Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/27/1996 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 512 - ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE Number 2231 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Sponsor of HB 512, pointed out the committee should have before them a committee substitute for HB 512. He presented the following sponsor statement: "English is the nation's single shared language that crosses all ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious lines, and allows diverse Americans to share their various backgrounds. The bill would simply make official what is already common practice in the state of Alaska today, which is to use English in public meetings and with public documents or records. Public documents include such things as birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates, and any other written matter the state provides. He said the intent of the bill was not to change any practices that are already occurring in the state, but simply to give official recognition to what is already being done: That is to recognize English as the common bond which basically holds everyone together. It is an empowerment tool. If an individual does not have comprehensive understanding of the English language, they will not be able to take full advantage of the social, political and cultural aspects in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that since 1812, with Louisiana being the first state to recognize English as the official language, 21 other states have adopted this measure. It is his hope that Alaska will be number 23. He noted there are a number of other states that have addressed the matter in their legislative sessions. The bill does not infringe on anyone's rights in any way, it does not affect private organizations or private conversations, it is directed only at state agencies and political subdivisions of the state. He informed the committee that he has worked extensively with various organizations to ensure a palatable product that would be acceptable to all. Representative Kott said from a financial application, at some point in the future the state will save an enormous cost by not having to duplicate records in a number of languages. TAPE 96-16, SIDE B Number 001 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would explain the changes in the committee substitute if the committee so desired. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Kott for a list of the 22 states that recognized English as the official language. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY pointed out the information was in the committee packet. Number 037 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated there is federal legislation moving through the process that will recognize English as the official language of the Nation. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said this is an issue that has been creeping up for some time, but many individuals in the state were reticent to make the Native community feel that the importance of their language is not being recognized. She asked Representative Kott to explain how that fits into this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he believed that as Alaska increases its commitment to cultural diversity, a commitment to a common bond of English becomes more essential in maintaining that clear and precise communication. He pointed out the original bill addressed the issue of English as the common language; however, he recognized there are a number of common languages in rural Alaska and did not want to infringe on that commonality within that particular area of the state, so the issue was readdressed and it is addressed in the form of an official language of the state of Alaska. Representative Kott said those common languages are still recognized and no one's toes are being stepped on in any way. CO-CHAIR BUNDE referenced the cost savings with regard to duplication of records and asked Representative Kott if that occurs now or was he projecting in the future. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded it was more of a future projection in that he didn't believe the state duplicates any great number, if any, of the documents referenced in his sponsor statement. Number 122 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Kott what he is trying to stop or fix. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the English language has not been adopted in law; common usage is generally by custom, not by law. This legislation would put into statute. He believes it is important to recognize that English is the common bond. He stated there are a number of applications of languages especially in rural Alaska, but in order to take advantage of the social, political and economic tools available to citizens of this state, we need to empower them with at least the knowledge that English will get a person from here to there. In looking at some of the job requirements in the urban centers, he doesn't believe a person will go very far without a good understanding of the English language. It's being elevated as an umbrella language that suggests if an individual wants to get from here to there, the ability to communicate in the English language is necessary. That's not to say the other languages are not as important, but English is the overall general accepted language in this state. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was trying to figure out what is being gained or lost by passing this legislation. She is under the impression that most people, no matter what language they speak, who come to Alaska will quickly figure out they need to learn the English language in order to get around. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wasn't sure that many of the individuals who come to Alaska have that recognition. Certainly American citizens by birth should have no problem, but other groups coming to the state may not have that idea embedded in their minds when they come to Alaska. Number 254 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it is no longer a requirement to speak English to become a citizen of the United States. RAYMOND TORREON, Director for Alaska, U.S. English, testified that U.S. English is a national nonprofit organization that was founded 13 years ago by Senator Sam Hayakawa, an immigrant of Japanese descent. In response to Co-Chair Bunde's question, currently, the Immigration and Naturalization System (INS) does not give citizenship tests in any other language other than English. However, based on U.S. English's perspective, the INS will start next year through the Education Testing Service in New Jersey, giving citizenship tests in as many as 56 different languages. He pointed out that in Tucson, Arizona in the late 1980s, there was a citizenship ceremony in another language, and the official who gave the citizenship ceremony thought it would mean more to the people taking the oath to become an American citizen if it was done in another language. He said it is a policy question and any person in Alaska who speaks another language can ask, request or demand government documents in that other language. Since Alaska has no official policy, a bureaucrat may or may not be so inclined to give the individual that treatment. On the issue of fairness, he commented that if one ethnic group is treated one way, they should all be treated the same; if one group is going to be treated special, then all of them should be treated special; but if you're going to be fair, treat everyone equally which he believes this legislation does. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were federal court rulings or areas of the judiciary that are forcing the implementation and adoption of state statutes in order to set out this official position in terms of language. MR. TORREON responded most of the case law dealing with the English language, whether it's official or not, has been in reaction to statutes. He could not recall one case where a judiciary, circuit court or a local state court had to rule on discrimination that was outside of a statute. In other words, he didn't know of any case that was developed independent of a statute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there weren't cases in federal courts about teaching foreign language in school as the primary language. MR. TORREON said as an example, recently in New York City a group of parents sued the state of New York because they believed their children were not given a fair chance to learn English. The children were in a language program that was a little more costly, but their children were not learning English. Consequently, the parents sued to have the right to choose whether their child should be in a certain special program or just the regular programs. The parents lost that case. He believes parents should have the right to decide whether their child should be in a special program or not. In response to Representative Rokeberg's question he said he wasn't aware of any particular case. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned Texas or the border states in particular, where schools have been required to teach the Spanish language as either a primary or fully bilingual basis. MR. TORREON said one thing to understand with regard to bilingual education when it refers to Spanish in particular or a couple of the other ethnic languages in Texas, California or Arizona, those programs are fully mandated. The grant program is mandated at the federal level. There is no question of funding, there has been no question of participation and no question of efficacy on those programs. They are occurring and it's a $12 billion program at the federal and local levels. Number 533 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Torreon to explain the U.S. English organization and asked if he represented areas other than Alaska. MR. TORREON summarized that U.S. English is a national nonprofit organization with 657,000 people. In Alaska, he represents the nearly 2,000 Alaskan residents who live in Alaska and want this legislation. His area includes basically all the states in the West, with the exception of California. U.S. English was founded by an immigrant, Senator Sam Hayakawa, and is currently chaired by an immigrant of Chilean descent who speaks five languages. Mr. Torreon observed that when Marcos was in power in the Philippines, many people asked why he was never overthrown since he had been a dictator for 20 years and was hated by everyone. He explained there are five major dialects in the Philippines, and because the people all spoke different languages, there was no unity. Only with the use of English were the dialects able to communicate, and with people power, Marcos was overthrown. He noted that unity is the key behind this issue and unity is the bill. Number 642 LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska, testified from Anchorage via teleconference. The ACLU believes that HB 512 is both unnecessary and unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. It is the belief of the ACLU that English only laws, laws that make English the official or common language and particularly this law that is restricting government's use of languages other than English in communication and delivering service to non-English speaking Americans, violates the constitution. This bill appears simple, but she warned not to let its appearance be deceiving. This bill systemically limits the access of language minorities to governmental services and is constitutionally suspect because 1) language discrimination is the functional equivalent to national origin discrimination; and 2) language minorities are a prime example of a "discreet and insular minority" under United States v. Caroline Products Company and the Supreme Court has held that they deserve heightened judicial protection under the equal protection clause. She noted that in 1991, the Supreme Court observed "It may well be for certain ethnic groups and in some communities that proficiency in a particular language, like skin color, should be treated as surrogate for race under an equal protection analysis." That case, Hernandez v. New York, is saying that national origin discrimination like race discrimination is considered inherently suspect under equal protection principals. She pointed out a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case which struck down Arizona's official English law. The Court of Appeals felt the government's use of languages other than English in communicating with limited English proficient residents increased rather than decreased efficiency and that a law broadly prohibiting the use of different languages served no significant government interests. She said that came out on October 5, 1995, and it had gone up once before and the earlier cite was 42 F3rd p 1217. She shepardized it, "Barring the government from communicating with non-English speaking citizens in their language will result in miscommunications and hinder the implementation of government policies in Alaska, such as enforcing hunting regulations, promulgating rules of the National Resources Agency." In conclusion, Ms. Stimler said the Alaska Supreme Court holding, hel that our surrealistic society is clouded in such basic values as the preservation of maximum individual choice, protection of minority sentiments and appreciation of divergent lifestyles. She said the ACLU urged the committee to look behind the simple language of this bill and consider whether the state really wants to endorse a common language and whether that will help our multi- racial, multi-cultural system. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there were 22 other states that had similar laws and asked Ms. Stimler if they had all been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court or if they were valid laws. MS. STIMLER responded she would be happy to research it and get back to the committee. She said the arguments are First Amendment rights of the non-English speaking citizens. Also, the First Amendment rights of the government officials have been analyzed and a new area that is starting to be looked at is the equal protection analysis where they hold that language is one of the ways that people's racial identities are most identified. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said it was her belief that people come to America to become Americans and to take advantage of what is being offered as Americans, part of which is to be had under the English language. She felt strongly that making English the common language is the right thing to do. Number 946 MR. TORREON said of the 22 laws that are on the books, some since 1812, none of them have been struck down and only Arizona is in litigation. He furnished the committee with some background information on where Arizona is and why it is where it is. He said Arizona started as an initiative by a group of individuals. After it was drafted and put on the ballot, U.S. English got involved and helped with some of the marketing and other various things. The initiative passed by over 50 percent by the people of Arizona, was reaffirmed by the Attorney General's Office, and was upheld after a challenge by the state Supreme Court of Arizona. Only when it was brought to a circuit court, which has one of the highest turnover rates in the Nation, was it overturned by a 2 to 1 vote. It was then by the circuit court head judge called a very unusual (indisc.) hearing, which means they wanted a review with a panel larger than the three judges. He said the people of Arizona have spoken, the Attorney General's Office has supported the people, the state Supreme Court of Arizona has supported the people, but a federal court is trying to infringe on the sovereignty of the state. Following the 2 to 1 vote, the head judge of the circuit court had another vote, which unfortunately we lost 8 to 6 and it's going to the Supreme Court. As far as being broad, the ruling from the circuit court didn't say you can't make English as the official language (indisc.); what it did say is that Arizona's language in the initiative could be tightened a little bit so it wouldn't inflict First Amendment rights. Number 1074 DOROTHY SHOCKLEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition to HB 512. Her first reaction to the legislation was anger and she finds it offensive. She believes that if a language is going to be recognized in Alaska, it should be the indigenous languages that were in the state first. She saw no need to make English the common language and to officially recognize it. With regard to the 2,000 people that support HB 512, she commented there are over 83,000 Alaska Native people in Alaska who would like to have their languages recognized, also. MALINDA CHASE testified from Fairbanks in opposition to HB 512. She pointed out she is a resident of Fairbanks but her father's family is from the village of Anvik on the Yukon River. She noted that her grandmother was raised in a mission, and to this day, Ms. Chase hears stories about her grandmother's experiences of not being able to speak her own Native language at the mission. Her grandmother still feels mixed up about languages and she represents a large number of elders in the village. What comes to mind for Ms. Chase is that the institution is trying to dictate personal self-expression, as well as group self-expression and identity. Once again, the government is telling people they don't have the power to express themselves in the way that is most comfortable, adequate or to the best of their ability. She echoed Representative Robinson's question regarding the purpose of this legislation. Number 1311 ELEANOR LAUGHLIN testified via teleconference that she is originally from the village of Nulato and strongly opposes HB 512. She said the state of Alaska has a diversity of ethnic languages as well as speakers whose first language is not English. This legislation would deny those people their right to use their Native tongue to testify at public meetings and would adversely restrict the rights of many village elders. Also, it would deny a public employee who speaks another language the right to explain to his/her constituents issues that are of concern to them. This bill is very dangerous and if passed could be open to interpretation that could eventually be harmful to all speakers of another language. Ms. Laughlin said this bill has connotations of the concept of eminent domain and she is strongly opposed to it. Number 1390 NASTASIA WAHLBERG presented a portion of her testimony in Yupik. She testified that she was expressing that she has the freedom to speak publicly in her own language. She said right now they have the freedom, but this legislation would restrict her rights. She read the following prepared statement: "This bill, however carefully worded to avoid conflicts to any existing programs, businesses, public safety or health, or for individuals providing translators, infringes on our inalienable rights of freedom of speech. "Based on the premises that we as a people of different ethnic backgrounds, deserve the right to speak in any language we want without being restricted in open public forums. We have the opportunity to use translators for that in place. "In reviewing the section of Freedom of Speech in the encyclopedia of the American Constitution, I found some areas that need to be brought before the state and this committee. Various quotes read as follows: `Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' That means that the state should not abridge the freedom of thought and communication, which are integral to our individual rights. The fundamental values are `essential to the development of the individual personality. The right to express oneself and to communicate with others is central to the realization of one's character and potentiality as a human being. Conversely, suppression of thought or opinion is an affront to a person's dignity and integrity. In this respect freedom of speech is an end in itself, not simply an instrument to attain other ends. As such it is not necessarily subordinate to other goals of the society.' My interpretation of that is that we, as individuals when speaking in our own native tongues do characterize who we are, where we come from, and how we choose to speak. However HB 512 is worded, on the overall, cannot and should not be used as an instrument to control and restrict speech because it infringes on our individual character as a people who speak other than English. "The way to do that is to be accepted and respected for speaking in our own native tongue. We must live with our diversities of language and cultures and be willing to tolerate each other. Using English only is a way to control and restrict the use of language and character." Number 1655 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said in response to the last testifier, it seems that people are not dealing with the facts, but rather emotions. He reiterated this bill does nothing that is not currently being done. Native tongues can be used, an interpreter can be used and minutes will be recorded in English, as these will be. There is nothing restricting the use of native tongues. Number 1680 REVA SHIRCEL, Director, Education Department, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), testified from Fairbanks that she is puzzled by the introduction of this bill. She questioned the intent of the legislation and what needs to be fixed. She said the Tanana Chiefs Conference is committed to the preservation and enhancement of the 11 Athabascan languages within their region and they consider the introduction of HB 512 to be premature because there has not been thorough legislative discussion on the preservation and enhancement of their indigenous languages. House Bill 512 is inconsistent with what has tried to be done through the linguistic and cultural activities. She noted that last year during the legislative session, Tanana Chiefs Conference testified on SB 32 and HB 160, companion bills introduced by Senator Lincoln and Representative Nicholia respectively, for native languages to be taught in the school. With reference to the preservation and enhancement of the Athabascan language and cultural, their direction comes from the elders who have stated consistently that respect and adherence to traditional culture and values are an important part of the equation which allows Native people within the TCC region to be able to develop and maintain their self-esteem. The Tanana Chiefs Conference also supported HB 167 which was introduced by Representative Nicholia to support the main streaming of the Alaska Native languages, culture and history into the school because there is a need for all Alaskans, regardless of who we are and where we come from, to recognize diversity, to promote and preserve cultural heritage and to ensure access to the rich legacy of our American ancestors to all students. In conclusion, Tanana Chiefs Conference is urging that HB 512 not be passed. TAPE 96-17, SIDE A Number 008 MISHAL TOOYAK GAEDE testified from Fairbanks that she is opposed to HB 512. She said this legislation requests that records accepted by a state agency for recording or filing must be in English. She noted that her mother attended BIA schools less than 40 years ago and was punished, shamed and humiliated for speaking Inupiat. She said her name is Inupiat and if this bill was adopted and enforced, she would not be able to even state her name and where she originated from. She asked how this impacts public records? Her Inupiat name cannot be translated into English because English is not common enough to include Inupiat thought, expression or description. What happens when an elder is giving testimony at a public meeting on subsistence matters? This legislation states the elders would be required to a) translate and b) transcribe their testimony into English. This is not a simple bill; it impacts blatantly and discriminately. Number 159 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA-Alaska, testified that NEA-Alaska wishes to express concern regarding HB 512. First, they questioned the need for the measure as introduced. For example, Section 2 of the bill would add a new section to Alaska statutes declaring that the official language of the state is English. He commented if that declaration reflects the way Alaskans write and talk, then there is no need for a statute, because English is already the language used by most of us. If that declaration is meant to change the way Alaskans write and talk, it is useless. Changing the language of any population is not something that can take place with a simple statutory fiat. Language emerges from the way people live in their homes, their community halls, their work places and their recreational activities. MR. MARSHALL continued that second, NEA is concerned that this bill will be perceived, however innocent the intentions of the sponsors may be, as just another stroke or gesture by the English-speaking majority against minorities whose primary languages may be other than English. This concern is heightened because of the historical context in which the bill arises, for we recall how a similar proposal in California was the cause of divisiveness and bad feelings. MR. MARSHALL said third, NEA is concerned that HB 512, as presented, could operate to repeal Alaska's bilingual education program through an oblique or "back door" approach. In looking at the bill, whether Alaska would have bilingual education should always be a policy question for us Alaskans to decide for ourselves. But under HB 512, the Congress and President of the United States might repeal authorization under federal law for bilingual education and, by doing so, terminate bilingual education or activities in Alaska as well. If there is a desire to debate bilingual education, then let us have a straightforward vehicle for that debate, not an oblique clause in a bill touted as establishing English as the common language and applying to public records and public meetings. MR. MARSHALL said NEA-Alaska is not aware of any problem in Alaska that requires enactment of HB 512. If there are public meetings in Alaska at which English speakers cannot participate because the meetings are held in other tongues, NEA does not know about them. MR. MARSHALL said fifth, HB 512 sows the seeds of confusion. For example, would it be permissible to use public funds to engage a translator at a public meeting attended by persons not fluent in English? Would a signer, made available to hearing impaired Alaskans, be considered to be an English speaker, or would the employment of the signer raise the contention that HB 512 had been violated? How do the bill's findings, particularly in items 1 and 2 connect with the balance of the bill? Would the bill prohibit a bilingual teacher in his/her role as a teacher from talking to a parent in a non-English language since the exemption applies to bilingual education activities authorized under the federal law? MR. MARSHALL stated in sum, NEA believes legislation should be passed, when needed, to solve real problems. They suspect that declarations about language from political bodies will achieve little to change language patterns in real life. At a time when so many forces want to divide us Americans and us Alaskans, a measure that could be viewed as an affront to some of our fellow citizens should not be enacted. Number 473 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she shared Mr. Marshall's concern and explained they are all reticent to step out because of that concern. She asked how this issue has been dealt with in states like Arkansas, Colorado, California, Hawaii, Tennessee, North Dakota, etc., that all have Native populations. MR. TORREON said the interesting thing about this piece of legislation is that in 1995, South Dakota, Montana and New Hampshire all passed this legislation; no constitutional challenges and no problems. He pointed out that Montana and South Dakota have Indian tribes, and New Hampshire has a large French population who speak only French. He said in each of those cases, the legislation is designed not to exclude anyone or to force anyone to do anything. For example, in New Hampshire there was a specific clause which said that international trade dealing with French- speaking Canada would be exempted. He commented that in HB 512, there are very specific and broad exemptions to deal with critical services; e.g., hospitals, police, etc., so that any critical service is not affecting the access to the person. This legislation is not trying to single anyone out, but rather to create a policy that everyone can abide by; not just the tribes, but everyone. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was aware of official Fish and Game meetings held in rural areas that were conducted in native languages and the English-speaking people certainly didn't understand. Number 725 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked where all the forms and documents in the various different languages are? He has not seen them in the schools or government agencies in his district. MR. MARSHALL said he was aware of the need for bilingual education. He referenced page 1, line 16, and said what happens if bilingual education is struck down on the federal level, is we in effect have struck down bilingual education in Alaska because it is authorized under federal law. NEA-Alaska has a problem with that; they feel there is a very real service and benefit that is provided those persons who are educated in the classrooms that need and get great benefit from bilingual education. He pointed out page 2, line 6, says that meetings of a state agency that are open to the public shall be conducted in English and asked if there are meetings conducted in a Native language, does that change this particular provision. He questioned if the exclusions were in conflict with very clear statements that are included in the body of the draft. In answer to Representative Brice's question, he said he didn't know where these forms were or how much money was being spent to develop forms in a particular language. Number 900 SAM KITO, JR., testified that one of the issues he wanted to raise before the committee is that the sponsors had initiated dialogue and communication with Native organizations in the state. He noted there are diverse cultural communities - 11 Athabascan languages, a number of Yupik dialects, a number of Inupiat dialects, Simsean, Haida, Tlingit, Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, etc., all residing in Alaska. If a meeting was to take place between an Athabascan and a Tlingit who spoke their own language, how would communicate? It wouldn't be in Athabascan or Tlingit, but they would find a common language to communicate with each other. He believes there is a common language in the state of Alaska used to communicate - that common language is English. He noted that first and foremost, people should be able to communicate in a language of the community where they are going to get their education. MR. KITO said secondly, there has been dialogue with organizations regarding the Findings Section and the ability for communities of interest to speak their own language. If there's a concern with language "being authorized by federal", it can be amended to say state. There is no interference in the ability for communities to have bilingual education. They can tax themselves in order to provide the funds for bilingual education in their communities, and there isn't anything that says the state cannot provide funds to teach bilingual education. There is nothing that stops individuals in those communities of interest from learning how to speak the tongue they were raised in. He stated that when it's taken to the next step, no matter how proficient you become, when you talk to someone else who speaks another language and you don't speak that language, you look for something common. In the Philippines for example, there is a common language among all the dialects and that common language is English. He indicated that if people are going to communicate better, then we in the educational system should find a commonality for those people to communicate with each other. He questioned whether we are going to diversify ourselves so much that when we get into a room, nobody communicates with anybody. Right now everybody is communicating in the English language and when you can't communicate in the English language, there is authorization to use translators, which is being done now. He remarked that he was the Executive Vice President of the Tanana Chiefs Conference and said when 11 different cultures or dialects were in a room they did not hire 11 different translators. They communicated in the English language and those individuals who wanted to use their own tongue had a translator and the translation was put into the record in the English language. MR. KITO noted the accomplishments in the Findings Section and suggested communities of interest in the Native community read them one by one. He pointed out that Article 5 states "The official language of the state is English. Meetings of a state agency that are open to the public shall be conducted in English. Except during a public meeting, this section does not prohibit an officer or an employee of a state agency from orally using a language other than English in the scope of employment." MR. KITO said bilingual education is not going to go away. Local communities of interest will still have the opportunity to do it. He noted that the Jewish community, which is a small minority group in the United States, kept their language because their students went to school on Saturdays. That's how they taught themselves to communicate in Yiddish. Mr. Kito concluded that in his opinion no one is being discriminated against. Communities of interest were given an input into the Findings Section and had the opportunity to look at the Exemptions. He admitted there is some additional work that needs to be done, but people are being brought to the table to reach a solution. Number 1370 CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 512 would be held for an additional hearing. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopted CSHB 512, Work Draft 9- LS1700\F, 2/27/96. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was curious about the number of states that ended up appealing the law and what the cost was to the state. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he understood the concern about the cultural issues and the domination by major English. He mentioned the need for the International Air Traffic Control System to have a common language, and that language happens to be English. Co-Chair Bunde said he would make every attempt to invite all interested parties to participate in the hearings on HB 512.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|