MANDAN

MENOMINEE

MESCALERO/APACHE

MESQUAKIE

MITCHIF

MOHOWLE

NATIKESE

NAVAHO

NIGERIAN

OJJBWE

ONEIDA

PAKISTANI

PAPTAGO

PASSAMAQUODY

PHILLIPINO

PIMA

PINGELAP

POLISH

PORTUGESE

PULAVAN

PUNJABI

PUSHTO

RUMANIAN

RUSSIAN

SALISH

SAMOYAN

SATAWALESE

SENECA

SERBO/CROATIAN

SHOSHONE

SIOUX

SPANISH

SWEDISH

TRWA

TAGOLOG

TAIWANESE

TEWA

THIA

THEUNG

TIGRINYA

TONGAN

TRUKESE

TURKISH

UKRANIAN

ULITHIAN

UPPER KUSHCKWAI

URDU

VIETNAMESE

WOLENIAN

YADESE

YOQUI

YIDDISH

YUPIK

ZUNI

Senator HUDDLESTON. In the area of voting rights, we have also formulated a national policy that encourages voting citizens not to learn to speak or read English. The Voting Rights Act, which was reauthorized in 1982, requires bilingual ballots in 30 States. In essence, we have gone far beyond providing a necessary service on a temporary basis; we are now engaged in actively encouraging the use of bilingual ballots, even though in many cases they may not be needed at all. The wisdom of this policy is clearly lacking when you consider that the vast bulk of political debate, whether it is in the printed press or the electronic media, is conducted in English. Further, it becomes even more illogical when you consider that in all 50 States, U.S. citizenship is required to vote, and proficiency in English is required to become a naturalized citizen.

By failing to provide a positive incentive for voting citizens to learn English, we are denying them full participation in the political process. Instead, we are making them dependent upon a few interpreters or go-betweens for information as to how they should vote. Although this process helps to preserve minority voting blocks, it seriously undercuts the democratic concept that every voting individual should be as fully informed as possible about the issues and the candidates.

There are other, less prominent provisions of Federal law that now require the use of foreign languages. For example, the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is required to establish a program for the use of foreign language interpreters in Federal, civil, and criminal proceedings for parties whose primary language is other than English. The use of foreign language personnel is required in connection with federally funded migrant and community health centers, and the use of foreign language personnel is mandated in the alcohol abuse and treatment programs.

Although this kind of assistance is helpful, the fact that it must be legislated strongly indicates that we are failing in our efforts to teach immigrants, and many of our native born, to speak, read and write English.

The Federal laws requiring the use of interpreters and foreign languages are merely tips of the iceberg. I recently sent a request to all of the State Governors and the major Federal agencies, asking for information regarding non-English forms and publications that their offices produce which are intended for use in this country. This informal inquiry resulted in responses from 24 States and 21 Federal agencies, and revealed that over 2,000 documents and forms, in as many as 32 different foreign languages, are being printed and distributed on a wide scale throughout the United States. These publications cover a broad spectrum, and range from White House press releases to factsheets on power mowers. Using estimates based on Canada's bilingual program, I conservatively estimate that the translation costs alone are probably running over $1.5 million for these materials.

However, we still do not have a complete picture of the use of official and non-English publications. Many of the States have only sent a few samples of what they produce, and I am told that if copies of all bilingual educational materials were sent, we could fill a large room.

While distribution of these non-English materials may be seen as providing a useful Government service, it can also be seen as reducing the incentive to learn English and is clearly demonstrative of a growing nationwide problem.

At the non-Government level, there is a great deal of emphasis being placed on the use of non-English languages. In some major metropolitan areas, English is the second language. Minorities, who speak only English, are being told that they must learn a foreign language in order to be eligible for a job in some parts of this country. And in many stores, non-English languages are the only ones used to conduct business.

Statistics show a disconcerting trend away from the common use of English. In 1975, the Bureau of Census reported that about 8 million people in this country used a language other than English in their households. When the census was conducted in 1980, the number of people who spoke a language other than English at home was found to be over 22 million. Although these numbers are subject to many interpretations, to me they indicate that the melting pot is not working as it once did.

This assumption is confirmed by a private market research survey which shows that 43 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population speaks only Spanish, or just enough English to "get by."

If this situation were static, there would not be cause for concern. However, there is a new philosophy taking hold, and it is gaining more and more acceptance. A recent Time magazine article stated in regard to this new attitude that:

A new bilingualism and biculturalism is being promulgated that would deliberately fragment the nation into separate, unassimilated groups. The new metaphor is not the melting pot, but the salad bowl, with each element distinct. The biculturalists seek to use public services, particularly schools, not to Americanize the young, but to heighten their consciousness of belonging to another heritage.

The United States is presently at a crucial juncture. We can either continue down the same path we have walked for the last 200 years, using the melting philosophy to forge a strong and united nation, or we can take the new path, that leads in the direction of another Tower of Babel.

Mr. Chairman, there are many nations in the world today that would give a great deal to have the kind of internal social and political stability that a single primary language has afforded us. For us to consciously make the decision to throw away this stabilizing force would be seen as foolish in countries that have paid a high price for not having a universally accepted language.

We have to look no further than the nation which is closest to us geographically to see the serious problems that language can cause. The Canadians have had a long running experience with bilingualism and biculturalism, and it is an experience that still generates, divisiveness and threatens to shatter the nation's unity.

Belgium is another nation that has suffered severe internal dissent, much of which has been caused by language differences. In the last 39 years, the political coalitions that are necessary to govern Belgium have been broken apart over 30 times by the fights between the French-speaking Walloons and the Dutch-speaking Flemish. This political, squabbling has had serious social, political,

and economic consequences for Belgium, and it is not the kind of situation to which any nation would voluntarily subject itself.

This type of political instability has been repeated throughout history, and is still occurring in many countries today. In countless places, differences in languages have either caused or contributed significantly to political, social, and economic instability. While the absence of language differences does not guarantee that these problems will not occur, I believe that it does significantly reduce the chances that they will occur.

The constitutional amendment that I am proposing is not unusual, and in fact, many nations have one official language. According to the Library of Congress, these include, but are not limited to: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Sweden.

Within the United States, there is ample tradition and precedent to justify this approach. According to the Library of Congress, “several Federal statutes and numerous State laws do require the use of English in a variety of areas." For example, the Nationality Act requires that no person shall be naturalized as a citizen of the United States unless they demonstrate "an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language."

Another section of the United States Code specifies that a person cannot serve on a grand jury in the district court if he or she "is unable to read, write and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily the juror qualification form" or "is unable to speak the English language." At the State level, many States have statutes requiring the use of English in various circumstances. According to the Library of Congress, 20 States require that schools be taught in English; 13 States require jurors to speak English, and 14 States require public documents or proceedings to be in English. At the time the Library issued its report, Illinois, Nebraska, and Virginia had expressly designated English as the official State language, and since that time, Indiana and Kentucky have also passed legislation declaring English as their official language.

The U.S. Senate has spoken out very strongly in favor of establishing English as the official language. On August 13, 1982, Senator Hayakawa introduced a sense of the Congress amendment to the Immigration Reform and Control Act, declaring that "the English language is the official language of the United States." On a rollcall vote, 78 Senators voted for this amendment, and it was included in the bill. When this same bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in 1983, it again contained this language. The report issued by the committee was unequivocal in its support for the provision. The report stated:

If immigration is continued at a high level, yet a substantial portion of these new persons and their descendants do not assimilate into the society, they have the potential to create in America a measure of the same social, political, and economic problems which exist in the countries from which they have chosen to depart. Furthermore, if language and cultural separatism rise above a certain level, the unity and political stability of the nation will, in time, be seriously diminished. Pluralism within a united American nation has been the single greatest strength of this coun

try. This unity comes from a common language and a core public culture of certain shared values, beliefs, and customs which make us distinctly "Americans".

If we continue along the path we now follow, I believe that we will do irreparable damage to the unity that our common language has helped us preserve for over 200 years. Cultural pluralism is an established value in our national life, and one which we greatly cherish. Paradoxically, cultural pluralism can only continue if we retain our common meeting ground, namely, the English language. If we allow this bond to erode, we will no longer enjoy the benefits of cultural diversity, but rather, we will suffer the bitterness of ethnic confrontations and cultural separatism.

The constitutional language I am proposing is simple and straightforward; it would serve to establish a principle that would strengthen us as a nation. However, I am aware that adding to the Constitution takes us into uncharted waters, and that there will be many misleading allegations about the extent of the problem and the proposed remedy. This is one of the reasons that I have chosen to propose a constitutional amendment in order to address this issue. It will focus national attention on the problem and subject it to the type of thorough, national debate which is necessary.

During this constitutional process, all parties, sides and interests will have the opportunity to present their respective points of view. I This will guarantee that the final version submitted to the States for ratification will accomplish only what is needed to be accomplished, and that basic individual rights are not violated.

Even though I believe that the constitutional language I am proposing will work, I am open to all recommendations, and I will carefully consider any proposed improvements or modifications. However, regardless of the final language, to a large extent, it is the legislative history which determines how the language will be interpreted.

Accordingly, it is my intent that the amendment I am proposing would not do a number of things.

It would not prohibit or discourage the use of foreign languages in private contexts, such as in homes, churches, communities, private organizations, commerce, and private schools. The United States is rich in ethnic cultures, and they would continue to survive as they have in the past.

Second, it would not prohibit the teaching of foreign languages in the Nation's public schools or colleges, nor will it prohibit foreign language requirements in academic institutions.

Third, it will not prevent the use of second languages for the purpose of public safety.

Fourth, it would not deny individuals their civil rights or, as some have referred to them, their linguistic and cultural rights. According to the Census Bureau, there are 387 language groups in the United States. English has always represented the great compromise among the diverse ethnic groups that make up this Nation, and the ratification of the amendment would simply maintain English as such.

On the other hand, the amendment would accomplish a number of objectives. It would establish a national consensus that a common language is necessary to preserve the basic internal unity that is required for a stable and growing nation.