[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.
____________________