José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the eighth Bronx Puerto Rican Day Parade, which will be held this Sunday in my South Bronx congressional district. Mr. Speaker, this year, like each of the past 7, Puerto Ricans from all five boroughs of New York City, and from Puerto Rico have come together to march along the Grand Concourse, the South Bronx, in celebration of Puerto Rican traditions, music, and history. Under the leadership of its President, Adolfo Carrion, Jr., the parade has continued to grow attracting thousands of visitors from New York State and other areas of the United States. This year more than 400,000 participants are expected. The 1996 Bronx Puerto Rican Day Parade will commemorate the centenary of the flag of Puerto Rico. In its honor, participants will march carrying the Puerto Rican flag with pride. Mr. Speaker, the idea and design of the Puerto Rican flag were conceived in New York City. On December 22, 1895, a group of Puerto Ricans patriots met at Chimney Hall, between 25th Street and 6th Avenue, in Manhattan, to approve a resolution for the adoption of the Puerto Rican flag. The flag which was presented that day was sewn by Ms. Mima Barbosa. The parade will also honor and recognize the Puerto Rican community for transforming New York City into a bilingual city. It is in their honor that we celebrate Puerto Rican culture and the Spanish language. The parade will feature the music of ``La India,'' Pete ``Conde'' Rodriguez, and Ray Sepulveda, among other performers. It will be a day of joyful celebration of Puerto Rican heritage. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the individuals and participants who have made possible the celebration of the Bronx Puerto Rican Day Parade--8 years of bringing joy to the community.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], a great Hispanic American from New Mexico, with an interesting name. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the discussion we are having today is a classic example of how a nonissue becomes somewhat of an issue in this House. It seems that everyone is saying, on that side of the aisle, that there is a major problem with the English language in this country; that somehow people do not want to learn to speak English; that children are running around this Nation speaking only other languages and not English, and that somehow, unless we here today and later on in the other House protect the English language, the language and the Nation will somehow cease from being the great language and the great Nation that they are today and become something that we will not recognize. What is interesting about this nonissue being made into somewhat of an issue is that it is totally false. The fact of life is, as has been said on this floor, that 97 percent of Americans, according to the Census Bureau, speak English; that people who come to this country, incidentally, whether with documents or without documents, are coming here for one specific reason. They want to make a new life for themselves and for their children. They leave behind their country, in many cases they leave behind members of their family. Now, does it make any sense that the first statement they hear upon arriving in our country is that they do not want to speak English? I can tell my colleagues through a personal example that in the Hispanic and the Puerto Rican community when people sit around a dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is never a plot against the English language, it is a lament about the fact that the children and the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. Whether it be rap music or rock or soul or the latest dance craze, television, ``Nick'' during the day or ``Nick at Night,'' whether it is school or the street, English empowers and takes over everyone's life so that English becomes, in fact, the common language. What we are saying here today is that we want to make it the official language so that I cannot communicate with the foreign minister from Mexico in Spanish or the new president from the Dominican Republic who will be writing to me, as I know he will, in Spanish. I will have to write to him back in English, unless I break rules of this House. We are sending a message to the world that if they want to speak to us or write to us, they must do it in our language because we are too arrogant to deal with them. This is a misguided concept and one that is not necessary. My amendment in the nature of a substitute, English Plus, says that English only is unnecessary. It recognizes that English is the language of this land. It encourages all residents and citizens to speak English. It asks Government to help each one of us to learn to speak English, but it also says, my amendment, that we recognize that there are other languages in this country, and that rather than running away from them and being nervous about them, we should recognize them as a resource for our country. The message should be, sure, there are some of us who speak Spanish and Japanese and French and German, other languages. We will learn to speak English, we will function in English, but if we maintain that second language, we use it as a symbol to the world that we are ready to deal with them; that we are not in a phobia about languages. What my amendment simply says is that we recognize who we are as a people, but we recognize the diversity in our country and we strengthen that diversity by supporting English as our common and main language, as the language of this country, but also not suggesting that to speak another language, to read another language is a problem. Now, I could have delivered for Members this speech, whether they think it is good or bad, in Spanish totally, and I could write it in Spanish and I could read it back in Spanish. I do not think the fact that I am bilingual, that I listen to music and lyrics in two languages, that I read literature in two languages has in any way hurt me at all. On the contrary, I think, at times, I may be an asset to this House because I know what people are saying in Latin America. I do not know the translation, I know exactly what they are saying in Latin America and how they are saying it. Let us not run away from the strength of this country. Let us support this amendment and make English Plus the way of the land.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. My impression was that Members had risen to deal with the issue of the gentleman's comments, and I want to know if those Members have been entertained at all, or if the gentleman from Rhode Island had any opportunity to speak about a very personal statement that was made upon his life and his commitment to this country.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, if one wants to know how much people want to learn to speak English, they should come to my district in the Bronx, or anywhere else throughout the Nation, and find out what happens when an English-as-a-second-language class is offered. The line of immigrants and of recent arrivals and people who have been here for a while in front of those schools, trying to get into those programs, is something that would be hard to be believed. The biggest problem in that area is that we do not have enough slots to fit all the people who want to learn to speak English. This is a nonissue. This should not be on the floor. But since it is, we should approve my amendment and speak about the future, not some problems we have had in the past. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. SERRANO. No, we could not.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce]. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a gentleman who is a living example of why this bill is not necessary; a gentleman who came from Cuba, learned to speak English, while maintaining his native tongue, and is an asset to this country.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been at times painful for some of us because, as was stated on the floor on many occasions, this debate takes what is really a nonissue, this fear that somehow the English language is going to be lost to all of us as our common bond, and puts it on the floor of this House as one of those issues that questions people's patriotism. So, of course, if we go throughout this country and tell people that somehow the American flag is in danger of being burned, people react in a certain way to that against burning of flags. If we tell them that the only way we are going to save our schools is by praying in school, people will react to that in a positive way. If we tell them that because other languages are spoken in this country at any given time, and recent times, that the English language is in danger of disappearing, therefore, the country is in danger of disappearing as the country that we know. But the fact of life is that some people much brighter than I, than many of us, somewhere interestingly enough in my city on Madison Avenue in an advertising agency decided that this is one of those hot button issues that touches people, confuses them, and gives them what they think is a solution to their problems. That does not talk about poverty in America. It does not talk about the working middle-class struggling to pay a mortgage and send their children to school. It does not talk about taxes. It does not talk about the environment. It does not speak to any of the real issues in this country. It says that because I and other people speak another language and relate to constituents in a language other than English, that somehow we are in danger. That is a misguided, foolishly patriotic approach to a nonissue, but it has worked. Up to now it has worked. People have reacted to it. People who have been members of the Armed Forces, who are in late years, honestly and emotionally believe that if we allow other languages to live side by side with the English language, or in a second category to English, that somehow we are going to lose our country. On many of these issues, my brothers and sisters, I place myself as an example. I think in two languages. I write and read Spanish and English. I can deliver this presentation in Spanish as well as in English. I do not think that any of what I do in two languages has ever been a problem for me or a problem for this country. When I served in the Armed Forces of this country during the Vietnam war, I served with young men who could not speak a word of English who had just arrived here and were drafted or who came from Puerto Rico to serve. Many were volunteers. Many of those young men never came back. They were lost in the battlefields of Vietnam, as they were in Korea and the Second World War and the First World War, and their last words were in Spanish to their God, to their parents. They never spoke English. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this bill says that if the Veterans Administration wants to service them, it cannot service them in a language other than English. It says that I cannot communicate with them in a language other than English. It says that if the Ambassador of Mexico or the new President of the Dominican Republic writes to me in Spanish, I can only answer on the public payroll in English. This is the way to promote ourselves throughout the world? My recommittal amendment, proposal says two things: That we recognize that English is the language of this country, and that we ask government and its citizens to involve themselves in learning to speak it better every day. Then it says something else which I think is important. It says that if someone is a candidate for President and receives Federal matching funds, especially if they are going out there and saying that English should be the official language, that they should not use any public funds to advertise in a language other than English. I have written to one of the Presidential candidates who has seven Spanish commercials in the can to go in Texas and in California and New York pretty soon. As the insurgent, I have written to him twice and asked him to respond and he has not responded. But in fact, in fact, all Presidential candidates have done that. I think that we would be taking a proper stand if we say, since election campaigning with Federal dollars is an act of government, and since English will be the official language of government, then do not go around saying, ``Vote para mi in estos elecciones.'' Say it in English and run the risk of losing New York, Florida, California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying when Hispanics sit around the dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is never an assault on the English language. It is a lament on the fact that the children and the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. This is a nonissue.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard]. (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood]. (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Carlos Romero-Barcelo, former Governor. (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by the comments by my friend from California, Mr. Cunningham, about the integrity and commitment of the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy. I do not think anyone could question the commitment either of the gentleman or his family to this country. I would simply say that I think we have to watch our words. I served, and I served with many Hispanics who did not speak English. Some of them never came back from the Vietnam war and died while speaking only Spanish. I think that the gentleman does a disservice when he questions Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor].

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.