Burgess Owens: “a U.S. Government English-only policy would, at best, be counterproductive, isolationist, and simpleminded; at worse an…”

“a U.S. Government English-only policy would, at best, be counterproductive, isolationist, and simpleminded; at worse an English-only policy is an elitist, bigoted, and racist policy. English plus, the amendment to be offered later by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], is the way we should go. Yes, English is the official language of the country. We do not have to proclaim that. But English plus is the way we should go if we want to go into the 21st century with the advantage that we need for international trade purposes. This bill originates from the people who brought us GATT and who brought us NAFTA, who emphasized international trade. Why would these same people want to go backward and deemphasize bilingualism? Why not salute the people who speak additional languages? Why not have every American try to become bilingual? Let us go in the opposite direction for purposes of trade, for purposes of commerce, for purposes of international tourism. There are a billion Chinese in the world. We certainly should appreciate every Chinese-American; we should see them as an asset to help teach us Chinese. There are Slavic people who are now in the middle class traveling to this country as tourists. We should be learning the Slavic languages and any Slavic-speaking Americans, Russian, Yugoslavian, Hungarian; all of those people should be seen as assets in the country, assets.”