You have been a particularly good witness, Ms. Bikales, and I am very happy to have had you here today, as well. I would like you to try and answer some of these questions, as well, if you can.

Ms. BIKALES. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. TORRES. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HATCH. Thank you. You will have to forgive me, but I had better run.

Mr. RADER. Please proceed, Mr. Torres.

Mr. TORRES. For the record, my name is Arnold Torres. I am the national executive director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, which is the country's oldest Hispanic organization. I would like to begin by reading for you from the LULAC code, which was established in 1929, when the organization was originally founded, beginning:

Respect your citizenship and preserve it. Honor your country. Maintain its tradition and the spirit of its citizens, and embody yourself into its culture and civilization. Be proud of your origin and maintain it immaculate. Respect your glorious past and help to defend the rights of all people. In war, serve your country; in peace, your convictions. Discern, investigate, meditate, and think. Study at all times. Be honest and generous. Let your firmest purpose be that of helping to see that each new generation shall be of a youth more efficient and capable and in this, let your own children be included.

The LULAC prayer portion of it reads:

Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of the many kindreds and tongues.

The reason why I begin this way is because I want to at least state the qualifications of our organization, that we are not a separatist movement, as certain elements in American society who have presented their comments today would perhaps have you believe.

But we greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here today in opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment, and we hope that we will not insult anyone today, but we hope to be as candid as possible in order for people to understand our concerns.

Constitutional amendment-I think Senator Hatch has made an extremely good point today in saying that the Constitution is a very sacred document. It should not be used for frivolous amendments that have absolutely no background and justification.

The first point that I would like to raise and bring to your attention is the U.S. Census. A review of the 10 largest cities which have the largest percentage of Hispanics-San Francisco, Chicago, New York, El Paso, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Diego-indicate that—approximately 77.7 percent of the Hispanic households speak only English at home.

A review of another census document, PHC 80 S11, indicates that 90.5 percent of persons of Spanish descent age 5 to 17, speak only English at home, persons 18 and over, 88.7 percent; total persons 5 and over, 89.1 percent.

With this in mind we ask, is there a need for a constitutional amendment calling for English as the official language of the United States?

In view of the statistics that have just been cited, I do not think that there is any clandestine movement by Hispanics or any other ethnic group in this country to take over and speak their language in the Southwest or any part of the United States.

The framers of the Constitution perceived the American identity based not on national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background, but on the individual's commitment to the American principles of government. In building this new Nation, the founders understood the need for developing a sense of peoplehood. The development of the national character was important, quote, "*** because four out of five whites were of British derivation, because virtually all were Protestant, and because blacks and Indians were not considered part of the national community, Americans of that era may be considered highly homogeneous in culture. Yet, American nationality was not simply WASP. On the contrary, it was regarded as something novel and distinctive. It was oriented toward the future rather than the past, and most important, it rested on a commitment to universalist political and social principles, rather than on particularist cultural features such as language, religion, or country of origin.

I bring this to your attention by the author, Thernstrom, in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, page 56, printed in 1980:

Becoming an American did not require one to become an Anglo-Saxon or even to be like an Anglo-Saxon, except in adhering to the principles of freedom, equality and repudiating all former political allegiance, accepting the Constitution, and obeying the laws.

Again, we must ask, based on what has just been quoted, where is the need for this type of an amendment?

I would submit to you, to this committee, that if, in fact, the proponents of such an amendment were that serious and that fearful of people not learning English, or if, in fact, as Senator Symms and the others have indicated, they want everyone to learn English, why not provide more programs to learn English?

Hispanics 18 years and over, under the census study, have the greatest dependency on Spanish. Why not provide better English classes, and English only-I do not care what kind of immersion programs you design-immersion programs for 18 years and over. That would be fine with us.

Why not provide greater bilingual education opportunities?

There has not been enough information presented by Senator Huddleston, Senator Hayakawa, or any other Senator, that can defame the intent and results of bilingual education. It has been an effective educational approach to learning English for the limitedEnglish-speaking children in this country. But no; that is not really the intent of the proponents of this legislation.

The proponents of this legislation would have you believe that there is an underground movement by Hispanics to take over this country, and they have been very effective in presenting their arguments that way. But again, they are not interested in discussing facts, no facts whatsoever.

It is interesting that from the American Revolution to Beirut, Hispanics have answered America's call to protect its shores. Let us not forget that in 1917, Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico were

granted citizenship in time to fight in World War I and did so with honor.

For those who have doubts about Hispanic Americans' commitment to this country, we would be more than happy to lead a contingent of Senators and others to Constitution Avenue to the Vietnam Memorial to read the Hispanic surnames engraved in black. Or, we could travel across the river and stroll through Arlington Cemetery.

It is inconceivable to us that a group of people who would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for a country would be willing to separate itself from it.

Should, by an unbelievable and unfortunate fate of history, such a constitutional amendment actually be passed, we must deal with the Treaty of Guadalupe that was signed in the very early 1800's, that granted the region known to us now as the Southwest the right of every Mexican citizen to maintain their language and their culture. That treaty is an important tool that we would use in order to present a legal argument against such a constitutional amendment. I wanted to read the following, that "It is our belief that this initiative is a frivolous attempt to amend the Constitution. This is not the 13th amendment ending slavery. This is not the 14th amendment, calling for equal protection laws. This is not the 15th amendment, ending racial discrimination. This is not the 19th amendment, allowing women to vote. Nor is this the equal rights amendment, seeking to ensure that women are treated fairly in society."

In our opinion, it is really a backhanded attempt to further ostracize Hispanics and other language minorities from fully participating in society in the same way that Jim Crow laws ostracized blacks.

I would like to review very briefly some of the illustrative comments made by Senators Huddleston and Burdick and Symms, and former Senator Hayakawa.

Senator Huddleston, in essence, implied that the bilingual ballots and bilingual education are really just the beginning of a clandestine movement, and that with a constitutional amendment, we could head it off at the pass. It is precisely these kinds of comments that are unsubstantiated and serve to create an impetus for this kind of attitude.

When people are afraid, when we begin to use the scare tactics that proponents of this amendment use, they give the impression that, in fact, Hispanics are armed and ready to take over, and will immediately kick out any non-Spanish-speaking person in the Southwest.

Mr. Burdick uses Canada as an example of what could happen to the United States without such an amendment. Mr. Burdick would probably be well-versed if he were to read Canadian history. There is a much deeper embedded difference in Canada with regard to the differences between the two groups in Canada that clearly do not exist with regard to Hispanics in the Southwest, or for that matter, any minority language group in the United States with majority America. It just does not exist. We do not have, hopefully, at this time separate schools, separate neighborhoods, certainly not

by our own wish. If they exist, they exist by discrimination, and not as a result of our choice.

Senator Symms went over a story of his friend who learned English and quoted him as saying: "Had I not been forced to learn English, I would have not become Secretary of State; I would have been a shepherd."

Does the Senator from, I believe, Idaho, imply that Hispanics want to maintain a low-level of economic life simply because they do not want to invest in the learning of English? Does it mean that Hispanics are willing to sacrifice and live at bare minimum just because they do not want to invest the time in learning English?

I do not think so. Any person who comes to this country, regardless of his background, comes because he wants to improve his state in life. And I think that learning English clearly improves the opportunities that one has when living in this country, in view of the fact that English is the national language.

Senator Hayakawa made an interesting point, but once again, lacking very, very clear facts. He indicated and pointed to the lack of educational attainment by Hispanics, a significant dropout rate, an extremely low number in college. He implied that there was a correlation between such a dismal future and status and our inability to speak English, and that his "Hispanic friends" if they want to push their Hispanic children to learn English, he would be more than happy to help them. He concludes by saying that he believes that Hispanic activists are really not concerned with this objective, but to get jobs for Spanish-speaking teachers. Once again, exaggeration and misrepresentation is used.

I would bring to the attention of the Senator who sat in the Senate for 6 years that during his time in this country, when bilingual education was being funded for less than $140 million a year, less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, Hispanics had the highest dropout rate back then, Hispanics were becoming the most segregated group of children in American public education today, and that those statistics existed prior to the enactment of the Bilingual Education Act in 1968. What would Mr. Hayakawa blame it on in those days? Was it our stupidity, our genes, or our inability to want to learn? There is no correlation between the educational status of Hispanics today and our inability to want to learn English, because the census study points out that that is clearly incorrect.

The point that the Senator from Utah has asked-the questions he has asked-would it prohibit private activities? Would language prevent Congress from passing legislation applying to private schools? Would this amendment limit religious freedom? Would it prohibit the use of any other language besides English in public places? In all candor, I believe that it would.

Now, this may not be the sole intent or one of the intents of the proponents, but we are talking about something that the proponents are not going to control. We are also talking about something that will not be controlled by good intentions or good faith.

There is a great deal of discrimination that takes place now. The EEOC has a number of cases that indicate that there is discrimination based on language. If I want to speak Spanish to someone during working hours, and it has nothing to do with my employment responsibilities I can be fired. There have been various cases

of this type which have been considered to be employment discrimination.

An amendment of this kind begins to tell people that any foreign language spoken is really unacceptable. Now, I know what the proponents of this legislation are going to say. They are going to say that this contention is bunk. But we have to deal with these realities in our community. We have to deal with these facts in our community. Ms. Bikales and the others do not have to worry about that. We have to worry about that. We are under the significant eye of everyone in this country with the immigration flows being what they are, and everyone begins to give the impression that this, quote, "alien hoard," is posed, ready to take over the United States, and as a result, we need this constitutional amendment.

I would conclude with the interesting U.S. English motto: "America, one Nation, indivisible, enriched by many cultures, united by a single tongue.'

We in LULAC have a pledge that we recite every meeting. It is in our constitution on page 56. It has been a practice since 1929. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all."

We have no intention of changing mottos or playing with words. The Pledge of Allegiance is what this organization stands by; it should be what this country stands by, and it should refrain from responding to the kind of scare tactics that this constitutional amendment and its proponents bring with it.

Thank you very much, and I am very sorry that the chairman of this committee had to leave, but I greatly appreciate the fact that he allowed me to be as thorough as I was.

[Material supplied for the record follows:]