> Update on English-Only Legislation -- VI
>
> July 25, 1996
>
>A modified English-only bill, approved yesterday by the House
>Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, appears to be
>on a legislative fast track. After months of inaction, H.R. 123
>(the "Language of Government Act") is suddenly a priority for
>House Republican leaders. The measure is expected to come to a
>vote late next week, before Congress leaves for its August
>recess. With nearly 200 cosponsors and a clear display of
>party discipline in committee, the English-only bill seems
>likely to pass in the House, although Senate support remains
>uncertain.
>
>If enacted, H.R. 123 would designate English as the official --
>and sole permissible -- language of U.S. government business,
>with only a few exceptions. The use of other languages would be
>permitted for purposes of national security, international trade
>and diplomacy, public safety, and criminal proceedings.
>
>To mollify critics of the bill's restrictiveness, Rep. Randy
>Cunningham (R-Calif.) proposed an amended version of H.R. 123
>that would also waive the English-only mandate in the case of
>language education -- including programs funded under the
>Bilingual Education Act and the Native American Languages Act --
>public health, census activities, and civil lawsuits brought by
>the U.S. government. It would also exempt oral communications
>with the public by federal employees, officials, and members of
>Congress. Federal publications -- that is, virtually all written
>materials -- in languages other than English would still be
>banned. The House committee passed the Cunningham "substitute"
>on a vote of 19 Republicans in favor and 17 Democrats against.
>
>The committee's day-long session was remarkable for its rancor
>and partisanship, even by the standards of the 104th Congress.
>Democrats accused the Republican majority of desperately seeking
>to exploit anti-immigrant feeling in an election year, even if
>that meant violating constitutional principles of free speech
>and equal rights. "What about people who think in another
>language?" asked ranking Democrat Bill Clay (Mo.). "Would your
>bill prohibit that?" Republicans labeled such attacks as
>"demagogy," insisting they merely want to unite the country
>through a common language and help newcomers learn English.
>
>Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-Calif.) argued that the bill would
>deprive limited English speakers of essential rights and
>services while doing nothing to address the acute shortage of
>adult English classes in cities like New York and Los Angeles.
>(In the past two years, Congressional budget cutters have
>substantially reduced federal support for such classes.) "The
>idea that people who come to this country don't want to speak
>English is the sickest thing I've ever heard," Martinez said,
>accusing the bill's proponents of "promoting fear" of language
>minorities. "I'm sorry that people on the other side of the
>aisle are so insecure that they feel they need to do this," he
>said.
>
>Cunningham responded to Martinez: "You want to keep people in
>the barrio" by discouraging them from learning English. "We want
>to empower them." Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) added that "the
>purpose of this bill isn't just to make people speak English;
>it's to help them reach the American dream." As a small business
>owner, Ballenger said he had personally sponsored language
>classes for his foreign-born employees. "My Vietnamese are the
>best workers in the world because they can speak English," he
>said.
>
>Citing the majority's refusal to discuss constitutional
>objections or to justify any need for the legislation, Rep. Pat
>Williams (D-Mont.) called the session "the most maddening debate
>I've sat through in my 18 years in Congress." Rep. Chaka Fattah
>(D-Pa.) observed that even though everyone was speaking English,
>there was little communication taking place between the two
>sides.
>
>Throughout the day the partisan split was consistent in votes on
>several proposed amendments, with not a single defection from
>either the Democratic or Republican side.
>
>The committee rejected an amendment by Del. Carlos Romero-
>Barcelo (D-P.R.) that would have allowed federal agencies to
>communicate in other languages to promote government efficiency.
>Rep. Jan Meyers (R-Kans.) argued that such an exemption would
>"totally gut the bill. What we're saying is that agencies must
>communicate in English. ... If I was in China, I wouldn't expect
>their government to print everything in my language."
>
>The lawmakers then approved a proposal by Rep. Lindsey Graham
>(R-S.C.) to extend English-only restrictions to all
>"publications, informational materials, income-tax forms, and
>the contents of franked [i.e., Congressional and other U.S.
>government] mail." Under questioning, Graham conceded that his
>amendment would forbid virtually any written communication by a
>federal agency in another language, including the tourist-
>oriented pamphlets of the National Park Service. Graham
>insisted, however, that "common sense" would eliminate any need
>to remove the slogan "E Pluribus Unum" from U.S. currency and
>coins.
>
>Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hi.) offered an amendment to keep the bill
>from infringing the freedom of speech, due process, and equal
>protection of the law. But Republicans objected to including
>what Graham called a "laundry list" of constitutional rights.
>Instead, they inserted an assurance that H.R. 123 was not
>intended to conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
>
>Finally, the committee rejected an English Plus substitute
>proposed by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). It would have
>removed the bill's restrictive features and advocated a policy
>of encouraging the acquisition of English, plus other languages,
>to promote international competitiveness and preserve cultural
>resources. Before voting against the Becerra amendment,
>Cunningham conceded that "we're fools if we don't learn other
>languages in this country." But he insisted that language
>restrictions are necessary because of "a propensity for more and
>more Americans not to speak English" -- citing anecdotal
>evidence from his own Congressional district in south San Diego.
>
>Until this week, H.R. 123 had appeared to be going nowhere. Its
>chief sponsor, Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.), recently died after a
>long bout with cancer. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a longtime
>backer of English-only legislation, apparently decided the
>measure could boost Republicans' prospects in the 1996 election.
>As recently as May, Committee chairman Bill Goodling (R-Pa.) had
>assured the Joint National Committee for Languages that he
>would block the bill from reaching the House floor. But Goodling
>did an unexplained about-face yesterday, along with Rep. Steve
>Gunderson (R-Wisc.) and other members of the majority side who
>had expressed reservations about H.R. 123 during committee
>hearings.
>
>In the Senate, Republicans have postponed three scheduled votes
>on a companion measure, S. 356, where support is weaker than on
>the House side of the Capitol. Meanwhile, the Justice and
>Education departments have spoken out in opposition. But
>President Clinton, who once signed a similar measure as governor
>of Arkansas, has yet to commit himself publicly on federal
>English-only legislation.
>
>
>Jim Crawford
>73261.1120 who-is-at compuserve.com
>** Feel free to forward electronically or recirculate in print**
>
>