions 
of this Court, or a future Court, may well undercut any official 
English legislation short of the English Language Amendment (ELA).
  In 1996, I spoke with pride on behalf of the official English bill 
originally introduced by my colleague from the great State of 
California, Duke Cunningham. That was a good bill and would have made a 
good beginning.
  However, given that groups like the American Civil Liberties Union 
with their legions of lawyers stand ready to haul any official English 
legislation into court, I believe that we must accept the fact that 
Congress will be continually forced to revisit this issue until we 
successfully add the ELA to our Constitution.
  The path of a Constitutional amendment is not easy. The Founding 
Fathers made certain that only the most important issues could succeed 
in achieving Constitutional protection.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that preserving our national unity through 
making English this Nation's official language is just such a critical 
issue. Look around the world. Neighbor fights with neighbor even when 
they speak a common language. Linguistic divisions swiftly lead to 
other divisions.
  Mr. Speaker, if the ELA is adopted, states like my own will save 
money. Under our current laws, the minute an immigrant sets foot on 
U.S. soil, he and his family are entitled to a multitude of government 
services, each provided in that immigrant's native tongue. When their 
children start school, we cannot give them English classes--instead 
California and other States must provide schooling to these children in 
the language of their parents. Bilingual education alone is an unfunded 
$8 billion mandate on State and local taxpayers.
  There is a sense in this body when the time has come for certain 
legislation. I submit that the time has indeed come for the English 
Language Amendment and I urge its adoption.

                          ____________________