Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. If the gentleman will yield, colloquy goes two ways. Let me just respond.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, where in this bill does it say you can't put those signs up, or where does it say in this bill that my speech that I made in Spanish would not be able to be included in the Congressional Record?

Mr. INHOFE. I don't have time. We were very generous in giving you time, I would remind you.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, again, it is a beautiful statement in opposition to an amendment that doesn't exist. When the Senator from California talks about emergencies and an emergency evacuation, I previously used the example of California because I suspected she might be coming down. That is, if there is an evacuation or some emergency, it can be done in Chinese so Chinatown can all evacuate. That is not a problem. Yet when I spoke on the floor in Spanish, the only reason I had to translate it is because that is one of the rules of the Senate. It has nothing to do with this bill. That would not be affected in any way. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina 8 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator from California could hold off for a minute, I think we have heard some very eloquent statements in opposition to an amendment that doesn't exist. We could stand up and talk about the flags of the different States. This has nothing to do with that. Yes, I have made probably five speeches on the floor in Spanish. Every time we did, I had to go up and put it down in English for the Record. I don't mind that. This has nothing to do with that. As far as there being nothing in here encouraging people, if you look at section 767, this is encouraging people and helping people to learn the English language, a concept that 90 percent of Hispanics in America want. I just hope that anyone listening realizes that these are excellent arguments, but they have nothing to do with this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment on page 2, to change the word ``official'' to the word ``national.''

Mr. INHOFE. Those protections are specifically exempted on page 2.

Mr. INHOFE. You mentioned several things. I believe the last one you mentioned was covered in the Court Interpreters Act of 1978. It does allow you to have that, and it is actually written into law. I would also suggest that these are already in law. This is not something that has to be done.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The Report of the Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies.''

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. And this Senator. It is our understanding, then, after we dispose of the Kennedy amendment, then we come to my amendment; is that correct?

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I also would like to say, our family came from Germany, and that is the first thing they did, too. Amendment No. 3965, as Modified

Mr. INHOFE. There are, yes. There are some. First of all, there are some exceptions. Our language says ``except where otherwise provided in law.'' There are some exceptions. For example, before the Court Interpreters Act, passed in 1978, defendants did not have the right to an interpreter. It was up to the court's own discretion. In 1978, they said that they did. This has not changed that. This leaves that in place. We also have the bilingual ballots requirement, Voting Rights Act. That is not changed by this. Maybe it should be changed, but that should take special legislation that addresses the Voting Rights Act. The national disaster emergency evacuation provides if you had something in California, for example, where there was a tsunami, you could use the Chinese language in Chinatown, in places where it is appropriate. It leaves those common sense things in place.

Mr. INHOFE. The national language, yes.

Mr. INHOFE. We would be joining 51 other countries that have English as their language; 27 States have used this language in the State legislature to make this their language.

Mr. INHOFE. Of course.

Mr. INHOFE. I know we will have a vote at 6 o'clock, so I will paraphrase a few things so everyone will know in advance what we are doing. This is English as the national language amendment. We talked about it at length last night. It has been very popular and enjoyed the support of most of the Members in the Senate today. We heard the other night when the President made his speech, among other things: . . . an ability to speak and write the English language is very significant . . . English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery . . . from cleaning offices to running offices . . . from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. He also said: Every new citizen of the United States has an obligation to our customs and values, including liberty and civic responsibility, equality under God and tolerance for others and the English language. I recall President Clinton standing on the floor and making the statement about the responsibility of new people coming into this country. He said: . . . they have the responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life. That means learning English and learning about our democratic system of government. Many others have been quoted, going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, that we must also learn one language. That language is English. This has been aired quite a number of times. In 1997, Senator Shelby offered the amendment and never got a vote on the amendment, but he did have a number of Democrats and Republicans as cosponsors of the amendment. We currently have Senators Byrd, Bunning, Burns, Chambliss, Coburn, Enzi, and Sessions as cosponsors of this amendment, and we have not made an effort to get more cosponsors which we will do prior to bringing it up after the Kennedy amendment. The time has come to go ahead and do it and quit talking about it. This time is now. There has been a lot of polling data that shows that the vast majority of Americans, the most recent one being the Zogby poll only a couple of months ago, 84 percent of Americans want this as the language. Interestingly enough, when they segregate out the Latinos who responded to the polling, over 70 percent in many polls--which I will go over when there is more time--support this as our national language.

Mr. INHOFE. How, might I ask, did that happen?

Mr. INHOFE. The previous unanimous consent has been negated; is that my understanding?

Mr. INHOFE. No. I respectfully say to the chairman that we are ready to go with our amendment, and the unanimous consent request propounded by the minority leader has a Democratic amendment prior to mine. I don't know. Is that still in the order? I ask if it is. If it is not, I ask for regular order.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe we are ready with our amendment, and under the unanimous consent we would be next. We are making some modifications right now. We could use a little time. We are ready to go in our place in line, unless it works out by unanimous consent that Senator Ensign and I change places so that my amendment would come up after the next Democratic amendment. That is what I will be willing to do. I ask unanimous consent that we stay on the current unanimous consent request, with the exception that Senator Ensign's amendment be traded with mine, and I will take his place after the next amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that we have under unanimous consent my amendment and then a Democratic amendment and then the Ensign amendment. Is the Senator talking about changing that order?

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, the problem is, I say respectfully to our chairman, we are being left out of this queue. If we are going right now to a Democratic amendment, under the regular order I should be the next amendment. As it is now, it would be the Cornyn amendment and then the Democratic amendment.