[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7521-H7529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3892, ENGLISH LANGUAGE FLUENCY ACT

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 516 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 516

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3892) to amend the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to establish a program to help children 
     and youth learn English, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to 
     exceed three hours and, thereafter, as provided in section 2 
     of this resolution. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Before 
     consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to 
     consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record 
     and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, if offered 
     by Representative Riggs of California or his designee. That 
     amendment shall be considered as read, be debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole. If that amendment is 
     adopted, the provisions of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute as then perfected shall be considered as original 
     text for the purpose of further amendment under the five-
     minute rule. After disposition of the amendment numbered 1, 
     it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of 
     rule XXIII, if offered by Representative Riggs of California 
     or his designee, which shall be considered as read. That 
     amendment and all amendments thereto shall be debatable for 
     30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent. During consideration of the bill

[[Page H7522]]

     for further amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. The chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After consideration of the bill for amendment under 
     the five minute rule for three hours pursuant to the first 
     section of this resolution, no further amendment to the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as 
     original text shall be in order except those printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Each further amendment may 
     be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or 
     a designee and shall be considered as read. Each further 
     amendment and all amendments thereto shall be debatable for 
     10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent.

                              {time}  1330

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time 
yielded is for the purposes of debate on this issue only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and appropriate modified open rule. The 
rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. The rule also provides a 3-hour time period for amendments, 
after which amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record may also 
be offered and debated for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The rule provides for consideration of a manager's amendment if 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), the chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  Finally, the rule provides for a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  This rule provides ample opportunity for debate and amendment on this 
very important issue. There were no minority amendments, I am told, 
offered during committee consideration. The ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), testified to our Rules 
Committee that he had no intention of offering any amendments to the 
bill. In fact, the Rules Committee received only two amendments, both 
offered by the chairman of the subcommittee, the aforementioned 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  Despite these clear considerations that interest in amending this 
bill is limited, the rule provides for 3 hours for amendments and even 
allows amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record to be offered 
after that time period of 3 hours has expired.
  Given the very real time constraints we encounter in this body as we 
approach sine die adjournment, I think this is a very reasonable, 
appropriate and fair rule, and those who wish to take advantage of this 
subject certainly have ample opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, in some situations, bilingual education in our public 
schools has served its purpose very well. However, many of the current 
bilingual programs have not worked as well as we had hoped, both in 
teaching students our common language and in providing quality academic 
instructions, and this is a fact.
  H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act, block grants funds to 
States with the assurance that all local districts needing bilingual 
education programs will receive adequate funding.
  This is an extremely important breakthrough. It then gives districts 
the flexibility to choose programs that work. As the chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), correctly noted in his 
Rules testimony, and I quote, flexibility is the name of the game.
  H.R. 3892 requires that parents consent to their children being 
placed in a bilingual program and allows parents to choose the type of 
instructional method their child will use, if more than one method is 
in fact available.
  A weakness of the current system is that too often parents are simply 
ignored during this process. H.R. 3892 addresses that problem head on 
by putting parents in the driver's seat once again. I think it is 
something that will be welcome news to parents.
  Another very real problem in my district and throughout the Nation is 
that bilingual programs are becoming a way of life rather than a swift 
and certain transition process.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that students are making a quick 
transition into society, including the mastery of the English language, 
H.R. 3892 would require that federally funded bilingual programs aim to 
achieve English fluency within 2 years and would end Federal funding 
after 3.
  Finally, H.R. 3892 recognizes that the money should follow the 
children. Under a new funding formula, States like Florida and 
California with a disproportionate number of children with bilingual 
needs would receive a larger share of the pie. That is where the 
problem is; that is where the money should go.
  Mr. Speaker, the answers to our education problems do not reside in 
Washington, D.C. Instead of further empowering the D.C. education 
bureaucracy, we ought to be giving localities and parents the ability 
to choose successful bilingual programs. Our goal should be a smoother 
transition into American society for all children, and I think this 
legislation makes great strides in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is scheduled to adjourn in less than a month 
and in that time we have important business to conduct, business that 
will require the cooperation of both parties. At the very least, we 
must finish appropriations bills, bills which are themselves 
complicated and contentious. Yet, today, the majority has chosen to 
bring before the House divisive legislation that will do nothing to 
advance the agenda that the Congress must address before we adjourn 
next month.
  What this legislation does advance, however, is a misguided political 
agenda. This is an agenda that attempts to get rid of the Department of 
Education. The so-called English Language Fluency Act tramples on the 
rights of school children and their rights to an education that will 
allow them to become productive citizens of this country.
  I should point out to my colleagues that the Republican governor of 
Texas, George W. Bush, recently addressed the National Convention of 
the League of United Latin American Citizens in advocating reviewing 
and repairing the bilingual education programs, rather than ending 
them, as this bill would do.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill guts bilingual programs that have been 
designed to meet the needs and the rights of students. Let me read from 
the minority views in the report to accompany H.R. 3892. Those views 
state, and I quote: ``The language in H.R. 3892 which voids all the 
voluntary Compliance Agreements entered into by the Department of 
Education, the Office of Civil Rights and local school districts . . . 
is an unprecedented and shameful effort to gut enforcement of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 as it applies to the education of language to 
minority students.''
  Those compliance agreements do not dictate how school districts 
design their bilingual education. Rather, Mr. Speaker, they are 
voluntary agreements reached with the Office of Civil Rights that 
ensure that school districts implement bilingual education instruction 
which results in the academic success of students with limited

[[Page H7523]]

English. Compliance agreements and the programs implemented under them 
seek to ensure that children can learn not just English, but that they 
can learn in English. That is an important distinction that I fear many 
of my colleagues might have missed.
  By missing that distinction in the writing of this legislation, the 
effect of H.R. 3892 is to deny access to the best education that we can 
offer school children who are not yet English-language proficient. To 
do so is to deny over 3 million children access to the kind of 
education that they need in order to achieve social and economic 
success in America.
  Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has established that it is a civil 
right for language-minority children to receive meaningful instruction 
that will allow them to fully participate in school. Much of that 
assurance has come since the decision in Lau v. Nichols, in the 
voluntary, yes, voluntary, Mr. Speaker, agreements that the school 
districts have reached with the Office of Civil Rights. Summarily 
dismantling those agreements may serve a political interest, but it is 
not in the interest of a single child.
  Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill 
and rise in opposition to this rule simply because it provides for the 
consideration of this ill-considered and discriminatory legislation. In 
addition, Mr. Speaker, there are many groups who oppose this bill. 
Among them are the American Association of University Women, the 
Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Association of 
Elementary School Principals, the National Parent-Teachers Association, 
the National School Boards Association, the Mexican-American Legal 
Defense Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights; and I might add, Mr. Speaker, countless 
thousands of parents who want only the best, perhaps a part of the 
American dream, for their children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, one of America's enduring strengths has always been its 
ability to embrace new people, new cultures, and new ideas. Part of our 
success in this has been the readiness of public schools to tackle the 
challenge of teaching children from all over the world.
  Let me be very clear. We all want and we expect every new American to 
learn English and to learn it quickly. The question is, how do we best 
accomplish that.
  Bilingual education is a vital teaching tool in this process, a means 
of communicating with students so that they can learn as much as they 
can as quickly as they can and integrate themselves into American 
society. Bilingual education is just that: bilingual. It does not mean 
that students do not learn English. Rather, they learn English while 
keeping up on all of their other subjects as well.
  Now, this proven method of instruction has made an immeasurable 
difference, made a big difference in the lives of thousands and 
thousands of students, many of whom have gone on to become doctors and 
lawyers and teachers and members of the legislature and even the 
Congress.
  So, in short, it works. But this Republican bill seeks to end 
bilingual education. It undermines established standards, and it 
actually, it actually imposes Federal mandates on local school 
districts, overriding local school education.
  This Republican bill is a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated 
problem. It strips the local school districts of autonomy and the 
flexibility that has always been theirs. In short, it is a bad idea. It 
is bad for education. It sends the wrong message to the diverse and 
talented school children that go to school every day in this country 
eager to learn.
  So I rise, Mr. Speaker, to encourage my colleagues to oppose H.R. 
3892. It is a bad bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, just so I 
can clarify a point he just made, because I am very astounded to hear 
the gentleman say that our proposed reforms constitute a one-size-fits-
all mandate imposed on State and local education agencies.
  My question to the gentleman, whom I thank for yielding, is does he 
realize that under current Federal law, 75 percent of all Federal 
taxpayer funding for bilingual education instruction must go for native 
language instruction and does not that constitute a one-size-fits-all 
mandate with respect to 75 percent of the funding?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez), my friend, to help answer that question.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that is not the 
case. In fact, there are some beautiful programs that are labeled 
bilingual. One of them is dual-language instruction that allows non-
English speaking youngsters to be able to participate and be able to 
enhance their language and learn other languages also.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I thought he did an outstanding job in describing the rule under 
which this bill is brought to the House floor today.
  Let me agree with the gentleman from Florida when he describes the 
rule as being somewhat complex, but fair. My colleagues will note that 
members of the Democratic minority have an opportunity to offer, I 
think, all of the substantive policy amendments that they requested be 
made in order through the Committee on Rules, number 1; and number 2, 
there is equal balance in amendments that are made in order under the 
rule. So let me turn my attention to the actual underlying legislation 
for just a moment.
  Let me say that my friend from Texas, who was recognized a moment ago 
by the minority whip, is right when he says that a number and a variety 
of programs can be funded with Federal taxpayer funding under current 
law. But he ignored the fundamental point that I was making, which is 
that the mandate in current law that requires that 75 percent of 
Federal taxpayer funding go for native language instruction.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps when I have more time, although I 
would be happy to truly have a bipartisan debate across the center 
aisle, or the partisan aisle.
  That mandate is embedded in current law, and what we are trying to do 
now by proposing reforms to the Federal Bilingual and Immigration 
Education Acts is to give local school districts more say, more 
flexibility, more discretion, more control in determining the bilingual 
instruction program, the bilingual instruction method that they feel is 
appropriate for children in that local community.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas on that point.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, by doing that, 
in restricting it to 2 years, how is he allowing that to occur when he 
is actually telling the individuals in the districts they can only 
offer it for 2 years, when there is no pedagogical basis, educational 
rationale? And we all recognize that the research says that you have to 
have a minimum of 7 years before you even grasp a language. In fact, 
all educators would disagree with the gentleman, that there is no 
reason whatsoever for limiting it for 2 years.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the 
gentleman's very legitimate and I think sincere question by saying, 
first of all, it is the goal of the legislation to move all limited or 
non-English-speaking children, what we call under the bill ``English 
language learners,'' to English proficiency in 2 years. That is the 
overarching goal.
  We really do believe that a child who enters the public schools 
should be able to read and write well in English, the official and 
commercial language of our country. That is the goal. However, the 
funding limitation in the bill is 3 years.

[[Page H7524]]

  Furthermore, I would be happy, and I think the chairman of the full 
committee would be happy, to consider allowing a case-by-case exception 
to that, so that under exigent circumstances that 3-year funding 
limitation could be extended.
  Let me make one other point, which is, despite the fact we have a 3-
year funding limitation under our bill with respect to the Federal 
programs, there is nothing, of course, in our bill that prevents State 
and local school districts from using State and local taxpayer funding 
to continue the education of a non- or limited-English speaking student 
beyond the 3-year limitation contained in our bill. It only applies 
with respect to Federal taxpayer funding.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
what rationale did the gentleman use to limit it to 2 and 3? Because it 
was not educational at all.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, yes, it in fact was. We heard expert 
testimony. I realize that people can differ. My response to this is we 
heard from many people who are concerned about the fact that our 
limited or non-English speaking students languish too long in native 
language instruction programs, in native language instruction 
classrooms, and that that may be a contributing factor to the 
unacceptably high dropout rate on the part of Hispanic American 
students. That is why we are attempting to address this concern with 
this legislation here and now.
  I will further discuss later today a poll that just came out within 
the last few days, and this is a newspaper article dated August 26, 
that found that 88 percent, and I want to get the exact number here, 88 
percent of immigrant children questioned preferred speaking English, 
and they are eager to embrace English and eager to make the transition 
to English proficiency and English fluency at the earliest possible 
date. I would argue that is the real key to their future academic and 
professional success in their adult lives.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman 
from New York, and let me acknowledge that I would like to listen to 
those 88 percent that my colleague has just announced to America; 
absolutely, who would say less? Americans, people who come to America, 
desire to be like Americans and they desire to speak English. What a 
ludicrous citation. But what this legislation does, it does not enhance 
that little one's opportunity to speak English, it detracts and denies. 
This legislation and the rule I oppose and the bill I oppose is 
accusatory, it is slanted, it is stigmatizing, and it undermines the 
premise of local control for school districts to educate our children.
  We would not go anywhere in America and find people disagreeing with 
understanding and speaking and reading English, but in fact, there is 
something else to do. It is educating our children.
  This bill jeopardizes our mission, number one, for all providers of 
primary education to give children a well-rounded education that will 
prepare them for life as adults. By forcing these children to focus all 
of their efforts on learning English, these immigrants will fall far 
behind in math and science, so someone can read but they cannot balance 
their checkbook.
  By imposing a national and unitary standard, we automatically assume 
that every immigrant child in this country will learn English in the 
exact same way. If we still want this Nation to maintain the goal of 
giving every child an opportunity, we must have an individualized 
approach.
  My school district in Houston has a predominantly Hispanic 
population. We have been cited throughout the State for having the 
highest performance in reading. That is because we understand, as 
educators and community, to leave education to educators who will help 
those children learn English, and my God, can Members believe it, be 
bilingual.
  That is the insult of this bill, it denigrates what we have done in 
our own States. I would say that this is a bad rule, this is a bad 
bill, and it stigmatizes Americans, which we should not do.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the adoption of this bill, which 
changes the way that English is taught in schools throughout this 
country.
  I oppose this bill because I fear that it will do substantially more 
harm than good. H.R. 3892 does nothing to improve education, and in 
fact, potentially hurts those people that it is supposed to help, 
children.
  This bill places in jeopardy what should be ``mission-1'' for all 
providers of primary education--to give children a well-rounded 
education that will prepare them for life as adults. By forcing these 
children to focus all of their efforts on learning English, these 
immigrants will fall far behind in other important areas of 
development, such as math and science.
  Currently, bilingual education programs are geared to teach immigrant 
children English, while at the same time making sure that they continue 
to improve in other academic areas. If this bill succeeds, we are 
potentially creating a substantial population of adults who may speak 
English well, but cannot balance their checkbooks. We must remember, 
language is but one of the skills necessary for people to survive in 
this world.
  I am also opposed to this bill because it voids all of the ``consent 
decrees'' entered into by local schools, parents, and the Department of 
Education without adequate deliberation. These consent decrees have 
been carefully crafted by the proper authorities, with exacting and 
careful scrutiny, to meet the needs of these children, and to force 
compliance with our federal Civil Rights laws. We should not void them 
with the haste with which we are moving.
  This bill is also deficient because it imposes a national standard 
where regional ones would be preferable. Language patterns in this 
country differ from region to region, and some languages have more in 
common with English than others. It is fundamentally impossible to 
paint a portrait of language in America, which requires delicate and 
careful strokes, with the clumsy and broad brush utilized by H.R. 3892.
  By imposing a national and unitary standard, we automatically assume 
that every immigrant child in this country will be able to learn 
English in the same, limited amount of time. If we still want to 
maintain the goal of giving every child in this nation the 
individualized attention that they require to succeed in this world, 
then we ought to move away from hardline standards. We should instead 
allow our state and local governments to determine the most suitable 
language education policy for their needs.
  Furthermore, not only must we reject this bill because it takes 
decision-making authority from local and state governments, but also 
because it takes discretion and choice away from the parents who send 
their children to school. If this bill is passed, parents no longer can 
select the manner in which their children will learn English. It is 
wholly inappropriate for the federal government to interject itself 
into the midst of what is essentially a family decision, and usurp 
parental authority, in order to control the manner in which a child 
should learn English.
  Parents should be able to choose to enroll their children in some of 
the new, innovative language programs that are being conducted across 
the United States. For instance, in both California and Texas, some 
school districts have instituted voluntary ``two-way language 
immersion'' programs, which aim to teach children, regardless of their 
background, both Spanish and English as they make their way through 
school. These programs produce young children, fully fluent in two 
languages by the time they leave elementary school. We should not 
endanger these special programs, especially in light of the successes 
that they have already managed to achieve.
  I strongly urge all of you to vote no on this bill, and protect our 
states, our parents, and most importantly, our children, from this 
terrible government intrusion.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the 
distinguished chairman.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I think I understood the gentlewoman 
correctly, and if I did, it was a total misinterpretation of the 
language that is in this bill. I thought she said that this legislation 
undermines the local school district's ability to teach our children.
  This legislation does positively just the opposite. This legislation 
gives that local school district the opportunity to determine how they 
transition a student. Instead of Washington, D.C. saying for all these 
years that there is only one way to do it, it took us 10 years to ever 
get the 25 percent. The gentleman from Texas was able to move that 
legislation. He is no longer a member of the Congress, he later became 
a mayor. But nevertheless, it

[[Page H7525]]

took us all that time just to get people to understand that there is 
more than one way, there is more than one way in order to transition 
students.
  Our whole goal is to make sure there is a quality education for every 
child. I want to make one other statement. We are not talking about 
Hispanic legislation today. Let us get that in our minds and keep it 
there. We are talking about 100-and-some languages in the city of 
Chicago, we are talking about 100-and-some languages in Virginia, right 
across the river. That is what we are talking about. So let us try to 
think about what is in the best interests of getting a quality 
education to every child. And who knows better than anybody? The local 
school district.
  There are so few people that participate in this program now, we want 
to make sure, first of all, that more may participate if they wish; but 
secondly, we want to make sure that they have the flexibility to do it 
so they can accomplish a quality education for every child.
  One size does not fit all, coming from Washington, D.C. I could not 
believe it when I heard what the whip, the minority whip, said, that we 
were trying to give a one-size from Washington. That is what we are 
trying to get away from once and for all.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Do not be fooled by the arguments of the proponents of this 
legislation, I say to the Members. This legislation does everything but 
provide an opportunity to learn. It begins to provide some restrictions 
to the local districts. They have those options to provide those 
opportunities.
  Yes, my colleague is correct in saying that the bilingual programs 
that are out there are a variety of different types of programs. There 
are some beautiful programs that are there. I mentioned earlier the 
dual program approach, where it takes a mono-English child, and be able 
to participate with the mono-English speaking child in the same way, 
and they will be able to learn together and go forward.
  This particular proposal, the only thing it does, it cuts and does 
not allow them to go beyond the 2-year period. That is restrictive. I 
do not know what they call it, but that is a government law that they 
want to pass that will restrict the local option for them to be able to 
go forward and be able to do the things that they are doing now.
  I also would mention that the Governor of Texas has recognized the 
beauty of the bilingual program. At a time when we have the global 
economy, at a time when we are asking our youngsters in high school to 
have three to four different years so they will be able to learn a 
different language, we are now saying no, we are going to limit it to 
2?
  Let me ask the public, if they want to learn a language, do they 
think they can learn it in 2 years? No. Even the people, the educators, 
tell us that a minimum of 7 years is required to be able to grasp the 
language and be able to understand it. So that opportunity needs to be 
there for all Americans to be able to pick up, especially those 
youngsters as they move on in our particular schools.
  This particular legislation, all it is is to restrict, and what I 
see, there is no logic to it. It is based on ignorance and apparently 
it is based on political motivations; also, in terms of racist 
attitudes, because it hits this, applying it just because of the 
elections that are coming up in November. That is the reality. It is 
not based on any kind of educational soundness.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I merely wanted to ask the previous speaker, when he was saying, as I 
have heard him say on several occasions, that bilingual education is a 
beautiful program, I agree with that, but is the gentleman saying that 
the only beautiful bilingual program is transitional bilingual 
education? Is that the only beautiful one?
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. I am not saying that. In fact, if the gentleman 
heard me well, I am talking about the dual language instruction program 
that is a beautiful bilingual approach, where it also brings in the 
monolingual English-speaking child. That is part of that program. It is 
a beautiful program.
  Mr. GOODLING. That is exactly what we are saying here. Taking back my 
time, what we are saying here is that they can design those programs 
locally. All we are saying here is do not say that we have to use a 
transitional bilingual education or we do not get help, because they 
have better programs.
  I agree with the gentleman, there are beautiful bilingual programs 
out there. Let us give the local school district the opportunity to 
choose those that they want to use.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, I 
ask Members to vote no.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise not only in opposition to the bill, but also I am 
concerned a little bit about the rule, even though it is fairly 
flexible. I rise in opposition to the English Language Fluency Act 
because the bill makes bilingual education a political issue.
  It seems to me that my colleagues on the Republican side have 
forgotten children should not be a political issue. The English 
Language Fluency Act is not only an assault on bilingual education, but 
it is an attack on the very openness and broadness that we have come to 
value in our country.
  We have all come from somewhere. I am proud of my heritage, just like 
everyone is proud of theirs. We all come from somewhere. Bilingual 
education was designed on a national basis but enhanced by our local 
and State governments to provide for that diversity. It is our duty as 
Americans to make sure our children are educated, and our educational 
systems must be designed to provide for America's diverse population. 
This bill would make successful education impossible without destroying 
bilingual education. It is something our country simply cannot afford.
  Let me talk from a Texas perspective, because the State of Texas has 
provided, since 1973, more money for bilingual education on the State 
level. We would like to be able to set our own standards, not 2 years 
or maybe an extra third year. Why should Washington know what the State 
of Texas or the city of Houston is already doing in our school 
districts? That is what is wrong with this bill.
  The concern I have is that it is a political issue set up for this 
November 3 election. This bill will not see the light of day in the 
U.S. Senate after the vote of today.
  Let me give some background. I grew up in the city of Houston, went 
to a majority Hispanic high school in the sixties, before we had a 
Federal bilingual program or a State program. I watched when students 
would come in to my high school when I was 16 and 17 years old and try 
to immerse. Those students did not stay more than a day or two. They 
dropped out, and that is why bilingual education is needed. It is a 
transition program, and it is important.
  I strongly support bilingual education because it is an essential, 
transitional tool that allows students to become fluent in English 
while they progress in subjects like math and science. Eliminating 
bilingual education would create a society with no mechanism to 
integrate new citizens into reading and writing English.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the bill.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on either 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

[[Page H7526]]

  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, for some reason everybody is afraid to 
speak what they really feel. I am not opposed to all of the languages 
and the different ethnic heritages in our Nation, but I support the 
English language as our official language.
  We are all immigrants. Some came with knapsacks on their backs. Some 
came in the belly of slave ships. Black, white, Christian, Jew, we all 
have one thing in common. We are all Americans. And the glue that binds 
us together is our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our language. 
The English language.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems every time we have this debate, it is muddied 
with the politics of fear. The politics of separation. The politics of 
division. The politics of hate. The politics of ethnicity. One Nation 
under God. One Nation, not separate communities. Congress should ensure 
that America is a nation of one people, not separate communities, and 
we do that by fortifying our language.
  Mr. Speaker, I support English as the official language. So be it. 
And I advise the Congress to look at it in that vein and remove the 
politics.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate at this late date in the year when we 
have not yet had one of the 13 appropriations bills that must be passed 
in order for this government to function go through the process and 
when we still have not been able to deal with all of the significant 
national legislation that is before us, to find ourselves debating a 
bill that never got an appropriate amount of time to be heard, were 
never given an opportunity to bring on those who are experts in the 
area of bilingual education to testify, and never, never gave the 
minority in the House of Representatives the opportunity to participate 
in the drafting of this legislation.
  This is a bill which affects Title 7 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 4 months 
is going to go through a total reauthorization, a revamping. Why, when 
that is 4 months from now, are we plucking out only one of the titles 
in that most important of bills that deals with education at the 
Federal level? We could only guess why. But to do it at a time when we 
are only 8 weeks away from an election, to do it at a time when there 
was an election in California in June that dealt with, in part, this 
issue of bilingual education leads a lot of us to be suspicious.
  Mr. Speaker, why not have a full and fair opportunity to really air 
the issue of bilingual education? If my Republican colleagues really 
believe that we can make some changes that are meaningful, then let us 
discuss them. There is no reason why we cannot make changes, but let us 
do them in a way that will not impact negatively the 3.2 million 
children in America that are limited-English proficient and are 
yearning to learn English.
  Mr. Speaker, as the poll we cited a moment ago showed, 88 percent of 
immigrant persons are who not yet proficient in English would love to 
learn it. Of course they would. Who would not want to be able to go to 
the playground and play with his or her peers? That is not the point. 
The point is to make those resources available to teach these kids. 
This bill does none of that.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does none of that. If we were truly trying to 
address the issues of educating our kids, and in this case the millions 
of our children who are yearning to learn English, we would not do this 
in a rushed way and we would not do it in a way that takes away the 
control that local districts have right now in how they educate their 
kids.
  Certainly, if there was a sincere effort to do this, we certainly 
would not undo the 288 different consent decrees that we have across 
the Nation where school districts have come together with the Office of 
Civil Rights and the Department of Education and said, ``You are right. 
There is evidence that we were not properly educating children who are 
not English proficient. And you are right, we should do something and 
we agree voluntarily to do something.''
  Mr. Speaker, they entered into consent decrees, written and now 
enforceable, that say that these districts will do certain things. Now, 
for this legislation to say all of those consent decrees voluntarily 
entered into by all of those school districts are null and void is 
shameful. Because what is to say that those of us here in Washington, 
D.C., know better than the folks that are in those 288 school 
districts, or any of the school districts in our Nation that have 
decided how best to educate their kids? It is unfortunate that my 
Republican colleagues have decided to completely take away that local 
control from those school districts to make those important decisions.
  There is every opportunity for us to have meaningful debates on 
bilingual education, the merits, demerits, the same as we should have 
debates on public education, private education. But to say that because 
we have one single hearing in this body here in Washington, D.C., where 
only one of the witnesses, except for the two Members of Congress, one 
Member of Congress opposed to bilingual education, one Member 
supporting bilingual education, but all the other so-called expert 
witnesses, 11 witnesses, only one could speak on behalf of bilingual 
education, that is not meaningful. That is why procedurally we should 
defeat this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act. Pure and 
simple, this bill is riddled with problems and does little in the way 
of promoting English fluency.
  In my home State of Texas, there are almost half a million limited-
English proficient children. Across the country, there are close to 3.5 
million LEP students. What H.R. 3892 will do is severely hurt these 
millions of children who are well on their way to learning English. Let 
me tell my colleagues why.
  Under the pretext of parental choice and flexibility, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs) introduced H.R. 3892 on April 1, 1998 and 
scheduled a hearing on the bill 1 month later. Oddly enough, and I am a 
member of that committee, the panel of invited witnesses included only 
one individual who opposed the Riggs bill; a school superintendent from 
my own home State of Texas. The other eight witnesses the gentleman 
invited to testify included English-only proponents such as English 
First and the Center for Equal Opportunity.
  After the hearing, the gentleman from California, my friend, 
substituted his initial bill for another H.R. 3892 which contains 
numerous flaws. Let me count them for my colleagues.
  Problem number one: H.R. 3892 effectively eliminates Federal support 
to prepare, recruit and train qualified teachers to teach language-
minority students.
  Problem number two: This bill lowers standards and expectations for 
our limited-English proficient students. H.R. 3892 emphasizes mastering 
English as quickly as possible at the expense of academic and 
analytical skills. Under the gentleman's bill, schools would be 
required to focus solely on teaching LEP students to learn English. 
What about the essentials of the art of learning?
  Problem number 3: H.R. 3892 repeals the Immigrant Education Act and 
replaces it with a loosely structured block grant to States based on 
the number of LEP immigrant children in their State. Under this 
proposal, needy school districts will receive even less money, as the 
bill does not require States to distribute funds in accordance with 
need nor merit.
  Problem number 4: The bill violates the civil rights of language-
minority children. Under this bill, Congress would void all past and 
current voluntary compliance agreements regarding bilingual education 
entered into by local schools, parents, children, and the Department of 
Education without even contacting the parties involved or reviewing 
individual agreements.
  Problem number 5: This bill infringes on the ability of local schools 
to make critical decisions on appropriate curriculum and assessments.

[[Page H7527]]

  Mr. Speaker, there are many more problems with this bill. For 
purposes of time, I will not elaborate.
  In conclusion, I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote against this 
hastily drafted bill. Let us wait until next year when we do the 
reauthorization of K-12, and let us do it through the due process so we 
can bring in experts from throughout the country, that we can have 
field hearings and really do what is best for children. Because 
children can learn the art of learning in any language, be it English, 
German, Polish, Italian, whatever the language. But they need to hear 
it in a language that they can understand the teacher. We want the 
process to be followed and that the reauthorization be given this 
legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Torres).
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my strong opposition to H.R. 3892. This 
bill is simply shortsighted. It is politically motivated. It is a form 
of legislation to outlaw any form of bilingual education.
  I am sure that the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) hopes to 
restrict funding that would assist students as they transition to 
English fluency while simultaneously developing their learning skills. 
This anti-bilingual education legislation follows a misguided, poorly 
developed trend in my own home State of California.
  Currently, a barrage of lawsuits and appeals have been filed in 
California to challenge the civil rights violations of the recently 
passed Proposition 227. This is not a wise direction for Congress to 
take until the courts and the States sort out who has emerged as a very 
serious violation of rights.
  There is no doubt about it. There appears to be an anti-immigrant 
movement in this body, and the English-only movement appears to be the 
primary vehicle. This sentiment is not only un-American, it strikes at 
the core of cultural diversity that enriches our society. And I firmly 
stand opposed to any attempts to legislate English as our official 
language or to eliminate bilingual education programs.
  English, my colleagues, is already the official language of the 
United States. There is no other language other than English. But 
bilingualism is a resource in our global economy. And I, as a person, 
have traveled and lived in the world and my experiences have been 
enriched by my ability to communicate in other languages.
  Just like other educational programs, bilingual education works only 
if it is properly implemented. A quote from the New York Times on April 
30 regarding the California proposition states that, ``replacing bad 
programs with a plan to destroy good programs makes no sense. (And the 
plan to eliminate bilingual education) . . . will not help bilingual 
students enter the mainstream any quicker.''
  Education must be the number one domestic policy to prepare America's 
children for the 21st century. Bilingual education must be available to 
meet the demands of the fastest growing ethnic group in the country.
  One of the greatest problems for our children is the shortage of 
skilled bilingual education teachers. The opportunity to improve 
bilingual education must focus on teacher recruitment and professional 
development. That is a goal that I and my colleagues will pursue. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this terrible legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter ) that since my last statement on this fact we 
have had a speaker come forward and ask to speak for a minute. I 
wanted, in the interest of fair play, to advise her.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, as I tried to point out earlier, we are 
not talking about a language, we are talking about more than 100 
languages.
  I would like to also point out at this particular time we are talking 
in this language about 583 grants. There are 16,000 school districts in 
this country, public school districts. There are 110,000 schools. We 
are talking about 583 grants, many of which do not even go to school 
systems. They go to other organizations.
  So let us keep all of this in perspective. Most of the help that goes 
to LEP children comes from Title I, not from this program, from Title 
I.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because 
I feel that it undermines the efforts that have been made in the past 
to provide this special service to LEP children. The chair of the 
subcommittee says that a great deal of assistance is already provided 
under Title I for limited-English proficient children. That is probably 
true.
  But this is a special program which really stemmed from a lawsuit, 
the Lau v. Nichols lawsuit, which said that children cannot be expected 
to be able to have equal educational opportunity unless they understood 
the message that was being transmitted to them in a classroom; and if 
that language that was being used in the classroom was something they 
could not understand, then how could they be educated?
  The thing that offends me the most about this legislation is the 
nullification of all of the consent decrees which have been put in 
place from hundreds of school districts in order to make sure that 
these children from limited-English backgrounds do, in fact, have in 
place these special programs.
  It seems to me that this Congress is being asked in this bill 
absolutely extraordinary intervention, not only in a judicial decision, 
but in the ability of the local school districts to implement the 
requirements in those consent decrees. I do not believe that that is 
our business, nor should we be exercising any jurisdiction or authority 
in this regard.
  The second thing that I find very offensive is the idea that ``one 
size fits all'' in that we have the wisdom to make a determination that 
a 2-year time limit is all that the program is to have. I do not think 
that takes into account some of the very, very difficult language 
situations that are confronted by many of our school districts.
  I have a very large number of children that need this special 
assistance. So I urge this House to vote down this bill as not being 
one which properly subscribes to the idea of equal educational 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1892, the 
English Language Fluency Act, which will undermine current efforts to 
provide bilingual education services to limited English proficient 
children.
  The bill imposes an arbitrary time-limit for federal bilingual 
education assistance of two years. Proponents of this legislation 
clearly do not understand the nature of learning. Children learn at 
different speeds. To expect a child whose first language is not English 
to be able to understand scientific and mathematical terms after only 
one or two years of English is not realistic.
  This arbitrary time limit will force local programs to utilize one 
particular instructional method--English Immersion. This takes away 
control from the local school system, administrators and teachers to 
decide what form of English instruction is best for a particular school 
system or a particular child.
  The Majority has constantly preached the idea of local control of 
education, yet we have a bill before us that takes away local control 
and imposes strict federal requirements for bilingual education. There 
is no evidence that the English Immersion method is any better than 
other bilingual education methods. What is best may differ from 
community to community or from student to student. That is why we have 
always stood for local control over curriculum and teaching methods.
  The bill does further damage to the current bilingual system, by 
eliminating the professional development program. One of the greatest 
needs in our schools are qualified, trained bilingual teachers. Many 
school systems have to deal with a myriad of languages. Having 
qualified teachers who can teach children who speak Spanish, Chinese, 
Vietnamese, Hmong, Filipino, Thai, Malaysian is essential to the future 
academic success of children who speak these languages. Teachers with 
knowledge of a student's native language can help that student make 
significant progress in learning English and in other academic areas. 
The professional development

[[Page H7528]]

program helps to train speakers of foreign languages and others to 
teach bilingual education. But under this bill federal support for this 
important purpose will be eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, I also oppose this legislation because it makes a 
significant change in the way programs are funded. The block grant 
structure of the bill ignores the fact that children who need bilingual 
education services are concentrated in certain areas of this country. 
Under current law, school districts in areas with high concentrations 
of bilingual students are able to apply directly to the U.S. Department 
of Education for bilingual education funds under a competitive grant 
program. Under the Riggs bill the funds will be distributed to each 
state based on the number of LEP children in each state. This structure 
diffuses the impact of limited federal dollars for this purpose.
  Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Education states that there is 
currently no reliable data which would assure an equitable distribution 
of funds under the formula. Hawaii will lose $464,000 or 43% or our 
bilingual education funds under the funding formula in H.R. 3892, 
because Hawaii is estimated to have only 12,611 LEP students.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the enactment of H.R. 3892 would jeopardize the 
civil rights of students of limited English proficiency by voiding all 
of the voluntary Compliance Agreements entered into by the Department 
of Education, Office of Civil Rights with school districts that were 
out of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
  Schools with limited English proficient (LEP) children are required 
to assure equal educational opportunities for LEP children. This is 
required under a 1974 Supreme Court ruling which states that in order 
to provide equal educational opportunities to LEP children, school 
districts must take affirmative steps to rectify language deficiencies.
  These Compliance Agreements help school districts comply with the 
Supreme Court ruling and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to provide 
equal educational opportunities to LEP children. The unilateral 
nullification of these Compliance Agreements is an unprecedented effort 
to gut the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3892 will take us back to a time when we did not 
protect the rights of limited English proficient children to receive 
equal educational opportunities. We must defeat this bill and look 
toward improvements in our bilingual education system that will allow 
us to reach more children, train more bilingual education teachers, and 
improve the academic achievement of limited English proficient 
children.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the student I spoke to on Tuesday in 
Branceforte Middle School in Santa Cruz, Lisa Morelas. She said one 
thing. She said, kids are dropping out because they cannot get access 
to the transition of bilingual education.
  It seems to me that our commitment here as Members of Congress is to 
keep that hope alive, not just political promises alive. We have got to 
measure student performance, not political performance. The student 
performance says, let them learn English through the bilingual program. 
Do not cut the program. Do not cut the safety net. Oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify a couple of points 
because I want to believe that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are being sincere and not disingenuous in the arguments that they 
make against the legislation.
  For purposes of having an informed debate when we move to general 
debate and debate on the amendments, let me again refer my colleagues 
to page 5 of the bill, the 3-year, not 2-year funding limitation in the 
bill. Just take a moment to glance at it, if you would.
  Secondly, let me say to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and 
others who just spoke of court-ordered consent decrees, the bill does 
nothing with respect to court-ordered consent decrees. It only 
addresses administrative compliance agreements between the Federal 
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights and local school 
districts. We do not in any way encroach on the prerogatives of the 
judicial branch of government.
  Lastly, with respect to local control, my good friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Martinez), put out a ``Dear Colleague'' saying 
this somehow guts local control. This bill is all about local control, 
allowing local school district to select the bilingual instruction 
method that they deem most appropriate and then requiring them to get 
the formal written consent of parents before the child can be placed in 
the program.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, regardless of what we do here today, we as 
a nation are going to survive, and certainly English as a language is 
going to survive. But if we want to look at the motivation behind this 
by a lot of people on that side, and we talk about sincerity and 
believe it, we are sincere over here when we believe that this is going 
to do more harm than it does good, especially for those limited-
English-proficient students.
  My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), whom I 
respect very much, states the idea that there are so many different 
languages spoken in different school districts. This is throughout the 
country. Nothing in the current law indicates to school districts how 
they will, unlike this law, will teach their children bilingual 
education. They just say that those children need to get a full and 
meaningful education and that language is a part of that education and 
that understanding that language is a part of that education.
  My friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), gives us a solid 
motivation why this bill is before us now when he says I believe in 
English. We all believe in English. I should have started this out by 
saying--(the gentleman from California, Mr. Martinez, spoke in 
Spanish)--and I will bet my colleagues, almost every person in the 
United States understands what that is.
  There is nothing wrong with knowing and speaking other languages. But 
more importantly, there is a very, very central issue here, that 
children need to learn English well enough to learn other subject 
matters in English. They cannot do that under this bill.
  Two years is a time limit, the first yardstick by which these people 
are going to be measured. Then they are going to be tested not in 
Spanish so that you can determine adequately how well they learned 
English, but only in English where they may not have learned. If 
somebody deems that they are worthy of another year's extension, they 
will get another year's extension. But remember, the first measure, the 
first yardstick is 2 years.
  I want to ask my colleague, how much language and what language could 
he learn in 2 years? I doubt if there is any language that he can 
become proficient in. The idea of this is LEP, limited English 
proficiency; that is the key.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time a I may consume. I 
will not use all of my remaining time. There are a couple of points 
that I would like to make.
  First of all, I would like to start out and say this is actually a 
debate about the rule. We have not heard much about this rule, which I 
think is good, because I think it is a fair and appropriate rule for 
the matter at hand.
  As sometimes happens when you have a reasonably good rule or a good 
rule, in the debate on the rule, the time allotted, the debate spills 
over into the merit of the issue; and that has clearly happened in this 
place. So I take it we have got a pretty good rule, and I will not talk 
anymore about that, and I hope everyone will support it.
  But before I yield back all of my time and move the previous 
question, I would like to point out that I do not think there is 
anything in this bill, in fact I have been assured by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs) and

[[Page H7529]]

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that there is nothing in 
here, that this is an English-only bill. I don't know where that came 
from. The gentleman from California mentioned it as part of some kind 
of anti-immigrant plot. Not so. There is none of that in here.
  What is in here is a good-faith effort to try and improve the fluency 
of people who do not speak English and allow them to transition into an 
English-speaking society, which we are in the United States of America; 
and I think it is a genuine and good effort.
  We may disagree whether we have got the right way or the wrong way, 
but we have certainly provided ample time for debate to deal with that.
  I note that several of our colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle are a little scared of the 3 years that this program enrollment 
period goes for, and it is 3 years, not 2. They are worried about 
meeting some kind of a standard or a merit or having any kind of a 
measure of performance applied.
  I can tell my colleagues that I have youngsters in my district who 
have been in these programs for 4 or 5 years, and they are not learning 
English. They are stuck in their own community, not taking advantage of 
becoming English speakers, even though their parents wish them to be 
fluent and proficient in English because they understand how important 
that is for the future. Yet, these programs are not working.
  I think it is fair to say that we do not have a complete success 
story or anything like it in the status quo. We are trying to find a 
way to move forward from the status quo.

  I notice my colleagues on the other side have suggested that the 
status quo is better than what we are presenting, in their view; and in 
some cases, they have offered some gutting amendments or will offer 
some gutting amendments, I am told. But I have not heard about any 
great new programs or any great new ideas.
  We have now carved out 3 hours of amendment time. This is a good time 
to bring forth some brave new ideas, if you have not been able to do it 
yet. I challenge my colleagues to do that.
  I would suggest that my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Riggs), who is the author of much of this, have done a pretty good job 
of bringing forth some new ideas. I think it is extremely important 
that we debate these ideas in a fair way, and that is why we have so 
much time scheduled for the amendments and any thoughts that anybody 
has.
  In fact, as we have seen, we have used a good part of our rule 
discussion dealing with trying to understand what the issue is here 
right now. We have heard all kinds of statements made several times, 
and it seems like it is getting to be a mantra that somehow or another 
we are taking away local control. On the contrary, this bill provides 
for more local control.
  Everybody knows that that is one of the planks of the GOP policy is 
to go to local control for our education people back in the community. 
This is very consistent with that; otherwise, I do not think this 
legislation would have gotten this far.
  So I think to try and mischaracterize this as any way taking away 
local control is not straightforward. The idea that perhaps we are 
trampling on some children's rights by trying to help them learn 
language and become proficient in the language of our country, which is 
primarily English, seems to me to be a little bizarre. I think trying 
to help out our youngsters is a very important thing.
  I do note that one of the speakers on the other side mentioned that 
children are not a political issue. I quite agree that children should 
not become a partisan political issue. But I do believe children are 
very much part of our process, and I believe it is very important to 
legislate and look out for your youngsters.
  That is why most of the people who have reached my age in life get 
out of bed in the morning and go to work, to make sure that what our 
kids have is a little better than what we started with if there is a 
way to do that.
  So I think that we are trying to do something honorable and something 
useful and something beneficial for our Nation's children. I think we 
are trying to do it in a very, very reasonable way. I say that because 
I hate to see these debates hijacked and scare tactics.
  I remember very well some years ago I went home to town meetings and 
was informed by people there that we were not going to have any longer 
a school lunch program, and mean-spirited people were going to take 
away children's school lunch program. That was bologna. That was 
hogwash. It was not true. It never was true. But it was a great story. 
It was partisan politics at election time.
  This bill deserves better than that. This is a good bill, and it 
should be discussed for what it says, not what some people keep 
characterizing that it might say.
  So I would urge my colleagues very much to pay attention to this 
debate, that we go forward now with this rule, that we get into this 
debate. I hope people will agree that this is a very honorable effort 
to improve the process of bringing those who do not speak English into 
the society that does speak English and in this place we call the 
United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________