Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and once again I want to take the opportunity to commend our new chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA), for his first Labor-HHS bill on the floor; the ranking member of this subcommittee and the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY); and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG), for their great leadership in crafting this legislation and bringing it to the floor.
I rise in defense of the committee position and in opposition to the Istook amendment. Mr. Chairman, this guidance which is contain in the bill does not create any new requirements or place any new mandates on recipients of Federal funds. It simply clarifies the Department's long-standing policy so that recipients have clear, concise, and constructive information about their responsibilities under title IV.
This information helps grantees be sure that they are in compliance with the law, as it has been in effect for over 30 years. This guidance is intended to be flexible and recognizes that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. The guidance on limited English proficiency also clarifies that recipients only have to undertake reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access and that recipients are not required to take steps that would incur unreasonable costs or burdens.
This amendment ignores the positive impacts of limited English proficiency workers. They ignore the Department of Justice's reasonable direction. Many limited-English proficiency persons work in some of the lowest paid jobs, are more subject to abusive employment situations, and need more help with complicated government bureaucracies.
For example, a Cambodian refugee worked as a landscaper to support his family of five children. After he was laid off, he made repeated attempts to file an unemployment claim. He could not communicate with his State agency, and often received contradictory information. For most of the winter, he was without income and unemployment insurance compensation.
The costs of providing assistance to persons who have limited English speaking abilities does not have to be expensive. In California, the limited-English speaking population is estimated to be over 3 million people. Since 1973, we have had a State law with more specific interpretation of translation requirements than title IV, which this guidance addresses; and this law has not created a burdensome financial strain on the State of California's Department of Social Services. That department spends a total of $648,312 to staff an internal team of 13 employees to translate documents into Spanish, Chinese, Cambodian, Russian and Vietnamese; and not that much more in outside contracts for vendors for translation into other languages.
This is a very small cost for an $18 billion social service budget. This guidance simply fulfills the goal that Secretary Chao expressed in her welcoming ceremony remarks, making sure that no worker gets left behind.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Istook amendment and defend the committee's position.