Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - May 18, 2006)

BREAK N TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place insert the following:

Notwithstanding any other provision:

SEC. 161. DECLARATION OF ENGLISH.

English is the common and unifying language of the United States that helps provide unity for the people of the United States.

SEC. 162. PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE ROLE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the common and unifying language of America. Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the government of the United States in any language other than English.

For the purposes of this section, law is defined as including provisions of the U.S. Code, the U.S. Constitution, controlling judicial decisions, regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of chapters for title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the Language of Government of the United States.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. President.

Let me first say that the amendment I send to the desk is sponsored as well by Senators REID, DURBIN, BINGAMAN, and KENNEDY.

I would first like to start by reading the amendment in its basic entirety. I think that it reflects what it is we are talking about in the Chamber this afternoon. My amendment reads as follows:

English is the common and unifying language of the United States that helps provide unity for the people of the United States.

The government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as a common and unifying language of America. Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English.

That is the essential and substantive part of the amendment which we are sponsoring today.

As I start to speak about this amendment, I want to say this amendment is a unifying amendment because it speaks to the common language of America. It unifies us from whatever particular language or background we come from.

It is my hope that when we complete this debate today we could have 100 Senators standing up in support of this amendment.

Let me say, for me--as we have approached this debate over immigration and as we approach this debate over official English and other aspects of amendments that have been offered by my friend from Oklahoma--it has been also a time for me to reflect back to the history of America and to the history of my own family in this country. My family came in and founded the city of Santa Fe in 1598, 408 years ago. And the language that is still the language of my home--the language still spoken on our ranch 110 miles north of Santa Fe--is still the spoken language from the 12th and 13th centuries. It is a very old language.

I remember during those days when I was a young man going to school in the 1960s in Conejos County, in the southern part of Colorado, those who spoke Spanish in our school were punished because of the fact they spoke Spanish. I remember seeing the incident where young people would have their mouths washed out with soap because of the fact they happened to be speaking a language other than English in the public school. I have seen these kinds of incidents through a lifetime of personal experience.

I think those kinds of incidents and those kinds of experiences run counter to what America is all about. America becomes richer and stronger because of our diversity. We have learned through the hard times of history that America is stronger when it stands together, when we find those issues that unite us as opposed to those issues that divide us.

We found those issues that divided us in the Civil War and over half a million Americans died in that war. We found those issues that divided us in the era of segregation that led to Brown v. Board of Education and led to the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s. Those acts were intended to bring us together as a country.

My fear is that the proposal which has been presented by my good friend from Oklahoma will serve to divide this country and not unite the country.

That is why the amendment I have offered, along with my colleagues, is intended to be an amendment that says we believe the English language is the common language of the United States and that it is a unifying language of the United States and we stand behind that language as the common language of America.

Let me also make a couple of observations regarding Senator Inhofe's amendment.

First, when you read the language itself and read the technical language of it, you have to ask yourself the question: Why is that language there?

You can read in the second part of the second page of his amendment essentially the language that says ``no official will communicate, provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English.''

I know there have been exceptions written into the language to try to accommodate times and places where the language other than English might have to be spoken.

We have to ask the question: Why is the language written the way it is which says it is in these narrow, tailored exceptions where we will make the exception that a language other than English can be spoken?

It causes me concern because I am not exactly sure what that means. If I am a public official working in law enforcement for one of our Federal agencies, if I work for the U.S. Postal Service, or wherever I might work in any

agency of the Federal Government, I might read the language that says officials cannot communicate or provide materials in a language other than English. As someone who might not be a lawyer but a public servant serving within the Federal Government, it might give me a signal--and I think it would--and lots of our Federal employees the signal that perhaps providing services to the citizens of the United States in a language other than English is wrong and violative of the rule of law.

They will not have the opportunity that we have had today to go through the fine review of this legislation in the way that we have, and even after having gone through that fine review of this language there are still many of us who have questions as to how this proposed amendment will take away rights from the people of America.

As I was listening to my friend from Oklahoma speak about the importance of this amendment, one of the things he said is that he thought it was important that we stand together in opposing national origin discrimination. For sure, we can all agree in this Chamber that we are not to discriminate against someone because they happen to be Irish or French or if they happen to be of Mexican descent, whatever it is; we stand united in this country's belief in the proposition that we oppose any kind of discrimination based on national origin. Yet, it seems to me, from what I was hearing from my friend from Oklahoma, that the same thing does not apply with respect to language discrimination; if you happen to speak a language other than English, or if you happen, perhaps, to have an accent that indicates you may be of a native tongue that is other than English, that perhaps discrimination on the basis of language then would be sanctioned under our law in America. That is not the American way. The American way is to say that we are a stronger country when we recognize the differences among us, when we tolerate those who are different among us, and that we create a much stronger country when we stand together.

I believe the amendment which Senator Inhofe has proposed will create division within the country. I think it is putting a finger on a problem that does not exist today.

The statistics which Senator Inhofe cited, which are also cited by the National Council for Larussa, indicates that most Americans, including most Hispanics, speak English. The National Council for Larussa cites a GAO study in which it was consistently found that U.S. Government documents are printed in English only. In fact, less than 1 percent of U.S. Government documents are published in any language other than English.

They also found that the English language is not under attack in our country. In the U.S. census findings, they found that 92 percent of Americans had no difficulty speaking English. We also found in poll after poll that immigrants in America come because they want to learn English. They want to learn English. They want to assimilate into our society because they know that English is, in fact, a keystone to opportunity.

The Inhofe amendment does nothing in terms of including or encouraging people to move forward and learn the English language. We are already a country that speaks English. Senator Inhofe's amendment does not do anything with respect to moving the English language acquisition forward.

Let me finally say that it is true there are many States that have made English their official language. I believe that English being made the official language is also a matter of States rights. It is true that in my State of Colorado, as well as in other States, English has been adopted as the official language of those particular States. I believe we ought to leave it to the States; let the States decide we are a Federal system. I think States ought to decide the way we ought to go with respect to dealing with this issue.

Let me conclude by saying the amendment which I have proposed, along with my colleagues, Senators REID, DURBIN and BINGAMAN, is an amendment that would unify America and not divide our country.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment which we have offered and oppose the Inhofe amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, through the Chair, I say to my friend from Tennessee, there was an Executive order issued on limited English proficiency and the importance of reaching out to people who are limited English proficient so they could recognize and understand the language of the Government, an Executive order dated August 11, 2000.

Is the Senator's reading of the Inhofe amendment that it would essentially eviscerate the Executive order issued by then-President Clinton concerning limited English proficiency?

Mr. ALEXANDER. The answer to my friend from Colorado is no. The election of a new President might change an Executive order if the new President modified or changed the Executive order. My understanding of Senator Inhofe's amendment, and he can speak for himself, is he does not seek to change any right now granted to anyone.

We can have a good debate about whether there ought to be bilingual ballots. In my opinion, I don't think there should be because you have to be a citizen to vote and you have to demonstrate an eight grade understanding of English to be a citizen. But that is in the law and is not affected by this and neither would an Executive order.

Mr. SALAZAR. I say to my friend from Tennessee, not too long ago in the Senate, we entered into a debate concerning the nomination of Attorney General Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States. There were Members of this Senate who came to the Senate and spoke eloquently in Spanish about why he should be confirmed, including Senator Martinez. Would the Inhofe amendment make it illegal for that kind of activity to occur in the Senate?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Colorado, that is a preposterous question for what we are talking about and not really a suitable question for a serious proposal.

This is a simple proposal which declares that English is the national language of the United States and that the Government of the United States should do whatever it can to encourage that. It does not change any right that anyone has today. It also includes a strengthening of the citizenship test. Anyone who understands the founding documents knows that liberty is at the front of our unifying principles. Any citizen has a right to speak in Spanish. A Senator, of course, does as well. This has nothing to do with inhibiting anyone's rights. It just declares that, unlike Switzerland, unlike Canada, unlike Belgium, we have a common national language that is part of our identity. We do not want to be based on race. We do not want to be based on ancestry. We want to be unified by a few things--the unifying principles and our national common language.

So the answer is, of course not.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, in response to the colloquy I am having with my friend from Tennessee, it seems to me this language could be read that Senator Inhofe has proposed to say that because we are a Government Chamber, since we do not have a law that proactively says--or a rule of the Senate--that you can speak a language other than English here, perhaps when we were speaking about Attorney General Gonzales, we would have been in violation of this exact provision if it stays in the same language.

To continue my question to the Senator, my friend from Tennessee, it was not at all our intention in the drafting of the amendment to take away any of the requirements we have for people who come here under this immigration proposal to learn English or to go through the civics courses which are required now for the legislation that has been included in here. So it is my view that the Senator has misread the amendment we have supported.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid and state his eloquence today, in terms of pointing out issues and concerns with respect to the Inhofe amendment, is very much appreciated.

I want to reiterate to my colleagues on the floor of the Senate today that I am asking for your support for an amendment that will unify America, that will say that English is in fact the language of the land and that we will work to make sure English is the common language of America. I am also here to ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment of Senator Inhofe because I am concerned about the unintended consequences that will flow from the proposal which Senator Inhofe has offered.

Let me say there can be no doubt at all that English is, in fact, the unifying language of America. In my own State of Colorado, as I look at some of the statistics on the number of people who are waiting in long lines to learn English, it is an incredibly long line. In the five-county Denver-Metro area, adult ESL programs working with the Department of Education have 5,000 people enrolled in those programs. They have a waiting list that is up to 2 months, because there are so many people in the Denver metropolitan area who want to learn English.

This debate is not about the endangerment of English in America today. People in America understand that we conduct our business in English, that we are conducting our business in the Senate today in English. The people of America understand that the keystone to opportunity is learning the English language, and you need not look any further than the number of people who are enrolled in educational classes, trying to learn English to know they understand that very fact.

The concern with the amendment of Senator Inhofe is that you are going to have unintended consequences that will flow from the language of the amendment. Many of my colleagues have spoken about those unintended consequences. I want to focus on one particular aspect of that which I find to be very un-American and that is the fact that when you allow for discrimination to occur on the basis of national origin, on the basis of race, on the basis of gender, on the basis of language, that we are taking a step backward in the progress that America has made. None of us wants to revisit what has happened in the history of America as we have moved forward as a nation to become a much more inclusive nation and a nation that celebrates the diversity that makes us a strong nation. None of us wants to revisit the latter half of the last century, when segregation was sanctioned under the law until 1954, and until the Civil Rights Act. None of us want to move back into those dark days of American history.

Yet the fact remains today we still have some of that discrimination that exists in our society. We have example after example, personal examples we can cite about people who have been the victims of language discrimination. When we elevate one language, in the manner that Senator Inhofe has attempted to do in his amendment, above every other language, what will happen as an unintended consequence of his amendment is that you will usher in, in my judgment, a new era of language discrimination in America. I do not believe that ushering in a new era of language discrimination in America is something that will be helpful to us as we struggle in this 21st century to make sure that we maintain the strongest America, the strongest Nation possible in our world.

I ask people, those of you who are concerned about language discrimination in America, to vote against the amendment of Senator Inhofe on that point.

Let me conclude by saying that the amendment we have proposed today talks about the importance of English and the importance of unifying America through the English language. I believe we can work together. I believe that will require the immigrants to whom we are trying to address the immigration reform package to learn English. It is important that they learn English.

As I conclude my portion of this discussion, I think back to a mother and a father who in the 1940s were part of that greatest of generations fighting for the freedom of America--a father in World War II as a soldier, and a mother at the age of 20 speaking Spanish but coming to Washington to work in the Pentagon. They were victims of language discrimination. That generation was a victim of language discrimination. They would have had maybe the same opportunities I have had if they had been part of an America that fully understood they would be treated the same as those who speak languages other than English. But I do not want us to go back in the history of our country to a place where we are darkened again by that discrimination which existed in the 1940s or the 1950s.

My fear is that the amendment that my good friend from Oklahoma is offering today will open the door once again to that history of discrimination, which I find very pernicious.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov