for them, and found that only 50 of them were requested, because most of those families had been Monterey or Salinas for two or three generations.

Senator HATCH. You can perhaps anticipate my problem. You have stated your intent to overturn some statutes while preserving others. My problem is, what is the judicial standard; what would be the standard to determine which current laws dealing with language would be overturned by this proposed amendment and which would be preserved?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. That law would become inoperative completely, because if English is the official language of the United States, conducting an election is official business, and it would be conducted in English. And therefore, you would not need the so-called bilingual ballots at all.

Senator HATCH. Let me, in the interest of time, submit some questions to you, and I may submit them to all witnesses, especially to you and Senator Huddleston, so that we can build the record pertaining to this constitutional amendment.

I just want to tell you how much I appreciate having you here today and seeing you once again. We certainly miss you here in the U.S. Senate. But you get up here once in a while, and we are glad to see you, especially on this issue. I know this issue means a lot to

you.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Thank you, Senator Hatch.

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Senator Hayakawa, personally. Our next witness will be Congressman Norman D. Shumway, who is a U.S. Congressman from California, and I wonder if I could call to the table also the Honorable Baltasar Corrada, who is a U.S. Congressman from Puerto Rico, and, who is with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and we will, of course, take you in that order. Congressman Shumway, let us hear your statement first.

STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN D. SHUMWAY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND HON. BALTASAR CORRADA, A RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO

Mr. SHUMWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee this morning and share my views on this very important subject. As you have indicated, I am the author of a similar amendment which is pending in the House of Representatives, known as House Joint Resolution 169, and consequently, I have given a great deal of attention to this subject; I am very concerned with the trend in recent years toward the official recognition of languages other than English in America and with the impact of the growing number of Government-sponsored bilingual programs and issues which these bills are designed to address.

And I have been delighted to note that there has been increasing attention to this subject, and I believe there is a developing trend in America for widespread grassroots support. I am encouraged that this attention and support will give us a great deal of momentum as we discuss this important issue here in the Congress.

By officially designating English as the official language of the United States, this proposed amendment would provide the meas

ure of legal protection to our common language which it is currently afforded only through custom. I believe such protection is fitting and proper for the language which has been for over two centuries one of our Nation's strongest unifying forces. The United States has always prided itself on the national unity it has achieved despite the ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity of our Nation. It is therefore past time, in my view, that the importance of the English language, and the contribution our common tongue has made to our social cohesion and political stability, be officially recognized. The subcommittee has already heard examples of the potentially divisive nature of language in society. Problems that exist in Canada, in Belgium, in Sri Lanka, and in India, as a result of their respective bilingual/bicultural policies, Mr. Chairman, should provide the United States with some valuable lessons, ones that we should take to heart and not repeat in our own country.

I have been concerned in the last 10 to 20 years about what appears to me to be a trend toward Government-sponsored bilingualism in America and the implications of those policies. While few would deny that mastery of English is vital to our Nation's immigrants becoming full and participating members of society, official policies such as those that recognize other languages as the accepted language of the ballot box, and as a legitimate means of instruction in our schools, as well as official non-English documents available for food stamp and welfare applications, drivers license examinations, and consumer complaint questionnaires, to name just a few, may actually hinder the learning of English in our country. It seems to me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that when we discourage proficiency in English, we are enhancing those dissimilarities between immigrants and the mainstream of American life, thereby inhibiting the vital process the vital acculteration that must occur..

The English language amendment which I have introduced, therefore, seeks not only to provide a needed measure of legal protection to the English language but to halt the trend toward Government policies which actively promote languages other than Eng-. lish, while clarifying many of the contradictory signals which our Government now sends to the linguistic minorities in this Nation. The U.S. naturalization laws, for example, require competency in English as a precondition of U.S. citizenship. However, Federal law since 1975 has required that people of limited English proficiency who vote, and thus who exercise the highest privilege of U.S. citizenship, be provided with ballots in their native language. My proposed amendment would put an end to the use of multilingual ballots, thereby reversing one of the many Government-sanctioned programs which do not encourage competency in English and reaffirming that proficiency in English is essential to full participation in our Nation's democracy.

Another application of this amendment would be in our Nation's schools. For almost a decade, we have highlighted bilingual education as the method for increasing limited-English proficient [LEP] students' proficiency in English. This approach was essentially institutionalized by the Federal Government in 1975, when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [HEW] developed guidelines known as the Lau remedies, which require local school districts to provide instruction for LEP students in their native lan

1

guage as a precondition of eligibility for Federal funds. In the process, Mr. Chairman, bilingual education appears to have become an end in itself, rather than the means for immigrants to become full and participating members of American society, and has served all too frequently to impede the learning of English.

Certainly, we have an obligation to provide language assistance to our Nation's LEP population, particularly given the large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into this country speaking little if any English. This amendment would not preclude our doing so. It would, however, change the focus of bilingual education programs. This amendment would not eliminate the use of bilingual education, but it would restore emphasis on its use as a transitional instructional tool, rather than as an end in and of itself, and would give local school districts more flexibility and more discretion to utilize other approaches which meet the unique needs and circumstances of their LEP students.

Government-sponsored programs such as multilingual ballots and bilingual education, while well intentioned, have become linguistic barriers which impede the process of assimilation of our Nation's growing immigrant population. Such programs are truly a disservice to America's immigrants for they essentially tell our Nation's newcomers that proficiency in English is not vital to their full participation in society. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, proficiency in English is essential to education, professional and social opportunities for America's immigrants.

As Senator Hayakawa stated in another appearance, and I think, summarized it very well: "The language we share is at the core of our identity as citizens, and our ticket to full participation in American political life. We can speak any language we want at the dinner table, but English is the language of our public discourse, of the marketplace, and of the voting booth." This remark, Mr. Chairman, underscores possibly the most important goal of the amendment—to make clear to immigrant parents and children alike that mastery of English is indispensable for one becoming a full member of American society.

Before closing, I would like to just point out a couple of things that this amendment would not do, because I know it has been criticized from that vantage point, as well.

This amendment, for example, in no way seeks to discourage the study of foreign languages in the United States. Very clearly, competency in languages in addition to English is essential in today's interdependent world, and the amendment would not prohibit or discourage the teaching of those languages in schools or colleges, nor would it prohibit foreign language requirements in academic institutions.

Furthermore, the amendment addresses the mandatory use of foreign languages in the official business of the United States, not the private use of languages other than English. The proposed amendment in no way seeks to discourage the use of foreign languages in private contexts, such as homes, churches, private organizations, commerce, and private schools.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me stress that the English language amendment should by no means be construed as a betrayal of the diverse cultures which make up our great Nation. America

has been immeasurably enriched by the cultural diversity of our society, and thus it is vital that this diverse cultural tradition be preserved. I would submit, however, that our common language has been a powerful factor in forging strength and unity from such diversity. It is therefore vital that we put an end to shortsighted Government-sponsored programs which discourage proficiency in English and which tragically serve to keep many of our Nation's linguistic minorities on the fringes of America's English-speaking mainstream. The English language amendment is an important step in the right direction.

Thank you.

[Material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN D. SHUMWAY

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity this morning to share my views with you and members of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the constitution regarding Senate Joint Resolution 167, a constitutional amendment designating English the official language of the United States. As the chief sponsor of a similar amendment (H. J. Res. 169) in the House of Representatives, I am deeply concerned with the trend in recent years towards the offical recognition of languages other than English in America and with the growing number of government-sponsored bilingual programs which, in my view, are impeding the learning of English by our nation's immigrants.

The English Language Amendment (ELA), initially introduced by former Senator S. I. Hayakawa, has gained increasing attention in recent years and enjoys widespread grassroots support. Letters I have received and comments I have heard from talkshows I have participated in enthusiastically support the ELA. These remarks, from teachers, parents, second generation Americans, and immigrants themselves, powerfully reaffirm my belief that this amendment reflects the views of many Americans: English is and must remain our only national language.

By officially designating English as the official language of the U.S., the ELA would provide the measure of legal protection to our common language which it is currently afforded through custom only. I believe such protection is fitting and proper for the language which has been for over two centuries one of our nation's strongest unifying forces. The U.S. has always prided itself on the national unity it has achieved despite the ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity of our nation. Mr. Chairman, it is therefore past time that the importance of the English language, and the contribution our common tongue has made to our social cohesion and political stability, be officially recognized.

Examples of the potentially divisive nature of language in society are all too prevalent throughout the world. Canada, which has a policy of two official languages, is confronted with calls for seccession by the country's French-speaking citizens; linguistic divisions can be seen in Belgium between the French-speaking Walloons and the Dutchspeaking Flemish population; and, in Sri Lanka, the tragic conflict