[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10386-H10398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         READING EXCELLENCE ACT

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2614) to improve the reading and literacy skills of children 
and families by improving in-service instructional practices for 
teachers who teach reading, to stimulate the development of more high-
quality family literacy programs, to support extended learning-time 
opportunities for children, to ensure that children can read well and 
independently not later than third grade, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2614

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reading Excellence Act''.
                        TITLE I--READING GRANTS

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO ESEA FOR READING GRANTS.

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
                       ``TITLE XV--READING GRANTS

     ``SEC. 15101. PURPOSE.

       ``The purposes of this title are as follows:
       ``(1) To teach every child to read in their early childhood 
     years--
       ``(A) as soon as they are ready to read; or
       ``(B) as soon as possible once they enter school, but not 
     later than 3d grade.
       ``(2) To improve the reading skills of students, and the 
     in-service instructional practices for teachers who teach 
     reading, through the use of findings from reliable, 
     replicable research on reading, including phonics.
       ``(3) To expand the number of high-quality family literacy 
     programs.
       ``(4) To reduce the number of children who are 
     inappropriately referred to special education due to reading 
     difficulties.

     ``SEC. 15102. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) Eligible professional development provider.--The term 
     `eligible professional development provider' means a provider 
     of professional development in reading instruction to 
     teachers that is based on reliable, replicable research on 
     reading.
       ``(2) Eligible research institution.--The term `eligible 
     research institution' means an institution of higher 
     education at which reliable, replicable research on reading 
     has been conducted.
       ``(3) Family literacy services.--The term `family literacy 
     services' means services provided to participants on a 
     voluntary basis that are of sufficient intensity in terms of 
     hours, and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable 
     changes in a family (such as eliminating or reducing welfare 
     dependency) and that integrate all of the following 
     activities:
       ``(A) Interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their children.
       ``(B) Equipping parents to partner with their children in 
     learning.
       ``(C) Parent literacy training, including training that 
     contributes to economic self-sufficiency.
       ``(D) Appropriate instruction for children of parents 
     receiving parent literacy services.
       ``(4) Reading.--The term `reading' means the process of 
     comprehending the meaning of written text by depending on--
       ``(A) the ability to use phonics skills, that is, knowledge 
     of letters and sounds, to decode printed words quickly and 
     effortlessly, both silently and aloud;
       ``(B) the ability to use previously learned strategies for 
     reading comprehension; and
       ``(C) the ability to think critically about the meaning, 
     message, and aesthetic value of the text.
       ``(5) Reading readiness.--The term `reading readiness' 
     means activities that--
       ``(A) provide experience and opportunity for language 
     development;
       ``(B) create appreciation of the written word;
       ``(C) develop an awareness of printed language, the 
     alphabet, and phonemic awareness; and
       ``(D) develop an understanding that spoken and written 
     language is made up of phonemes, syllables, and words.
       ``(6) Reliable, replicable research.--The term `reliable, 
     replicable research' means objective, valid, scientific 
     studies that--
       ``(A) include rigorously defined samples of subjects that 
     are sufficiently large and representative to support the 
     general conclusions drawn;
       ``(B) rely on measurements that meet established standards 
     of reliability and validity;
       ``(C) test competing theories, where multiple theories 
     exist;
       ``(D) are subjected to peer review before their results are 
     published; and
       ``(E) discover effective strategies for improving reading 
     skills.

     ``SEC. 15103. GRANTS TO READING AND LITERACY PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary may make grants on 
     a competitive basis to reading and literacy partnerships for 
     the purpose of permitting such partnerships to make subgrants 
     under sections 15104 and 15105.
       ``(b) Reading and Literacy Partnerships.--
       ``(1) Composition.--
       ``(A) Required participants.--In order to receive a grant 
     under this section, a State shall establish a reading and 
     literacy partnership consisting of at least the following 
     participants:
       ``(i) The Governor of the State.
       ``(ii) The chief State school officer.
       ``(iii) The chairman and the ranking member of each 
     committee of the State legislature that is responsible for 
     education policy.
       ``(iv) A representative, selected jointly by the Governor 
     and the chief State school officer, of at least 1 local 
     educational agency that has at least 1 school that is 
     identified for school improvement under section 1116(c) in 
     the geographic area served by the agency.
       ``(v) A representative, selected jointly by the Governor 
     and the chief State school officer, of a community-based 
     organization working with children to improve their reading 
     skills, particularly a community-based organization using 
     volunteers.
       ``(B) Optional participants.--A reading and literacy 
     partnership may include additional participants, who shall be 
     selected jointly by the Governor and the chief State school 
     officer, which may include--

[[Page H10387]]

       ``(i) State directors of appropriate Federal or State 
     programs with a strong reading component;
       ``(ii) a parent of a public or private school student or a 
     parent who educates their child or children in their home;
       ``(iii) a teacher who teaches reading; or
       ``(iv) a representative of (I) an institution of higher 
     education operating a program of teacher preparation in the 
     State; (II) a local educational agency; (III) an eligible 
     research institution; (IV) a private nonprofit or for-profit 
     eligible professional development provider providing 
     instruction based on reliable, replicable research on 
     reading; (V) a family literacy service provider; (VI) an 
     adult education provider; (VII) a volunteer organization that 
     is involved in reading programs; or (VIII) a school or a 
     public library that offers reading or literacy programs for 
     children or families.
       ``(2) Agreement.--The contractual agreement that 
     establishes a reading and literacy partnership--
       ``(A) shall specify--
       ``(i) the nature and extent of the association among the 
     participants referred to in paragraph (1); and
       ``(ii) the roles and duties of each such participant; and
       ``(B) shall remain in effect during the entire grant period 
     proposed in the partnership's grant application under 
     subsection (e).
       ``(3) Functions.--Each reading and literacy partnership for 
     a State shall prepare and submit an application under 
     subsection (e) and, if the partnership receives a grant under 
     this section--
       ``(A) shall solicit applications for, and award, subgrants 
     under sections 15104 and 15105;
       ``(B) shall oversee the performance of the subgrants and 
     submit performance reports in accordance with subsection (h);
       ``(C) if sufficient grant funds are available under this 
     title--
       ``(i) work to enhance the capacity of agencies in the State 
     to disseminate reliable, replicable research on reading to 
     schools, classrooms, and providers of early education and 
     child care;
       ``(ii) facilitate the provision of technical assistance to 
     subgrantees under sections 15104 and 15105 by providing them 
     information about technical assistance providers; and
       ``(iii) build on, and promote coordination among, literacy 
     programs in the State, in order to increase their 
     effectiveness and to avoid duplication of their efforts; and
       ``(D) shall ensure that each local educational agency to 
     which the partnership makes a subgrant under section 15104 
     makes available, upon request and in an understandable and 
     uniform format, to any parent of a student attending any 
     school selected under section 15104(a)(2) in the geographic 
     area served by the agency, information regarding the 
     qualifications of the student's classroom teacher to provide 
     instruction in reading.
       ``(4) Fiscal agent.--The State educational agency shall act 
     as the fiscal agent for the reading and literacy partnership 
     for the purposes of receipt of funds from the Secretary, 
     disbursement of funds to subgrantees under sections 15104 and 
     15105, and accounting for such funds.
       ``(c) Pre-Existing Partnership.--If, before the date of the 
     enactment of the Reading Excellence Act, a State established 
     a consortium, partnership, or any other similar body, that 
     includes the Governor and the chief State school officer and 
     has, as a central part of its mission, the promotion of 
     literacy for children in their early childhood years through 
     the 3d grade, but that does not satisfy the requirements of 
     subsection (b)(1), the State may elect to treat that 
     consortium, partnership, or body as the reading and literacy 
     partnership for the State notwithstanding such subsection, 
     and it shall be considered a reading and literacy partnership 
     for purposes of the other provisions of this title.
       ``(d) Multi-State Partnership Arrangements.--A reading and 
     literacy partnership that satisfies the requirements of 
     subsection (b) may join with other such partnerships in other 
     States to develop a single application that satisfies the 
     requirements of subsection (e) and identifies which State 
     educational agency, from among the States joining, shall act 
     as the fiscal agent for the multi-State arrangement. For 
     purposes of the other provisions of this title, any such 
     multi-State arrangement shall be considered to be a reading 
     and literacy partnership.
       ``(e) Applications.--A reading and literacy partnership 
     that desires to receive a grant under this section shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and including such information as the Secretary may 
     require. The application--
       ``(1) shall describe how the partnership will ensure that 
     95 percent of the grant funds are used to make subgrants 
     under sections 15104 and 15105;
       ``(2) shall be integrated, to the maximum extent possible, 
     with State plans and programs under this Act, the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act, and, to the extent 
     appropriate, the Adult Education Act;
       ``(3) shall describe how the partnership will ensure that 
     professional development funds available at the State and 
     local levels are used effectively to improve instructional 
     practices for reading and are based on reliable, replicable 
     research on reading;
       ``(4) shall describe--
       ``(A) the contractual agreement that establishes the 
     partnership, including at least the elements of the agreement 
     referred to in subsection (b)(2);
       ``(B) how the partnership will assess, on a regular basis, 
     the extent to which the activities undertaken by the 
     partnership and the partnership's subgrantees under this 
     title have been effective in achieving the purposes of this 
     title;
       ``(C) what evaluation instruments the partnership will use 
     to determine the success of local educational agencies to 
     whom subgrants under sections 15104 and 15105 are made in 
     achieving the purposes of this title;
       ``(D) how subgrants made by the partnership under such 
     sections will meet the requirements of this title, including 
     how the partnership will ensure that subgrantees will use 
     practices based on reliable, replicable research on reading; 
     and
       ``(E) how the partnership will, to the extent practicable, 
     make grants to subgrantees in both rural and urban areas;
       ``(5) shall include an assurance that each local 
     educational agency to whom the partnership makes a subgrant 
     under section 15104--
       ``(A) will carry out family literacy programs based on the 
     Even Start family literacy model authorized under part B of 
     title I to enable parents to be their child's first and most 
     important teacher, and will make payments for the receipt of 
     technical assistance for the development of such programs;
       ``(B) will carry out programs to assist those kindergarten 
     students who are not ready for the transition to 1st grade, 
     particularly students experiencing difficulty with reading 
     skills;
       ``(C) will use supervised individuals (including tutors), 
     who have been appropriately trained using reliable, 
     replicable research on reading, to provide additional 
     support, before school, after school, on weekends, during 
     non-instructional periods of the school day, or during the 
     summer, for students in grades 1 through 3 who are 
     experiencing difficulty reading; and
       ``(D) will carry out professional development for the 
     classroom teacher and other appropriate teaching staff on the 
     teaching of reading based on reliable, replicable research on 
     reading; and
       ``(6) shall describe how the partnership--
       ``(A) will ensure that a portion of the grant funds that 
     the partnership receives in each fiscal year will be used to 
     make subgrants under section 15105; and
       ``(B) will make local educational agencies described in 
     section 15105(a)(1) aware of the availability of such 
     subgrants.
       ``(f) Peer Review Panel.--
       ``(1) Composition of peer review panel.--
       ``(A) In general.--The National Institute for Literacy, in 
     consultation with the National Research Council of the 
     National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Child 
     Health and Human Development, and the Secretary, shall 
     convene a panel to evaluate applications under this section. 
     At a minimum the panel shall include representatives of the 
     National Institute for Literacy, the National Research 
     Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the National 
     Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Experts.--The panel shall include experts who are 
     competent, by virtue of their training, expertise, or 
     experience, to evaluate applications under this section, and 
     experts who provide professional development to teachers of 
     reading to children and adults, based on reliable, replicable 
     research on reading.
       ``(C) Limitation.--Not more than \1/3\ of the panel may be 
     composed of individuals who are employees of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(2) Payment of fees and expenses of certain members.--The 
     Secretary shall use funds reserved under section 15109(b)(2) 
     to pay the expenses and fees of panel members who are not 
     employees of the Federal Government.
       ``(3) Duties of panel.--
       ``(A) Model application forms.--The peer review panel shall 
     develop a model application form for reading and literacy 
     partnerships desiring to apply for a grant under this 
     section. The peer review panel shall submit the model 
     application form to the Secretary for final approval.
       ``(B) Selection of applications.--
       ``(i) Recommendations of panel.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall receive grant 
     applications from reading and literacy partnerships under 
     this section and shall provide the applications to the peer 
     review panel for evaluation. With respect to each 
     application, the peer review panel shall initially recommend 
     the application for funding or for disapproval.
       ``(II) Priority.--In recommending applications to the 
     Secretary, the panel shall give priority to applications from 
     States that have modified, are modifying, or provide an 
     assurance that not later than 1 year after receiving a grant 
     under this section the State will modify, State teacher 
     certification in the area of reading to reflect reliable, 
     replicable research, except that nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to establish a national system of teacher 
     certification.
       ``(III) Ranking of applications.--With respect to each 
     application recommended for funding, the panel shall assign 
     the application a rank, relative to other recommended 
     applications, based on the priority described in subclause 
     (II), the extent to which the application furthers the 
     purposes of this part, and the overall quality of the 
     application.
       ``(IV) Recommendation of amount.--With respect to each 
     application recommended for

[[Page H10388]]

     funding, the panel shall make a recommendation to the 
     Secretary with respect to the amount of the grant that should 
     be made.

       ``(ii) Secretarial selection.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the Secretary 
     shall determine, based on the peer review panel's 
     recommendations, which applications from reading and literacy 
     partnerships shall receive funding and the amounts of such 
     grants. In determining grant amounts, the Secretary shall 
     take into account the total amount of funds available for all 
     grants under this section and the types of activities 
     proposed to be carried out by the partnership.
       ``(II) Effect of ranking by panel.--In making grants under 
     this section, the Secretary shall select applications 
     according to the ranking of the applications by the peer 
     review panel, except in cases where the Secretary determines, 
     for good cause, that a variation from that order is 
     appropriate.

       ``(iii) Minimum grant amounts.--Each reading and literacy 
     partnership selected to receive a grant under this section 
     shall receive an amount for each fiscal year that is not less 
     than $100,000.
       ``(g) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--A reading and 
     literacy partnership that receives a grant under this section 
     may use not more than 3 percent of the grant funds for 
     administrative costs.
       ``(h) Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--A reading and literacy partnership that 
     receives a grant under this section shall submit performance 
     reports to the Secretary pursuant to a schedule to be 
     determined by the Secretary, but not more frequently than 
     annually. Such reports shall include--
       ``(A) the results of use of the evaluation instruments 
     referred to in subsection (e)(4)(C);
       ``(B) the process used to select subgrantees;
       ``(C) a description of the subgrantees receiving funds 
     under this title; and
       ``(D) with respect to subgrants under section 15104, the 
     model or models of reading instruction, based on reliable, 
     replicable research on reading, selected by subgrantees.
       ``(2) Provision to peer review panel.--The Secretary shall 
     provide the reports submitted under paragraph (1) to the peer 
     review panel convened under subsection (f). The panel shall 
     use such reports in recommending applications for funding 
     under this section.

     ``SEC. 15104. LOCAL READING IMPROVEMENT SUBGRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Subgrants.--A reading and literacy partnership that 
     receives a grant under section 15103 shall make subgrants, on 
     a competitive basis, to local educational agencies that have 
     at least 1 school that is identified for school improvement 
     under section 1116(c) in the geographic area served by the 
     agency.
       ``(2) Role of local educational agencies.--A local 
     educational agency that receives a subgrant under this 
     section shall use the subgrant in a manner consistent with 
     this section to advance reform of reading instruction in any 
     school selected by the agency that--
       ``(A) is identified for school improvement under section 
     1116(c) at the time the agency receives the subgrant; and
       ``(B) has a contractual association with 1 or more 
     community-based organizations that have established a record 
     of effectiveness with respect to reading readiness, reading 
     instruction for children in kindergarten through 3d grade, 
     and early childhood literacy.
       ``(b) Grant Period.--A subgrant under this section shall be 
     for a period of 3 years and may not be revoked or terminated 
     on the ground that a school ceases, during the grant period, 
     to be identified for school improvement under section 
     1116(c).
       ``(c) Applications.--A local educational agency that 
     desires to receive a subgrant under this section shall submit 
     an application to the reading and literacy partnership at 
     such time, in such manner, and including such information as 
     the partnership may require. The application--
       ``(1) shall describe how the local educational agency will 
     work with schools selected by the agency under subsection 
     (a)(2) to select 1 or more models of reading instruction, 
     developed using reliable, replicable research on reading, as 
     a model for implementing and improving reading instruction by 
     all teachers and for all children in each of the schools 
     selected by the agency under such subsection and, where 
     appropriate, their parents;
       ``(2) shall select 1 or more models described in paragraph 
     (1), for the purpose described in such paragraph, and shall 
     describe each such selected model;
       ``(3) shall demonstrate that a person responsible for the 
     development of each such model, or a person with experience 
     or expertise about such model and its implementation, has 
     agreed to work with the applicant in connection with such 
     implementation and improvement efforts;
       ``(4) shall describe--
       ``(A) how the applicant will ensure that funds available 
     under this title, and funds available for reading for grades 
     kindergarten through grade 6 from other appropriate sources, 
     are effectively coordinated and, where appropriate, 
     integrated, with funds under this Act in order to improve 
     existing activities in the areas of reading instruction, 
     professional development, program improvement, parental 
     involvement, technical assistance, and other activities that 
     can help meet the purposes of this title; and
       ``(B) the amount of funds available for reading for grades 
     kindergarten through grade 6 from appropriate sources other 
     than this title, including title I of this Act (except that 
     such description shall not be required to include funds made 
     available under part B of title I of this Act unless the 
     applicant has established a contractual association in 
     accordance with subsection (d)(2) with an eligible entity 
     under such part B), the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, and any other law providing Federal financial 
     assistance for professional development for teachers of such 
     grades who teach reading, which will be used to help achieve 
     the purposes of this title;
       ``(5) shall describe the amount and nature of funds from 
     any other public or private sources, including funds received 
     under this Act and the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, that will be combined with funds received 
     under the subgrant;
       ``(6) shall include an assurance that the applicant--
       ``(A) will carry out family literacy programs based on the 
     Even Start family literacy model authorized under part B of 
     title I to enable parents to be their child's first and most 
     important teacher, will make payments for the receipt of 
     technical assistance for the development of such programs;
       ``(B) will carry out programs to assist those kindergarten 
     students who are not ready for the transition to 1st grade, 
     particularly students experiencing difficulty with reading 
     skills;
       ``(C) will use supervised individuals (including tutors), 
     who have been appropriately trained using reliable, 
     replicable research on reading, to provide additional 
     support, before school, after school, on weekends, during 
     non-instructional periods of the school day, or during the 
     summer, for students in grades 1 through 3 who are 
     experiencing difficulty reading; and
       ``(D) will carry out professional development for the 
     classroom teacher and other teaching staff on the teaching of 
     reading based on reliable, replicable research on reading;
       ``(7) shall describe how the local educational agency 
     provides instruction in reading to children who have not been 
     determined to be a child with a disability (as defined in 
     section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act), pursuant to section 614(b)(5) of such Act, because of a 
     lack of instruction in reading; and
       ``(8) shall indicate the amount of the subgrant funds (if 
     any) that the applicant will use to carry out the duties 
     described in section 15105(b)(2).
       ``(d) Priority.--In approving applications under this 
     section, a reading and literacy partnership shall give 
     priority to applications submitted by applicants who 
     demonstrate that they have established--
       ``(1) a contractual association with 1 or more Head Start 
     programs under the Head Start Act under which--
       ``(A) the Head Start programs agree to select the same 
     model or models of reading instruction, as a model for 
     implementing and improving the reading readiness of children 
     participating in the program, as was selected by the 
     applicant; and
       ``(B) the applicant agrees--
       ``(i) to share with the Head Start programs an appropriate 
     amount of their information resources with respect to the 
     model, such as curricula materials; and
       ``(ii) to train personnel from the Head Start programs;
       ``(2) a contractual association with 1 or more State- or 
     federally-funded preschool programs, or family literacy 
     programs, under which--
       ``(A) the programs agree to select the same model or models 
     of reading instruction, as a model for implementing and 
     improving reading instruction in the program's programs, as 
     was selected by the applicant; and
       ``(B) the applicant agrees to train personnel from the 
     programs who work with children and parents in schools 
     selected under subsection (a)(2); or
       ``(3) a contractual association with 1 or more public 
     libraries providing reading or literacy services to preschool 
     children, or preschool children and their families, under 
     which--
       ``(A) the libraries agree to select the same model or 
     models of reading instruction, as a model for implementing 
     and improving reading instruction in the library's reading or 
     literacy programs, as was selected by the applicant; and
       ``(B) the applicant agrees to train personnel, including 
     volunteers, from such programs who work with preschool 
     children, or preschool children and their families, in 
     schools selected under subsection (a)(2).
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an applicant 
     who receives a subgrant under this section may use the 
     subgrant funds to carry out activities that are authorized by 
     this title and described in the subgrant application, 
     including the following:
       ``(A) Making reasonable payments for technical and other 
     assistance to a person responsible for the development of a 
     model of reading instruction, or a person with experience or 
     expertise about such model and its implementation, who has 
     agreed to work with the recipient in connection with the 
     implementation of the model.
       ``(B) Carrying out a contractual agreement described in 
     subsection (d).

[[Page H10389]]

       ``(C) Professional development (including training of 
     volunteers), purchase of curricular and other supporting 
     materials, and technical assistance.
       ``(D) Providing, on a voluntary basis, training to parents 
     of children enrolled in a school selected under subsection 
     (a)(2) on how to help their children with school work, 
     particularly in the development of reading skills. Such 
     training may be provided directly by the subgrant recipient, 
     or through a grant or contract with another person. Such 
     training shall be consistent with reading reforms taking 
     place in the school setting.
       ``(E) Carrying out family literacy programs based on the 
     Even Start family literacy model authorized under part B of 
     title I to enable parents to be their child's first and most 
     important teacher, and making payments for the receipt of 
     technical assistance for the development of such programs.
       ``(F) Providing instruction for parents of children 
     enrolled in a school selected under subsection (a)(2), and 
     others who volunteer to be reading tutors for such children, 
     in the instructional practices based on reliable, replicable 
     research on reading used by the applicant.
       ``(G) Programs to assist those kindergarten students 
     enrolled in a school selected under subsection (a)(2) who are 
     not ready for the transition to 1st grade, particularly 
     students experiencing difficulty with reading skills.
       ``(H) Providing additional support for students, enrolled 
     in a school selected under subsection (a)(2), in grades 1 
     through 3, who are experiencing difficulty reading, before 
     school, after school, on weekends, during non-instructional 
     periods of the school day, or during the summer using 
     supervised individuals (including tutors), who have been 
     appropriately trained using reliable, replicable research on 
     reading.
       ``(I) Carrying out the duties described in section 
     15105(b)(2) for children enrolled in a school selected under 
     subsection (a)(2).
       ``(J) Providing reading assistance to children who have not 
     been determined to be a child with a disability (as defined 
     in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act), pursuant to section 614(b)(5) of such Act, because of a 
     lack of instruction in reading.
       ``(2) Limitation on administrative expenses.--A recipient 
     of a subgrant under this section may use not more than 3 
     percent of the subgrant funds for administrative costs.
       ``(f) Training Non-Recipients.--A recipient of a subgrant 
     under this section may train, on a fee-for-service basis, 
     personnel are from schools, or local educational agencies, 
     that are not receiving such a subgrant in the instructional 
     practices based on reliable, replicable research on reading 
     used by the recipient. Such a non-recipient school may use 
     funds received under title I of this Act, and other 
     appropriate Federal funds used for reading instruction, to 
     pay for such training, to the extent consistent with the law 
     under which such funds were received.

     ``SEC. 15105. TUTORIAL ASSISTANCE SUBGRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Subgrants.--A reading and literacy partnership that 
     receives a grant under section 15103 shall make subgrants on 
     a competitive basis to--
       ``(A) local educational agencies that have at least 1 
     school in the geographic area served by the agency that--
       ``(i) is located in an area designated as an empowerment 
     zone under part I of subchapter U of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(ii) is located in an area designated as an enterprise 
     community under part I of subchapter U of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(B) in the case of local educational agencies that do not 
     have any such empowerment zone or enterprise community in the 
     State in which the agency is located, local educational 
     agencies that have at least 1 school that is identified for 
     school improvement under section 1116(c) in the geographic 
     area served by the agency.
       ``(2) Applications.--A local educational agency that 
     desires to receive a subgrant under this section shall submit 
     an application to the reading and literacy partnership at 
     such time, in such manner, and including such information as 
     the partnership may require. The application shall include an 
     assurance that the agency will use the subgrant funds to 
     carry out the duties described in subsection (b) for children 
     enrolled in 1 or more schools selected by the agency and 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local educational agency that receives 
     a subgrant under this section shall carry out, using the 
     funds provided under the subgrant, each of the duties 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Duties.--The duties described in this paragraph are 
     the provision of tutorial assistance in reading to children 
     who have difficulty reading, using instructional practices 
     based on the principles of reliable, replicable research, 
     through the following:
       ``(A) The promulgation of a set of objective criteria, 
     pertaining to the ability of a tutorial assistance provider 
     successfully to provide tutorial assistance in reading, that 
     will be used to determine in a uniform manner, at the 
     beginning of each school year, the eligibility of tutorial 
     assistance providers, subject to the succeeding subparagraphs 
     of this paragraph, to be included on the list described in 
     subparagraph (B) (and thereby be eligible to enter into a 
     contract pursuant to subparagraph (F)).
       ``(B) The promulgation, maintenance, and approval of a list 
     of tutorial assistance providers eligible to enter into a 
     contract pursuant to subparagraph (F) who--
       ``(i) have established a record of effectiveness with 
     respect to reading readiness, reading instruction for 
     children in kindergarten through 3d grade, and early 
     childhood literacy;
       ``(ii) are located in a geographic area convenient to the 
     school or schools attended by the children who will be 
     receiving tutorial assistance from the providers; and
       ``(iii) are capable of providing tutoring in reading to 
     children who have difficulty reading, using instructional 
     practices based on the principles of reliable, replicable 
     research and consistent with the instructional methods used 
     by the school the child attends.
       ``(C) The development of procedures (I) for the receipt of 
     applications for tutorial assistance, from parents who are 
     seeking such assistance for their child or children, that 
     select a tutorial assistance provider from the list described 
     in subparagraph (B) with whom the child or children will 
     enroll, for tutoring in reading; and (II) for considering 
     children for tutorial assistance who are identified under 
     subparagraph (D) and for whom no application has been 
     submitted, provided that such procedures are in accordance 
     with this paragraph and give such parents the right to select 
     a tutorial assistance provider from the list referred to in 
     subparagraph (B), and shall permit a local educational agency 
     to recommend a tutorial assistance provider from the list 
     under subparagraph (B) in a case where a parent asks for 
     assistance in the making of such selection.
       ``(D) The development of a selection process for providing 
     tutorial assistance in accordance with this paragraph that 
     limits the provision of assistance to children identified, by 
     the school the child attends, as having difficulty reading, 
     including difficulty mastering essential phonic, decoding, or 
     vocabulary skills. In the case of a child included in the 
     selection process for whom no application has been submitted 
     by a parent of the child, the child's eligibility for receipt 
     of tutorial assistance shall be determined under the same 
     procedures, timeframe, and criteria for consideration as is 
     used to determine the eligibility of a child whose parent has 
     submitted such an application. Such local educational agency 
     shall apply the provisions of subparagraphs (F) and (G) to a 
     tutorial assistance provider selected for a child whose 
     parent has not submitted an application pursuant to 
     subparagraph (C)(I) in the same manner as the provisions are 
     applied to a provider selected in an application submitted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (C)(I).
       ``(E) The development of procedures for selecting children 
     to receive tutorial assistance, to be used in cases where 
     insufficient funds are available to provide assistance with 
     respect to all children identified by a school under 
     subparagraph (D) that--
       ``(i) gives priority to children who are determined, 
     through State or local reading assessments, to be most in 
     need of tutorial assistance; and
       ``(ii) gives priority, in cases where children are 
     determined, through State or local reading assessments, to be 
     equally in need of tutorial assistance, based on a random 
     selection principle.
       ``(F) The development of a methodology by which payments 
     are made directly to tutorial assistance providers who are 
     identified and selected pursuant to subparagraphs (C) (D), 
     and (E) that is selected for funding. Such methodology shall 
     include the making of a contract, consistent with State and 
     local law, between the tutorial assistance provider and the 
     local educational agency carrying out this paragraph. Such 
     contract--
       ``(i) shall contain specific goals and timetables with 
     respect to the performance of the tutorial assistance 
     provider;
       ``(ii) shall require the tutorial assistance provider to 
     report to the parent and the local educational agency on the 
     provider's performance in meeting such goals and timetables; 
     and
       ``(iii) shall contain provisions with respect to the making 
     of payments to the tutorial assistance provider by the local 
     educational agency.
       ``(G) The development of procedures under which the local 
     educational agency carrying out this paragraph--
       ``(i) will ensure oversight of the quality and 
     effectiveness of the tutorial assistance provided by each 
     tutorial assistance provider who is identified and selected 
     by a parent in an application submitted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (C) that is selected for funding;
       ``(ii) will remove from the list under subparagraph (B) 
     ineffective and unsuccessful providers (as determined by the 
     local educational agency based upon the performance of the 
     provider with respect to the goals and timetables contained 
     in the contract between the agency and the provider under 
     subparagraph (F));
       ``(iii) will provide to each parent of a child identified 
     under subparagraph (D) who requests such information for the 
     purpose of selecting a tutorial assistance provider for the 
     child, in a comprehensible format, information with respect 
     to the quality and effectiveness of the tutorial assistance 
     referred to in clause (i); and
       ``(iv) will ensure that each school identifying a child 
     under subparagraph (D) will provide upon request, to a parent 
     of the child, assistance in selecting, from among the 
     tutorial assistance providers who are included on the list 
     described in subparagraph (B), the

[[Page H10390]]

     provider who is best able to meet the needs of the child.
       ``(c) Definition. For the purposes of this section the term 
     ``parent'' or ``parents'' includes a legal guardian or legal 
     guardians of the child.

     ``SEC. 15106. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

       ``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section 
     15109(b)(1), the Secretary shall conduct a national 
     assessment of the programs under this title. In developing 
     the criteria for the assessment, the Secretary shall receive 
     recommendations from the peer review panel convened under 
     section 15103(f).
       ``(b) Submission to Peer Review Panel.--The Secretary shall 
     submit the findings from the assessment under subsection (a) 
     to the peer review panel convened under section 15103(f).

     ``SEC. 15107. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.

       ``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section 
     15109(b)(2), the National Institute for Literacy shall 
     disseminate information on reliable, replicable research on 
     reading and information on subgrantee projects under section 
     15104 or 15105 that have proven effective. At a minimum, the 
     institute shall disseminate such information to all 
     recipients of Federal financial assistance under titles I and 
     VII of this Act, the Head Start Act, the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, and the Adult Education Act.
       ``(b) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the 
     National Institute for Literacy--
       ``(1) shall use, to the extent practicable, information 
     networks developed and maintained through other public and 
     private persons, including the Secretary, the National Center 
     for Family Literacy, and the Readline Program;
       ``(2) shall work in conjunction with any panel convened by 
     the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 
     and the Secretary and any panel convened by the Office of 
     Educational Research and Improvement to assess the current 
     status of research-based knowledge on reading development, 
     including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching 
     children to read, with respect to determining the criteria by 
     which the National Institute for Literacy judges reliable, 
     replicable research and the design of strategies to 
     disseminate such information; and
       ``(3) shall assist any reading and literacy partnership 
     selected to receive a grant under section 15103, and that 
     requests such assistance--
       ``(A) in determining whether applications for subgrants 
     submitted to the partnership meet the requirements of this 
     title relating to reliable, replicable research on reading; 
     and
       ``(B) in the development of subgrant application forms.

     ``SEC. 15108. STATE EVALUATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each reading and literacy partnership 
     that receives a grant under this title shall reserve not more 
     than 2 percent of such grant funds for the purpose of 
     evaluating the success of the partnership's subgrantees in 
     meeting the purposes of this title. At a minimum, the 
     evaluation shall measure the extent to which students who are 
     the intended beneficiaries of the subgrants made by the 
     partnership have improved their reading.
       ``(b) Contract.--A reading and literacy partnership shall 
     carry out the evaluation under this section by entering into 
     a contract with an eligible research institution under which 
     the institution will perform the evaluation.
       ``(c) Submission.--A reading and literacy partnership shall 
     submit the findings from the evaluation under this section to 
     the Secretary and the peer review panel convened under 
     section 15103(f). The Secretary and the peer review panel 
     shall submit a summary of the findings from the evaluations 
     under this subsection to the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress, including the Education and the Workforce Committee 
     of the House of Representatives.

     ``SEC. 15109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; RESERVATIONS 
                   FROM APPROPRIATIONS; SUNSET.

       ``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this title $260,000,000 for fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
       ``(b) Reservations.--From amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary--
       ``(1) shall reserve 1.5 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a) for each fiscal year to carry out 
     section 15106(a);
       ``(2) shall reserve $5,075,000 to carry out sections 
     15103(f)(2) and 15107, of which $5,000,000 shall be reserved 
     for section 15107; and
       ``(3) shall reserve $10,000,000 to carry out section 
     1202(c).
       ``(c) Sunset.--Notwithstanding section 422(a) of the 
     General Education Provisions Act, this title is repealed, 
     effective September 30, 2000, and is not subject to extension 
     under such section.''.
      TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. RESERVATION FOR GRANTS.

       Section 1202(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Reservation for Grants.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--From funds reserved under section 
     15109(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to States to enable such States to plan 
     and implement, statewide family literacy initiatives to 
     coordinate and integrate existing Federal, State, and local 
     literacy resources consistent with the purposes of this part. 
     Such coordination and integration shall include funds 
     available under the Adult Education Act, Head Start, this 
     part, part A of this title, and part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act.
       ``(2) Consortia.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--To receive a grant under this 
     subsection, a State shall establish a consortium of State-
     level programs under the following laws:
       ``(i) This title.
       ``(ii) The Head Start Act.
       ``(iii) The Adult Education Act.
       ``(iv) All other State-funded preschool programs and 
     programs providing literacy services to adults.
       ``(B) Plan.--To receive a grant under this subsection, the 
     consortium established by a State shall create a plan to use 
     a portion of the State's resources, derived from the programs 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), to strengthen and expand 
     family literacy services in such State.
       ``(C) Coordination with title xv.--The consortium shall 
     coordinate its activities with the activities of the reading 
     and literacy partnership for the State established under 
     section 15103, if the State receives a grant under such 
     section.
       ``(3) Reading instruction.--Statewide family literacy 
     initiatives implemented under this subsection shall base 
     reading instruction on reliable, replicable research on 
     reading (as such terms are defined in section 15102).
       ``(4) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide, 
     directly or through a grant or contract with an organization 
     with experience in the development and operation of 
     successful family literacy services, technical assistance to 
     States receiving a grant under this subsection.
       ``(5) Matching requirement.--The Secretary shall not make a 
     grant to a State under this subsection unless the State 
     agrees that, with respect to the costs to be incurred by the 
     eligible consortium in carrying out the activities for which 
     the grant was awarded, the State will make available non-
     Federal contributions in an amount equal to not less than the 
     Federal funds provided under the grant.''.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1202(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(e)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) the term `family literacy services' means services 
     provided to participants on a voluntary basis that are of 
     sufficient intensity in terms of hours, and of sufficient 
     duration, to make sustainable changes in a family (such as 
     eliminating or reducing welfare dependency) and that 
     integrate all of the following activities:
       ``(A) Interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their children.
       ``(B) Equipping parents to partner with their children in 
     learning.
       ``(C) Parent literacy training, including training that 
     contributes to economic self-sufficiency.
       ``(D) Appropriate instruction for children of parents 
     receiving parent literacy services.''.

     SEC. 203. EVALUATION.

       Section 1209 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6369) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) to provide States and eligible entities receiving a 
     subgrant under this part, directly or through a grant or 
     contract with an organization with experience in the 
     development and operation of successful family literacy 
     services, technical assistance to ensure local evaluations 
     undertaken under section 1205(10) provide accurate 
     information on the effectiveness of programs assisted under 
     this part.''.

     SEC. 204. INDICATORS OF PROGRAM QUALITY.

       (a) In General.--The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 1210 as section 1212; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1209 the following:

     ``SEC. 1210. INDICATORS OF PROGRAM QUALITY.

       ``Each State receiving funds under this part shall develop, 
     based on the best available research and evaluation data, 
     indicators of program quality for programs assisted under 
     this part. Such indicators shall be used to monitor, 
     evaluate, and improve such programs within the State. Such 
     indicators shall include the following:
       ``(1) With respect to eligible participants in a program 
     who are adults--
       ``(A) achievement in the areas of reading, writing, English 
     language acquisition, problem solving, and numeracy;
       ``(B) receipt of a high school diploma or a general 
     equivalency diploma;
       ``(C) entry into a postsecondary school, job retraining 
     program, or employment or career advancement, including the 
     military; and
       ``(D) such other indicators as the State may develop.
       ``(2) With respect to eligible participants in a program 
     who are children--
       ``(A) improvement in ability to read on grade level or 
     reading readiness;

[[Page H10391]]

       ``(B) school attendance;
       ``(C) grade retention and promotion; and
       ``(D) such other indicators as the State may develop.''.
       (b) State Level Activities.--Section 1203(a) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6363(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) carrying out section 1210.''.
       (c) Award of Subgrants.--Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 
     1208(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6368) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Continuing eligibility.--In awarding subgrant funds 
     to continue a program under this part for the second, third, 
     or fourth year, the State educational agency shall evaluate 
     the program based on the indicators of program quality 
     developed by the State under section 1210. Such evaluation 
     shall take place after the conclusion of the startup period, 
     if any.
       ``(4) Insufficient progress.--The State educational agency 
     may refuse to award subgrant funds if such agency finds that 
     the eligible entity has not sufficiently improved the 
     performance of the program, as evaluated based on the 
     indicators of program quality developed by the State under 
     section 1210, after--
       ``(A) providing technical assistance to the eligible 
     entity; and
       ``(B) affording the eligible entity notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing.''.

     SEC. 205. RESEARCH.

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended by section 204 of this Act, is further amended by 
     inserting after section 1210 the following:

     ``SEC. 1211. RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out, through 
     grant or contract, research into the components of successful 
     family literacy services, to use--
       ``(1) to improve the quality of existing programs assisted 
     under this part or other family literacy programs carried out 
     under this Act or the Adult Education Act; and
       ``(2) to develop models for new programs to be carried out 
     under this Act or the Adult Education Act.
       ``(b) Dissemination.--The National Institute for Literacy 
     shall disseminate, pursuant to section 15107, the results of 
     the research described in subsection (a) to States and 
     recipients of subgrants under this part.''.
            TITLE III--FUNDS FOR FEDERAL WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. USE OF WORK-STUDY FUNDS FOR TUTORING AND LITERACY.

       Section 443 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     2753) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A)
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) in academic year 1998 and succeeding academic years, 
     an institution shall use at least 2 percent of the total 
     amount of funds granted to such institution under this 
     section for such academic year in accordance with subsection 
     (d); and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Tutoring and Literacy Activities.--
       ``(1) Use of funds.--In any academic year to which 
     subsection (b)(2)(B) applies, an institution shall use the 
     amount required to be used in accordance with this subsection 
     to compensate (including compensation for time spent in 
     directly related training and travel) students--
       ``(A) employed as a reading tutor for children who are in 
     preschool through elementary school; or
       ``(B) employed in family literacy projects.
       ``(2) Priority for schools.--An institution shall--
       ``(A) give priority, in using such funds, to the employment 
     of students in the provision of tutoring services in schools 
     that--
       ``(i) are identified for school improvement under section 
     1116(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965; or
       ``(ii) are selected by a local educational agency under 
     section 15104(a)(2) of such Act; and
       ``(B) ensure that any student compensated with such funds 
     who is employed in a school selected under section 
     15104(a)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 is trained in the instructional practices based on 
     reliable, replicable research on reading used by the school 
     pursuant to such section 15104.
       ``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the compensation 
     of work study students compensated under this subsection may 
     exceed 75 percent.
       ``(4) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of 
     this subsection if the Secretary determines that enforcing 
     such requirements would cause a hardship for students at the 
     institution.
       ``(5) Return of funds.--Any institution that does not use 
     the amount required under this subsection, and that does not 
     request and receive a waiver from the Secretary under 
     paragraph (4), shall return to the Secretary, at such time as 
     the Secretary may require for reallocation under paragraph 
     (6), any balance of such amount that is not used as so 
     required.
       ``(6) Reallocation.--The Secretary shall reallot any 
     amounts returned pursuant to paragraph (5) among institutions 
     that used at least 4 percent of the total amount of funds 
     granted to such institution under this section to compensate 
     students employed in tutoring and literacy activities in the 
     preceding academic year. Such funds shall be reallotted among 
     such institutions on the same basis as excess eligible 
     amounts are allocated to institutions pursuant to section 
     442(c). Funds received by institutions pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall be used in the same manner as amounts 
     required to be used in accordance with this subsection.''.
                           TITLE IV--REPEALS

     SEC. 401. REPEAL OF CERTAIN UNFUNDED EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Adult Education Act.--The following provisions are 
     repealed:
       (1) Business, industry, labor, and education partnerships 
     for workplace literacy.--Section 371 of the Adult Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1211).
       (2) English literacy grants.--Section 372 of the Adult 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1211a).
       (3) Education programs for commercial drivers.--Section 373 
     of the Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1211b).
       (4) Adult literacy volunteer training.--Section 382 of the 
     Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1213a).
       (b) Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
     Education Act.--The following provisions are repealed:
       (1) Business-labor-education partnership for training.--
     Part D of title III of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
     Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2391 et seq.).
       (2) Supplementary state grants for facilities and equipment 
     and other program improvement activities.--Part F of title 
     III of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2395 et seq.).
       (3) Community education employment centers and vocational 
     education lighthouse schools.--Part G of title III of the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 2396 et seq.).
       (4) Demonstration programs.--Part B of title IV of the Carl 
     D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 2411 et seq.).
       (5) Certain bilingual programs.--Subsections (b) and (c) of 
     section 441 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
     Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2441).
       (c) Community School Partnerships.--The Community School 
     Partnership Act (contained in part B of title V of the 
     Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 1070 note) 
     is repealed.
       (d) Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and 
     Improvement Act of 1994.--Section 941(j) of the Educational 
     Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 
     1994 (20 U.S.C. 6041(j)) is repealed.
       (e) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--The 
     following provisions are repealed:
       (1) Innovative elementary school transition projects.--
     Section 1503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6493).
       (2) School dropout assistance.--Part C of title V of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7261 et seq.).
       (3) Impact aid program.--Section 8006 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7706) is repealed.
       (4) Special programs and projects to improve educational 
     opportunities for indian children.--Subpart 2 of part A of 
     title IX of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7831 et seq.).
       (5) Special programs relating to adult education for 
     indians.--Subpart 3 of part A of title IX of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7851 et seq.).
       (6) Federal administration.--Subpart 5 of part A of title 
     IX of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7871 et seq.).
       (7) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 9162(c) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7882(c)).
       (8) De lugo territorial education improvement program.--
     Part H of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8221 et seq.).
       (9) Extended time for learning and longer school year.--
     Part L of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8351).
       (10) Territorial assistance.--Part M of title X of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8371).
       (f) Family and Community Endeavor Schools.--The Family and 
     Community Endeavor Schools Act (42 U.S.C. 13792) is repealed.
       (g) Goals 2000: Educate America Act.--Subsections (b) and 
     (d)(1) of section 601 of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 5951) are repealed.
       (h) Higher Education Act of 1965.--The following provisions 
     are repealed:
       (1) State and local programs for teacher excellence.--Part 
     A of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1102 et seq.).
       (2) National teacher academies.--Part B of title V of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1103 et seq.).
       (3) Class size demonstration grant.--Subpart 3 of part D of 
     title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1109 
     et seq.).

[[Page H10392]]

       (4) Middle school teaching demonstration programs.--Subpart 
     4 of part D of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1110 et seq.).
       (5) Small state teaching initiative.--Subpart 3 of part F 
     of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1115).
       (6) Early childhood education training.--Subpart 5 of part 
     F of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1117 et seq.).
       (7) Grants to states for workplace and community transition 
     training for incarcerated youth offenders.--Part E of title X 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1135g).
       (i) Higher Education Amendments of 1992.--Part E of title 
     XV of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 1070 
     note) is repealed.
       (j) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--The following provisions 
     are repealed:
       (1) Career advancement training consortia.--Subsection (e) 
     of section 302 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 771a(e)).
       (2) Vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with 
     disabilities.--Section 303 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 772).
       (3) Loan guarantees for community rehabilitation 
     programs.--Section 304 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 773).
       (4) Comprehensive rehabilitation centers.--Section 305 of 
     such Act (29 U.S.C. 775).
       (5) Special demonstration programs.--Subsections (b) and 
     (e) of section 311 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 777a(b) and (e)).
       (6) Reader services for individuals who are blind.--Section 
     314 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 777d).
       (7) Interpreter services for individuals who are deaf.--
     Section 315 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 777e).
       (8) Community service employment pilot programs for 
     individuals with disabilities.--Section 611 of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 795).
       (9) Business opportunities for individuals with 
     disabilities.--Part D of title VI of the Rehabilitation Act 
     of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 795r).
       (10) Certain demonstration activities.--
       (A) Transportation services grants.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(a)).
       (B) Projects to achieve high quality placements.--
     Subsection (b) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     797a(b)).
       (C) Early intervention demonstration projects.--Subsection 
     (c) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(c)).
       (D) Transition demonstration projects.--Subsection (d) of 
     section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(d)).
       (E) Barriers to successful rehabilitation outcomes for 
     minorities.--Subsection (e) of section 802 of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 797a(e)).
       (F) Studies, special projects, and demonstration projects 
     to study management and service delivery.--Subsection (f) of 
     section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(f)).
       (G) National commission on rehabilitation services.--
     Subsection (h) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     797a(h)).
       (H) Model personal assistance services systems.--Subsection 
     (i) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(i)).
       (I) Demonstration projects to upgrade worker skills.--
     Subsection (j) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     797a(j)).
       (J) Model systems regarding severe disabilities.--
     Subsection (k) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     797a(k)).
       (11) Certain training activities.--
       (A) Distance learning through telecommunications.--
     Subsection (a) of section 803 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     797b(a)).
       (B) Training regarding impartial hearing officers.--
     Subsection (d) of section 803 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     797b(d)).
       (C) Recruitment and retention of urban personnel.--
     Subsection (e) of section 803 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     797b(e)).
       (k) Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.--Subtitle 
     A of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.) is repealed.
       (l) Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals With 
     Disabilities Act of 1988.--Subtitle B of title II of the 
     Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals With 
     Disabilities Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2241 et seq.) is 
     repealed.
       (m) National Literacy Act of 1991.--Section 304 of the 
     National Literacy Act of 1991 (20 U.S.C. 1213c note) is 
     repealed.
       (n) Authorization of Appropriations for Indian Education.--
     Section 9162(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7882(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Subpart 4.--For the purpose of carrying out subpart 4 
     of this part, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Education such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal year 1995 and each of the four succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. GOODING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, the 
Reading Excellence Act. The issue of literacy has been one of my main 
interests since I came to this body. Over the years I have had an 
opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner with many members of the 
committee to develop legislation directed at improving the literacy of 
our Nation's citizens no matter what their age. While the Even Start 
program, the Family Literacy Program, is high on my literacy list of 
achievements, I would also include changes to the Adult Education Act 
and the National Literacy Act.
  Today we have an opportunity to support a refinement and an 
improvement of all existing literacy programs, the Reading Excellence 
Act, which will help ensure that individuals of all ages have literacy 
skills they need to lead productive lives. Over the years what has been 
missing from our efforts has been a focus of preventing reading 
difficulties from developing in the first place. The bill addresses 
this problem.
  As Members know, there was a budget agreement. The budget agreement 
said that the President will have a literacy bill. It is our 
responsibility then as an authorizing committee, we did not participate 
in the budget agreement, but it is our responsibility then to make sure 
that whatever that literacy bill is, it is a well thought out literacy 
bill and a bill that will work. And so having that in mind, I looked at 
the President's bill and then I decided on what areas we should really 
concentrate on if we are going to improve literacy in this country.

                              {time}  1600

  The general outline then became, one, make sure that the teachers 
have the help they need to effectively teach reading based on reliable, 
replicable research, including phonics.
  Now I want to make sure that what everyone should understand, we are 
not dictating any one way of teaching reading. Anybody that does that 
is asking for trouble. If they are going to teach whole language and 
nothing else, I will guarantee my colleagues it will be a disaster. If 
they are going to teach look-see, which they tried in the 1960's, that 
is really going to be a disaster. But what we are saying is that they 
should use reading readiness, reading based on reliable, replicable 
research, including phonics.
  The second idea then would be reading readiness of the child. No 
first grade child should fail. It is the adult that fails, not the 
child. No first grade child should ever be socially promoted. That is a 
disaster for a child. So it is the adult that failed, not the child, so 
we have to find a way to deal with that issue, and what we do then is 
say that if a child is not ready for first grade, do not push them into 
first grade; that the kindergarten teacher certainly knows whether they 
are or are not reading-ready. If they are not, then give them the kind 
of effort that they need to make sure that they are reading-ready in 
the first place.
  Second, we know that the parents are the first and most important 
teacher, and if they are not capable, they do not have the literacy 
skills themselves, then we should make sure that they do.
  Third, we say that reading readiness of the child beyond first grade 
will be dealt with mentors and with help from outside, helping the 
teacher, not bringing in expensive people doing their own thing, but 
having people from the college work program spend more of their time 
helping in the community rather than emptying trash cans.
  Next we say that title I schools are the most in need since we have a 
very little bit amount of money. Those title I schools that need the 
help the most would be the people who would be able to get these 
grants.
  So we talk about reading readiness of the child, we talk about 
preparation of the teacher, we talk about tutorial assistance, we talk 
about college work-study help, and we talk about those schools most in 
need.
  Now what I want to point out is that it is not a new program. We are 
trying to improve the existing literacy programs that are out there. 
Second, I want to again make sure my colleagues understand what we are 
saying is it is the budget agreement that made the decision that there 
would be a literacy program, and our committee is trying to make sure 
it is the best.
  Having given that outline, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs], with the help of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez] and others went to

[[Page H10393]]

work and filled in this outline to make sure that we would have 
something that could be accepted by all, and I believe we have come up 
with that initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Let me start out by saying that during the early part of this 
session, the President's America Reads legislation was introduced by 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], myself and 
many other of our Democratic colleagues. That initiative focused on the 
use of community-based volunteer efforts that would provide additional 
assistance to children after school, on weekends and during the summer, 
with the goal of ensuring that all children can read independently by 
the end of the third grade. I want to commend the President for his 
leadership in not only putting forth this legislation, but for 
realizing the need to involve community-based organizations and 
volunteers in the goal of increased literacy for children.
  Mr. Speaker, due to the budget agreement which was struck between 
President Clinton and congressional leaders, Republicans and Democratic 
Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the 
administration have engaged in many months of negotiations with the 
collective aim of producing a bipartisan literacy initiative that 
combines the ideas of the President and our committee colleagues. In 
these many months we have produced what I believe is a very balanced 
and truly bipartisan agreement which is before us today.
  Through the coupling of the President's ideas and those of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], we have produced a bill that will positively 
impact the efforts of our country's educators in teaching children to 
read. This legislation, through both efforts to improve professional 
development of teachers in reading and the utilization of community-
based organizations in the mobilization of volunteer tutors, will 
enable us to ensure that children will read independently by the end of 
the third grade. This is truly a goal which all of us can support.
  This bill provides the much needed assistance for teachers to receive 
professional development in teaching children to read more effectively, 
and it will ensure that professional development is based on reliable, 
replicable research; in other words, proven methods of reading 
instruction.
  During our committee's hearings on childhood literacy, we heard a 
large amount of testimony that what the teachers who teach reading want 
the most is professional development giving them effective strategies 
in instructing children to read. This bill will enable school districts 
to begin to fulfill that need.
  In addition, this bill includes the priority of the President stated 
in his America Reads legislation to provide additional help to children 
learning to read through volunteer tutoring before and after school, on 
weekends and during the summer.
  Huge success stories have happened across the country in communities 
which are already using the America Reads volunteer structure to ensure 
literate children, and this bill allows these successes to continue and 
grow in number. This will mean that more children who are struggling 
with one of the most basic and necessary components of our society will 
get the extra help outside the classroom that they so desperately need.
  This legislation also includes provisions allowing for tutorial 
assistance grants. As Members know, this section of the bill has 
generated a significant amount of controversy and has been the object 
of numerous negotiation sessions between the Members over the last few 
weeks, including right up to the minute that this bill was presented on 
the floor. These negotiations have added what I believe is the key 
missing component of accountability, both educational and financial 
results. This is accomplished through the insistence that local 
educational agencies which provide tutorial education assistance grants 
must enter into contracts with tutorial assistance providers. This 
contracting authority includes specific goals, outcomes and timetables 
for student achievement, which gives local education agencies the tools 
to ensure that this program will help those children most in need. So I 
believe that this section of the bill is vastly improved and now a 
positive addition to the overall program.
  I strongly believe that the legislation before us today will truly 
help children to read independently by the end of the third grade and 
grasp the essential literacy components necessary for employment in our 
technologically advanced society. I also believe that Members of both 
parties should feel confident that this legislation balances the two 
very important needs in assuring childhood literacy, strong 
professional development for reading teachers and additional tutoring 
assistance before and after school, on weekends and during the summer.
  I urge all Members to support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], the subcommittee chairman who helped put the 
meat on the skeleton that I provided.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding this time to me, and the first thing I want to do is recommend 
to my colleagues that this is important legislation deserving of their 
support. I have had several of my Republican colleagues ask me if this 
is legislation that I intend to support, and the answer to that is an 
emphatic yes. And if I can just back up for a moment and sort of walk 
my colleagues through the process, my colleagues will recall that the 
bipartisan agreement to balance the budget sets aside $260 million for 
a new Federal literacy initiative. I suspect that most people, 
obviously, in this Chamber supported that agreement, voted for it on an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. We then set about crafting the details 
of that initiative fleshing it out, if my colleagues will, and had a 
spirited, bipartisan give and take as to the proper approach in 
spending that money.
  The President wanted his America Reads initiative, which would have 
led to a tremendous expansion of AmeriCorps, the National Service Corps 
Corp., and on our side of the aisle we insisted that a majority of the 
money be used for teacher training and to provide parents and guardians 
of children who have reading difficulties, who are consistently reading 
below grade level and behind their peers, with tutorial assistance 
grants. Our legislation would invest this Federal taxpayer money in 
family literacy as well, trying to help illiterate or semiliterate 
parents obtain literacy skills so that they can work with their 
children, because, after all, that parent is that child's first and 
best teacher.
  We also use the money for college work program tutors. These are 
young people who are at institutions of higher learning, and in the 
process of obtaining a higher education, a college education, are 
getting assistance through the college work/study program, and we think 
that these young people are in an ideal position to fulfill their 
obligations under the college work/study program by helping young 
people learn to read better. So we want a lot of the college students 
participating in the college work/study program to serve as reading 
tutors and mentors to young people.
  We also put a lot of the money into basic grants to States to improve 
teacher training, helping the, if my colleagues will, the teachers 
learn to teach better. We heard repeatedly during the course of our 
hearings both here in Washington, at the two literacy summits that I 
conducted in my congressional district, from veteran, experienced 
classroom teachers the need to improve their teaching skills. We had 
teachers, colleagues, tell us in the course of the hearings that they 
had never received the proper instruction in teaching reading, if my 
colleagues can imagine, and I know that speaks volumes about 
traditional teacher education at colleges and universities.

  We would like to address that problem. Perhaps we can address it in a 
bigger way when we get around to the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act. But at least here in this bill we have made a start by 
providing grants to States and local school districts in those school 
districts that have the

[[Page H10394]]

most glaring need. It is documented by the fact they have the most 
title I students, they have the most so-called school improvement 
sites, and it is at those schools and with those students that we want 
to help teachers, classroom teachers, reading specialists, obtain the 
best training based on reliable, replicable research in order do a 
better job teaching our young people.
  And lastly, as I said, we also provide money for parents and legal 
guardians to obtain tutorial assistance for their children in those 
instances where a child needs more intensive, one-on-one type of 
reading instruction from a tutor that they are not able to obtain 
during the course of a school day, and we say that those grants can be 
used by parents and guardians to obtain tutoring services from a list 
of approved and recommended tutors by the local school districts.
  So I think what we have crafted here is a good, balanced bill, one 
that fulfills the obligation that we have on the authorizing committee 
to come up with the details of the authorizing legislation to spend the 
$260 million set-aside for the budget agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, the Reading Excellence 
Act.
  As a parent and former school board member, I have been alarmed over 
recent statistics on the number of children experiencing reading 
difficulties.
  I am particularly saddened because I know that poor reading skills 
are a sign of impending academic difficulties of a much broader nature 
which can diminish the ability of such children to grow into 
productive, contributing members of society.
  We know, for instance, that 50 percent of our current adult 
population read at the bottom two of five levels of literacy. Not 
surprisingly, 43 percent of those in the lowest literacy level live in 
poverty; 17 percent are receiving food stamps, and 70 percent are 
unemployed or underemployed. In addition, more than two-thirds of unwed 
parents, school dropouts, and those arrested have below average 
literacy levels. We need to act now to prevent the same type of 
statistics for future generations.
  Over the August recess, I had the opportunity to hold two literacy 
summits in my congressional district. These summits were attended by 
individuals with a wide range of involvement in literacy activities--
from those individuals working with preschool children, to teachers in 
elementary school, to family literacy providers, to programs working 
with adults.
  What I found was a general agreement among summit participants that 
there is a need to improve the teaching of reading in our country and 
to provide teachers with current research on how children learn to 
read.
  Today, millions of children are on the path toward a life of 
illiteracy and underachievement. This legislation provides hope for 
these children by giving them the opportunity to obtain the reading 
skills necessary to lead productive lives.
   H.R. 2614 responds to the concerns raised by my constituents and 
other individuals who testified before our committee or who contacted 
us to discuss this topic. It not only focuses on providing training to 
teachers based on the most reliable, replicable research on reading, it 
calls for the dissemination of such information to all teachers in 
Federal programs with a strong focus on improving the reading skills of 
children. This will ensure these teachers, as well as those directly 
assisted under this act will have the tools necessary to effectively 
teach reading to some of the Nation's most disadvantaged school 
children.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will act as a companion to 
our recently enacted reform of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act by seeking to ensure that children who are identified as 
not being disabled but still being unable to read will receive 
assistance to become literate.
  Among these children are those who have historically been placed in 
special education under the Individuals with Disability Education Act. 
Prior to this year's amendments to IDEA, many children with reading 
problems were identified as learning disabled when their real problem 
was simply not being taught to read.
  Being spared special education will save those children years of 
misguided assistance, but it will not solve the problem that led to the 
special education referral in the first place, that is, not being able 
to read. The Reading Excellence Act will ensure that these children, 
and others, are provided the reading instruction necessary to become 
literate.
  This legislation also focuses on expanding the number of family 
literacy programs and providing assistance to children so they can be 
their child's first and most important teacher. I commend the chairman 
for all of his work on the issue of family literacy. I believe this 
approach to be one of the more effective approaches to helping to break 
the cycle of illiteracy in many families.
  Another important aspect of this legislation is a provision which 
will expand quality tutoring assistance for economically disadvantaged 
children. We have worked with our Democrat colleagues to strengthen 
accountability under these grants and make other clarifying changes 
outlined by Chairman Goodling. Specifically, this act would allow local 
educational agencies to compete for funds to provide tutorial 
assistance grants [TAG's]. These grants would be targeted to parents 
with children who have significant reading difficulties and attend a 
school which is within an empowerment zone or enterprise community. 
Using these funds, parents could choose, from among a list of qualified 
providers, a tutor who they feel is best suited to help their children 
learn to read.
  To ensure that tutors are able to provide high quality services, the 
act requires the local education agency to compile and maintain a list 
of qualified tutors. To be placed on this list, tutors must have a 
proven track record in reading readiness, early childhood literacy and 
reading instruction for children in grades K-3 and must commit to 
providing instruction based upon reliable teaching methods--such as 
phonics-based instruction--that have produced results supported by 
replicable research.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to make a significant difference 
in the future of many children who currently are unable to read. I urge 
my colleagues to seize upon this opportunity and support the Reading 
Excellence Act.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, salute the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] for their hard work and commitment to this bipartisan bill. I 
also want to recognize our ranking member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez], and Mr. Miller for strongly negotiating 
through the process our commitment to different new provisions to 
strengthen, I think, an existing program. So I think both sides here 
have worked together to craft a very, very strong bill.
  Yesterday we worked in a bipartisan way to pass new ideas with a 
charter school bill for public choice and public education. Today we 
are working in a bipartisan way to strengthen the existing literacy 
program.
  I rise in strong support of this bill, both for policy reasons and 
for some very, very substantive reasons which are included in this 
bill. First of all, in the policy reasons, again, we are not recreating 
the wheel, we are not coming up with a brand new program here, we are 
trying to find ways to improve the existing program and work with 
parents and teachers and volunteers and professionals to solve one of 
the most vexing and heartbreaking problems in America today: 
illiteracy.

                              {time}  1615

  It hurts businesses, costing them billions of dollars when they do 
not get the right kinds of employees coming out of our high schools 
that can read. It hurts parents who cannot read appropriately to their 
children. It certainly hurts children's self-esteem when they fall 
behind.
  This bill comes up with new ideas to fix an existing problem and to 
improve an existing program.
  What are these ideas? First of all, we focus on young children, in 
the kindergarten and the first grade. Next year, in the Head Start 
Program, we hope to move it even further, closer to 2 and 3 and 4 years 
old and earlier in their education.
  Second, we stress family literacy, encouraging the parent to work as 
the child's first teacher and encouraging parents to develop literacy 
skills.
  Third, we require States to have a professional development program 
for teachers. Teachers have to learn new ways. When the first way they 
are teaching the child doesn't work, they have to be able to teach in 
alternative ways.
  Fourth, we encourage community-based programs, reading programs, and 
we require commitment from colleges that participate in the college 
work-study program to work as volunteers.
  This is a comprehensive way to address literacy. We are doing it in a 
bipartisan way. We are fixing an old program with new ideas. I strongly 
encourage Members on both the Republican side and the Democratic side 
to vote for and pass this bipartisan program.

[[Page H10395]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Ms. Roukema], a very active member of our committee in this 
area, a former teacher, and very helpful in putting the legislation 
together.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member 
for this wonderful contribution on an issue that is so essential for 
all Americans. This is a bill that deserves enthusiastic support.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is another issue that bothers the 
American people as much as the question of education and how it affects 
their families. This represents real progress with this legislation.
  Studies have shown, I might as well repeat this, it has been stated, 
but studies have shown that 40 percent of the Nation's fourth graders 
are below basic reading skills. That is something that has to be 
improved.
  I know there are those here that want to give volunteer help through 
AmeriCorps. That is not the issue here today, because there is not a 
principal or educator in this country who would turn away volunteers. 
But they would also say that the most important essential need is that 
we train, have real reading training for teachers in the classroom. 
That is what this bill does. It gives that assistance to the classroom 
teacher and gives that training.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the bill, of course, also helps lower-income 
parents and gives them the opportunity to gain remedial assistance, 
which of course we also know is important.
  I would like to say, especially to my conservative friends, fellow 
fiscal conservative friends, I might say, because I am one of those 
too, I want us to know that 95 percent of the funding authorized in 
this legislation is driven right down into the classroom. It is not 
eaten up in bureaucratic overhead and administration. I think that is 
important for all of us to know.
  Finally, I will conclude with my own commitment, as a teacher, a 
mother, in saying that without reading, there is no learning, and 
without learning, there is no education; without education, our Nation 
cannot compete in this increasingly competitive global economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and all the members of the 
committee for this very fine contribution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Reading Excellence Act 
and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, for his 
strong leadership in this area.
  Among the many laudable sections of the budget and tax cut package 
this Congress approved in July was an additional $260 million to 
enhance literacy. Heaven knows we need it.
  Recent studies have shown that 40 percent of the Nation's fourth 
graders possess below-basic reading skills. Now thee are many societal 
and educational reasons for this--but time will not allow a complete 
discussion here.
  Quite frankly, I have been a bit puzzled by the President's approach 
to this new literacy program. He proposed to spend the $260 million to 
send an army of barely trained paid volunteers from Americorps in to 
low-income schools to serve as reading tutors.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a principal in this country who would turn 
away new volunteers at his or her school.
  That's what this bill does: gives the assistance to those in the best 
position to make a difference--the classroom teacher.
  The legislation Mr. Goodling and our Education Committee approved 
emphasizes helping teachers to teach reading. This bill is grounded in 
the basics, and ensures that reliable and replicable research on 
reading techniques, such as phonics, actually reaches the classroom.
  Our bill also will give lower-income parents the opportunity to gain 
remedial assistance for their children from trained and approved 
reading tutors.
  To do all this, the bill creates a new system, which allows for 
reading and literacy partnerships--a State entity--to compete for 
literacy grants to use toward innovative reading programs.
  Now let me close with a few words for my fellow fiscal conservatives. 
I want you to know that 95-percent of the funding authorized by this 
legislation is driven right into the classroom. It is not eaten up in 
bureaucratic overhead and administration.
  It would add that this legislation also repeals 67 unfunded Federal 
Department of Education programs.
  As a member of the Education Committee since coming to Congress, I 
have said that we need to undertake a clear-eyed evaluation of every 
educational program on the books, determine what works and fully-fund 
them and get rid of the rest. This legislation moves us in that 
direction.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher, mother of three and grandmother of 
five there is no more fundamental reform we can adopt to give the next 
generation a successful future.
  Without reading, there is no learning. Without learning, there is no 
education. Without education, our Nation cannot compete in an 
increasingly competitive global economy.
  We must do this for our children and our children's children. I thank 
the chairman and urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Martinez, California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez] for yielding to me, from Martinez, and I 
thank him for his work on this legislation, and I want to thank our 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] and, again, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] 
for all of the effort to bring this legislation to the floor and to 
make it a true bipartisan effort.
  There have been very intensive negotiations around this legislation. 
I think those negotiations have been intense because, as the gentleman 
from New Jersey just said, we believe this is one of the most important 
subjects that we confront as members of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, and that is our ability to improve the outcomes for our 
young children in school to learn to read so that they can read to 
learn for the rest of their lives.
  As so many have already said here today, we are not doing a very good 
job in that effort. I think this legislation starts to turn us around 
in that. In terms of the emphasis that it places on the professional 
development of teachers, it is clear that we have got to have 
competent, capable teachers in that classroom, spending time with those 
children to help them learn to read.
  It is clear that we have got to get the parents of these children 
involved in reading to their children and encouraging their children 
and rewarding their children for reading competency. It is also very 
clear that we have got to call upon additional volunteers to come to 
our schools and to spend time with the children.
  I notice today in Roll Call magazine some of our colleagues in the 
U.S. Senate spending time on Capitol Hill. Senator Durbin from Illinois 
was pictured at Brent School, reading to a young man, trying to 
encourage that young man to improve his reading proficiency so he could 
have a successful education.
  Mr. Speaker, I spent an awful lot of time with young adolescents in 
my local high schools where I teach a couple of classes for young 
children and young students in the continuation high school and also in 
a honors class at another high school. Every Monday morning, we talk 
about some of these issues. And I cannot tell you the sadness the young 
people express and how cheated they feel that they cannot read to grade 
level and how angry they are about social promotions and being told 
that they are doing fine, they are getting C's, and they will be OK, 
and now to realize as they are 10th and 11th graders, that they really 
cannot read.
  It has got to stop. We have got to make this a determinant of your 
ability to proceed in education. We have got to bring the resources. 
This bill does that. It allows us to go out and to contract with 
tutors, to bring additional emphasis and resources on those children 
that are having difficulty.
  Hopefully, schools will get better at identifying those children and 
the problems they have, and we can start to eliminate the great number 
of children who are falling behind their reading proficiency at grade 
level. We will be able to identify those problems and get those 
children up to grade level so they can have a successful education.
  Unless we do that, Mr. Speaker, we simply are not going to improve 
the American education experience for millions of children that we need 
as competent children, as capable children, and as graduates of an 
education system that allows them to take their place in American 
society.

[[Page H10396]]

  I would hope that the House would overwhelmingly pass this bipartisan 
legislation to improve America's reading education.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], a valuable member of the committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and 
commend him and the leaders on both sides of the committee for the hard 
work they have done on this very important issue.
  I do not think there is any issue facing America that is more 
important to our future than to somehow improve our educational system 
to where every Johnny and Susie when they leave school are good 
readers.
  I will have to be honest, I was not excited when I saw the budget 
agreement that called for another new reading literacy program, but I 
am pleased with the work that has been done with existing programs and 
in streamlining this one to get the money to our schools.
  But I will say this: I do not think we will solve the literacy 
problem in this country just with Federal initiatives. We need a 
commitment from our school boards and our superintendents and 
principals that no child will leave their school without good reading 
skills, and, without that commitment, no State or Federal money will 
solve this problem. We need that commitment at the local level.
  But I come to the floor today to support the Reading Excellence Act. 
This act brings only successful components of education together, the 
school, the teacher, the parents, and, most importantly, the child.
  This focuses on providing teachers and tutors with better tools. The 
Reading Excellence Act provides parents with the ability to better 
their child's opportunity to make the grade in reading. Through the 
tutorial assistance grants, Johnny and Susie's parents will be able to 
pick from a list of programs in order to find the right program for the 
needs of their children. I think that is one of the most important 
parts of this bill. When we stop and think about it, where did we learn 
to read? It was a combination of school and home and family members.
  Another important aspect of this bill is where children are having 
difficulties as a result of a family environment. This act provides 
literacy assistance to the child's parents, allowing them to become 
their child's first and foremost teacher. It directs the funds to the 
local level, where only true educational reform happens. This measure 
strengthens our teachers and their teaching methods.
  Finally, we ensure that parents remain the key element in the 
education equation, providing them with literacy assistance, allowing 
them, the parents, the decision process for their child, ensuring that 
parents become the premier teachers.
  With this bill we only provide tools, but we still need the 
commitment of the school superintendents and directors back home that 
no child will leave their school without good literacy skills.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens], a long time proponent of reading from his library 
background.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Martinez], and the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Chairman Goodling], and all the others who have 
negotiated this piece of legislation.
  There were some serious differences, and for a moment I thought maybe 
the children of America would be denied this small effort because of 
those differences, and I do not think it is good to do that and wait 
another year while the inaccuracy of the teaching of reading goes 
forward.
  I was shocked to learn that most of the teachers in our schools have 
never been trained to teach reading. There was an article on the New 
York Times editorial page which said the overwhelming majority of 
teachers have never been taught to teach reading and there is a need to 
have some kind of instruction on how to do that. It will improve the 
job.
  So the children who will benefit from this need it now. We cannot 
hesitate and wait. We should go on and do all we can. So this is one 
more small effort to improve education in America.
  It is just that, a small effort. This is like dipping from the lake 
of inadequacy with a teacup. This is a small program. It is $200 
million. It may sound like a lot of money out there, but a nuclear 
submarine costs more than $2 billion.
  If we are really going to deal with the problem of teaching reading, 
we ought to try to make an impact on the schools of education with some 
kind of Federal program in the future. I do not know whether it costs 
as much as a nuclear submarine or not, probably not, but it would 
require a bigger effort than this one.
  This is a good effort. It is a good pilot program, and it ought to go 
forward. It brings in a lot of different elements, all of which I think 
ought to be brought in. Common sense dictates that you should use what 
you have at hand, and this is a good common sense effort.
  But in order to really deal with the problem, I hope that these pilot 
programs and these good common sense efforts are only a prelude to this 
Congress going ahead in the future to deal with the overwhelming 
problem of inadequate and substandard education in America.
  The war against substandard education cannot be fought by some rifle 
corps going out. That helps. This is a little operation where we are 
sending out a few platoons to deal with the problem. We need a real war 
on substandard education.
  A real war means you deal with basic problems, like school 
construction. School construction is a basic problem out there. We need 
$120 billion to deal with the infrastructure of schools all across 
America. Even if you do not get nearly that much, we ought to do better 
than we have done so far.
  To say we are going to teach reading better and make efforts to teach 
reading or to improve technological instruction or provide more 
technology in the schools, when the kids are still up against the 
problem where the boilers are breaking down in the schools and they 
have to go to school and bundle up in order to stay warm, and that does 
not just happen in Washington, D.C., there are a number of schools all 
across America that have problems in terms of heat.
  So we should see this as a wonderful prelude, as an indication that 
the Congress cares. But we are just beginning to deal with the bigger 
problem. We are just beginning to fight the war. These are little 
patrols that we are sending out to reconnoiter, to scout out the 
problem. The problem is much bigger, and beyond this program on 
reading, which is about $200 million, $210 million, we need to have a 
comprehensive approach to education, stimulated and guided by the 
Congress of the United States, despite the fact that the primary 
responsibility for education is at the local level.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, we can provide the leadership, we can provide the 
stimulation. We will never be responsible for education. That is a 
matter for the States, but we can go beyond the 8 percent of education 
expenditures and move on to a more important role in leading the fight 
to really wage a war against substandard education in America. This is 
the beginning, but let us get ready to fight a bigger war next year.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Paul], another important member of our committee.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my 
opposition to the Reading Excellence Act, which creates yet another 
unconstitutional, ineffective, $260 million new Federal education 
program.
  I do not challenge the motivation of those who today bring this bill 
to the floor. The supporters of this bill claim that by passing the 
Reading Excellence Act, the Federal Government will, quote, enable 
every child to learn to read, end of quote.

[[Page H10397]]

  Now, this is certainly a noble goal, but before Congress creates yet 
another Federal program, perhaps we should consider that over the past 
60 years Congress has created a plethora of social programs, each one 
promising to bring to an end all the social ills. These programs have 
not only failed to create the promised utopia, but in many cases 
worsened the very problems they were created to solve.
  Nowhere is the Federal Government's failure to improve the lives of 
the American people through the welfare state more dramatically 
illustrated than in education. In 1963, when Federal spending on 
education was less than $900,000, the average Scholastic Achievement 
Test score was approximately 980. Thirty years later, when Federal 
education spending ballooned to $19 billion, the average score fell to 
902.
  Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of Education 
Progress Survey, only 37 percent of America's 12th graders were 
actually able to read at a 12th grade level. Despite this history of 
failed Federal programs, Congress is once again planning to solve a 
social problem it helped create through an increase in Federal power.
  Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the reason we are considering this 
bill is because the budget agreement, which was supposed to end the era 
of big government, calls for the creation of a Federal literacy 
program. Obviously, the budget does not end big government, but 
preserves and expands unconstitutional State interference in areas 
where the Federal Government has neither legitimacy nor competence.
       Rather than returning money and authority to the States and 
     the people, commensurate with the 10th amendment, this bill 
     creates another complex bureaucratic process, laden with 
     rules, regulations, and State mandates. Under this bill, 
     States receiving a literacy grant must establish a reading 
     and literacy partnership, the markup of which is dictated by 
     the Federal Government. The partnership must then apply for a 
     grant to the Secretary of Education, explaining how they 
     would comply with all of the bill's mandates. The grants are 
     then approved by a Peer Review Panel, a group of experts 
     chosen by the National Institute for Literacy and other 
     federally funded organizations. States receiving grants under 
     this program would then have to distribute those grants to 
     Local Education Agencies [LEA's] who submit a plan to the 
     States' reading and literacy partnership. Among the 
     information that States would be required to submit is a 
     description of how subgrants made by the partnership would 
     achieve the goals of the act, a description of how the 
     partnership would evaluate subgrantees, and a description of 
     how states will guarantee that a portion of the funds will be 
     used to provide tutorial assistance grants.
       Those receiving Federal literacy funds may only use them 
     for federally defined purposes. Thus, this legislation 
     creates another bureaucratized program rooted in pseudo-
     federalism, whereby States have the right to spend money on 
     federally defined goals and within the limitations set by 
     Congress--provided, of course, they jump through all the 
     congressionally constructed Federal hoops.
       Recipients of Federal literacy funds must base their 
     programs on reliable, replicable research, defined as 
     research meeting scientific standards of peer-review. While 
     none question the value of research into various educational 
     methodologies it is doubtful that the best way to teach 
     reading can be totally determined through laboratory 
     experiments. Learning to read is a complex process, involving 
     many variable, not the least of which are the skills and 
     abilities of the individual child. Many effective techniques 
     may not be readily supported by reliable, replicable 
     research. Therefore, this program may end up preventing the 
     use of many effective means of reading instruction. The 
     requirement that recipients of Federal funds use only those 
     reading techniques based on reliable, replicable research, 
     which in practice means those methods approved by the 
     federally funded experts on the Peer Review Panel, ensures 
     that a limited number of reading methodologies will, in 
     essence, be stamped with Federal approval.
       Furthermore, this bill mandates that schools participating 
     in the Federal literacy programs must make available to 
     parents assurance of teacher qualifications. It is probably a 
     good idea that local schools make this information available 
     to parents, but it not the role of the Federal Government to 
     dictate local schools implement everything we in Congress 
     think is a good idea. In addition, this provision seems to 
     have been motivated by a desire to start Congress down the 
     road to establishing a national system to certify teachers.
       Due to the unfortunate influence of the Federal Government, 
     the teaching methodologies funded under this program will 
     become the methodologies used in every classroom in the 
     Nation. Thus, this bill represents another step toward 
     imposing a national curriculum. Supporters of this bill will 
     respond that the Federal Government is merely encouraging the 
     use of sound instructional techniques. Setting aside the 
     question of whether or not techniques based on reliable, 
     replicable research can really lead one to discover the best 
     means of educating children, the Constitution prohibits the 
     Federal Government from any interference in the methodologies 
     by which children are educated. This constitutional 
     prohibition on Federal interference in education contains no 
     exception for techniques based on reliable, replicable, 
     research.
       Mr. Speaker, another indication that this bill will move 
     America toward a national curriculum is that the bill creates 
     a Federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with 
     Federal standards the goal of education.
       Furthermore, the Reading Excellence Act requires each 
     grantee to evaluate the success of their programs. Of course, 
     the most effective way to evaluate the success of the various 
     literacy projects reviewing Federal funds is to administer a 
     uniform test to the students participating in those programs. 
     Thus, despite the overwhelming congressional rejection of 
     national testing just last month, Congress is now considering 
     authorizing the creation of a de facto national reading exam.
       Another reason to oppose this bill is that it increases 
     Federal support for a so-called family literacy services. One 
     of the hallmark of totalitarianism is State-control of child 
     rearing. Despite the language that participation in these 
     programs is voluntary, these programs enable government-
     funded social workers to subtly coerce parents to cede 
     control of their child to the State.
       Mr. Speaker, the Reading Excellence Act represents another 
     unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of States, local 
     communities, and parents to educate children free from 
     Federal interference. It also takes several large steps down 
     the dangerous road toward a national curriculum. Therefore, I 
     urge my colleagues to reject this bill, and instead support 
     measures such as educational tax credit that will empower 
     parents to provide effective literacy instruction for their 
     children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], another important member of the committee, who 
helped turn things around in Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank all of those who worked on this 
legislation.
  I am pleased to see almost near harmony with respect to support of 
this. I cannot imagine anything as important as teaching young people, 
and even older people for that matter, how to read. It is significant, 
be it the simple act of being able to read traffic signs or being able 
just to get around, to reading manuals, to higher education, or the 
simple pleasures of being able to read a book and to escape to some 
fantasy as a result of that reading is one of the tremendous 
necessities and pleasures in the life of anybody in this world, and we 
want our American citizens to be able to do it.
  The President, I think, was on the right track to recognize the power 
and importance of literacy when he announced his literacy initiative, 
but I think his focus was a little bit misguided in terms of having 
volunteers, who are certainly a very important component in 
ascertaining a level of reading in children, but we have to go beyond 
that, I believe. My office indeed has been involved as volunteers in 
the Everybody Wins program, where staff go to Tyler Elementary right up 
the street here and read with their children to whom they are assigned 
once a week, and it makes a huge difference as far as the kids are 
concerned.
  But the problem is more fundamental than trying to get children to 
like reading. It rests in the fact that many children simply cannot 
translate the written word into the spoken word. They lack basic 
decoding and literacy skills. Scarce Federal dollars should be focused 
on the most basic solution to the literacy problem.
  For a problem like this, I think teacher training is imperative. 
Reading teachers need to learn the best methods for teaching reading 
based on reliable, replicable research. By giving children the basic 
building blocks of literacy, learning how to sound out the written 
word, they will be well on their way to becoming literate adults, and 
that is exactly what this legislation does, as has been described 
today.
  Under this bill, States, through reading and literacy programs, will 
compete for literacy grants to use for innovative, in-service reading 
programs for classroom teachers and related reading activities based on 
the best research available, and I cannot think of anything which is 
better to do.
  Instilling in our young people the ability to read is absolute. This 
legislation helps do that, and I am again very

[[Page H10398]]

thankful for all of those who put it together and hope that we all can 
support it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], who worked hard in the State legislature to 
improve education.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise and am pleased to rise in support 
of the Reading Excellence Act. While we are all concerned about new 
Federal programs, the budget agreement set aside $260 million for a new 
literacy program. What we could have had is another feel-good, 
unproven, sounds-good program, the kind of program that has failed our 
children so badly.
  Mr. Speaker, 44 percent of the U.S. students in elementary school do 
not read at a basic level. Thirty-two percent of college graduates also 
have failed to reach this basic level. This may be the most important 
bill that we pass regarding our children and their success in school, 
because what it does, finally and most importantly, is focus on the 
proven ways of teaching children how to read.
  We know today that the latest scientific research shows that 60 to 70 
percent of all children read any way you teach them, but the other 
children need a very systemic, phonics-based approach to reading if 
they are ever going to read and be good readers.
  We furthermore know that science has shown us that children that do 
not read by the end of third grade will always have a bigger struggle 
in reaching that basic level. Their opportunity to be good readers is 
much more difficult if they do not learn to read by the end of third 
grade.
  Reading opens doors and failure to read slams those doors shut. So 
what we need is to make sure that we use the kind of scientifically 
proven method to teach our children, one that has not been in our 
schools so often in the past. This phonics-based approach is what 
teachers will learn as a result of this funding. We will also give 
parents the opportunity to provide tutorial service for their children, 
their choice based on the most recommended types of tutoring and 
reading approach.
  It also endorses family literacy, so we are giving our children an 
opportunity to go to schools that teach the right kind of reading and 
parents who can help those children in the same way. I support this 
bill.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
say that everybody has said repeatedly that reading is so important to 
our way of life, even the basics for reading to fill out an application 
for employment, or reading instructions for toys that we put together 
for our children. Yet I have seen in my lifetime so many people that 
have even graduated from high school that have been functionally 
illiterate. Anything that we can do to improve the ability for children 
to read at an early age and to go on to higher education and better 
themselves by learning to read and read well is something that we have 
done that is worthwhile.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we be careful when we 
say that we wish schools the way they were when we were kids. But we 
have to understand, schools must be much better than they were when we 
were children. Why? Because we are in the 21st century.
  When I went to a two-room, eighth grade elementary school, most 
children did not go beyond eighth grade. They went on to work. Many 
were not very literate. They did not have to be. It was easy to get a 
job, it was easy to support a family. They did not have to be as 
literate as they must be today.
  So what we have tried to do with this legislation is take the mandate 
from the budget agreement and see whether we could create something 
that would give teachers the opportunity to be the best reading 
teachers there are; to give parents an opportunity to be the child's 
first and most important teacher; to make sure children do not fail or 
get socially promoted in first grade.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a small program to improve the existing program. 
We are not out there trying to create some magnificent program that 
will end all illiteracy in this country. We are trying to make all of 
our programs better programs so that every child has an opportunity for 
quality education. They must have it if we are going to succeed in a 
very competitive 21st century. We cannot have 40 percent of our 
children unable to read properly.
  Reading readiness, reading skills. At one time one was literate if 
one could read at a sixth grade level. Now one is functionally 
illiterate if one cannot read and comprehend at the twelfth grade 
level. The only thing I want from the old schools is discipline. 
Everything else I want to be better.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, the Reading Excellence 
Act, which would authorize the Education Department to make grants to 
State reading and literacy partnerships.
  Under the bill a State's reading and literacy partnership would 
consist of the Governor and chief State school officer, the chairmen 
and ranking members of each State legislative committee with 
jurisdiction over education, and a representative of a school district 
with at least one school in a title I school improvement program.
  While the bill will allow State partnerships they must include in 
their applications an assurance that they would give subgrants only to 
those school districts that have family literacy programs based on Even 
Start, implement programs to assist kindergarten students who are not 
ready to make the transition to first grade, use supervised individuals 
to provide additional support before and after school and during the 
summer, and have a professional development program for the teaching of 
reading. Most important, the bill would require applications to 
describe how the state would send 95% of its funds to the local level.
  The bill requires that State partnerships make subgrants on a 
competitive basis to school districts that have more than one school in 
a title I school improvement program.
  This bill will be good for the children of Houston and good for the 
State of Texas because it will help to focus resources on the critical 
area of literacy and reading.
  Reading is the most fundamental of skills that all children must 
master in order to do well in all subjects. I am a strong supporter of 
education, and feel that this measure will offer greater incentives to 
States and school districts to strengthen and develop reading programs. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coble). All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] that the House suspend the rules and pass 
the bill, H.R. 2614, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________