[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7529-H7554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1430
                      ENGLISH LANGUAGE FLUENCY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to House Resolution 
516 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3892.


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3829) 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, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of preliminary statements that 
I

[[Page H7530]]

made during the rules debate. First of all, I want to make sure that 
everybody understands we are talking about 16,000 public school 
districts, 110,000 public schools. That is just a small portion that 
may participate. And we are talking about 583 grants. That is what this 
whole debate is about, 583 grants, and we are talking about 16,000 
school districts and 110,000 schools.
  Second thing I want to make sure everybody understands is when we are 
talking about LEP students, the financial aid LEP students is in title 
I. That is where most of the money comes from in order to deal with the 
issue of making sure every child has an equal opportunity for a quality 
education.
  As a former educator, I know how important it is for each and every 
child to receive a high quality education. And that is what the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is doing in this legislation, 
trying to make sure that every child has that opportunity.
  The most frustrating experience I have had in 24 years in the 
Congress of the United States is this business of we will never admit 
that some programs do not work very well. We will never admit that 
there might be something we can do to make them better. It is always if 
we just have more money somehow or other poor programs will become 
better.
  I have argued this on Head Start for years and years and years. And 
it was not until this secretary came when she finally closed 50 Head 
Start programs. Well, we had a lot more than 50 over the years that 
were not doing well, were not providing the kind of preschool education 
that children needed, were not putting quality people in those rooms in 
order to make sure that they would have a quality education.
  And so here we are again. Even though the dropout rate does not 
change, does not go down, goes up, if anything, we are still going to 
say, but there is only one way to do this. And that is what the 
argument is all about. The argument is not about is bilingual 
beautiful, is bilingual education necessary. That is not the argument 
at all. The argument is are there other ways to do it. Should the 
Federal Government say that 75 percent of all this money must go to 
only one method in trying to improve the quality of education for LEP 
students. That is what the whole argument is about. And I say that, no, 
we have not done very well, so let us give local and State people a 
little more flexibility to see if they cannot design programs that will 
do something about reducing that dropout rate rather than increasing 
that dropout rate.
  Then we get into the parent notification business. It is unbelievable 
to me that anyone could question whether the reason for identifying a 
child as being in need of English language instruction is not the 
responsibility of the school to the parent, or whomever put them in 
that particular program. Does the parent not have the right to know why 
their child was identified and placed in that program? Does the parent 
not have the right to know the child's level of English proficiency, 
how they assessed it, how they determined that? Do they not have the 
right to know the status of their child's academic achievement? Do they 
not have the right to know how the program will assist their child to 
learn English and meet appropriate standards for grade promotion and 
graduation?
  That is what we say in this legislation; that, yes, a parent does 
have that right. The parent should have that right. Any other parent of 
a child who is not LEP certainly would want that right and certainly 
has that right. And so we say the parent has to be notified. The parent 
has to be told all of these things. The parent then makes a choice 
whether they believe this is the best program for their child. And if 
they do not believe their child is doing well in the program, and there 
are other programs available, they have the choice of saying, I want my 
child to try a different program.
  So, again, let us get beyond this business of somehow or other we, in 
this language, are telling people exactly what they have to do as far 
as bilingual education is concerned. The opposite is true. Let us get 
beyond the idea that somehow or other this legislation will eliminate 
bilingual education. As a matter of fact, it will do the opposite. It 
will give locals an opportunity to say that, well, perhaps we have a 
better approach for these three children than what they say from the 
Federal level, and a different approach for these ten children rather 
than there is only one approach: Transitional bilingual education.
  So I would hope that this debate will continue only upon the merit of 
how do we provide quality education for all children and admit that we 
have not done very well in many programs in the past. And that we are 
here in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that every child has an 
opportunity for a quality education.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill because it attempts to destroy local 
bilingual education programs and it jeopardizes the civil rights of 
limited English proficient students.
  This bill voids voluntary compliance agreements entered into by the 
Department of Education and local school districts that are out of 
compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This provision is an 
unprecedented and shameful effort to gut the enforcement of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 as it applies to students with limited English 
proficiency. The majority has never provided any justification for this 
assault on civil rights.
  This bill also repeals the current requirement that LEP students meet 
strong academic and performance standards. While mastery of academic 
English is essential to future employment success, so is the mastery of 
math and science and the other disciplines, and this bill has no 
accountability or requirement to LEP students to meet challenging 
standards in the core curriculum. We should never allow bilingual 
education students to become second class citizens and second class 
students.
  The bill also sets artificial and arbitrary time limits for 
completing bilingual education that would prevent teachers from doing 
what is best for that student. These time limits do not recognize that 
some children learn faster than others. I find it kind of strange that 
the majority would want those of us inside the beltway to dictate the 
duration of a school's bilingual education program rather than letting 
the local schools and teachers and parents decide.
  This legislation, Mr. Chairman, also repeals the Emergency Immigrant 
Education program, which provides assistance to those localities which 
have large numbers of recently arrived immigrants. This program is 
essential in cities such as Miami and Los Angeles, New York and others. 
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this anti-education measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and before yielding to the subcommittee chairman, who was the 
workhorse on the legislation, I do want to point out, since it was 
mentioned, that the Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination 
for Students with Limited Proficiency, Federal enforcement of title VI, 
and Lau versus Nichols, they stated in a report in 1997, ``The 
bilingual Education Act has placed restrictions on the types of 
programs that could be funded under the Act, and these restrictions 
have, in turn, limited school districts' options.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee 
for his support of this legislation and his very active role in helping 
to bring it to the floor in a very timely manner. I think it is very 
important, for reasons that we will discuss during the course of debate 
today, that this legislation be considered by this Congress, not 
deferred sometime into the future.
  I say that, in part, because of, but only in part, because of the 
strong mandate for reform of bilingual education in my home State of 
California. As I think most people know, voters there in the June 
primary election, California has its primary election in June, passed a 
ballot initiative, a popular referendum, called Proposition 227 by a 
61-39 margin.
  In fact, most of the, I guess what we would call trending polls 
leading up to

[[Page H7531]]

the election indicated that a majority, or slightly less, of Hispanic 
American surname parents in California, Hispanic American voters in 
California, supported Proposition 227. And the exit polls showed that, 
I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 percent of Hispanic 
American voters had supported Proposition 227. However, as I will point 
out as we get into the debate, our legislation coming out of the 
committee is much more reasonable, much more moderate and flexible than 
the voter approved mandate of Proposition 227 in California.
  I just want to parenthetically make a quick point, which I think the 
chairman made earlier, that we should not limit this debate or focus 
this debate solely on Spanish language or traditional English-Spanish 
bilingual education. Because, in fact, if we are going to meet the 
needs of immigrant American children, bilingual education, by 
definition, has to encompass many, many more languages than just 
Spanish.
  In fact, going back to California for just a moment, sitting there on 
the Pacific Rim, with California businesses and industries doing more 
and more business in the Orient, one could argue that as a second 
language it is probably as important, if not more important, that our 
children learn an Asian language, or Asian dialect, as it might be for 
them to learn Spanish. But that, again, is not really what this debate 
is about.
  This debate, in my mind, while as the chairman says deals with a 
relatively small or limited amount of money, has larger overtones in 
part because of the tremendous dropout rate of nonEnglish speaking or 
limited English speaking students in our schools. In 1996, 55.2 percent 
of Hispanic students graduated from high school, and that was up just 
slightly from the 54.4 percent graduation rate in 1988. Considering 
that almost three-fourths of limited English or nonEnglish speaking 
students speak Spanish, our committee has a real concern that those 
children are being failed by the status quo; by current programs. They 
are being left behind.
  If we are concerned about discrimination, my colleagues, this is 
causing them to effectively be segregated from their peers and, all too 
often, segregated from the rest of society, when our goal should be to 
hasten, to expedite their assimilation into the American society so 
that they can realize all of their God given potential as human beings 
and the opportunity to achieve the American dream.
  So if we think that a dropout rate in the 50th percentile, 54, 55 
percent for Hispanic American students, is acceptable, then by all 
means oppose this effort at reform, and any other effort at reform in 
this Congress or in the future.

                              {time}  1445

  Now, we talked a little bit about process. We have had an extensive 
debate in the last Congress on English as the official language. But 
this bill has nothing to do with English as the official language. It 
just again is focused on bilingual education.
  We had hearings, a field hearing in San Diego, a committee hearing 
here in Washington, on the legislation. We had a very extensive debate 
during consideration of this bill in the full committee. We have aired 
out these issues. We have had ample opportunity to discuss them.
  And in terms of process, let me assure my colleagues, particularly my 
friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), that I made every 
effort to reach across the center aisle, the partisan aisle, to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), my very good friend and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee. And we have, wherever possible, 
worked together in a mutually cooperative, professional and, I think, 
bipartisan fashion.
  We just had to, on this particular issue, agree early on to disagree. 
It was apparent to both of us I think that despite our best efforts, we 
were not going to be able to collaborate on this particular bill. That 
should not signal to my colleagues, and I think the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez) would attest to this, that should not signal 
to my colleagues that we did not have a debate or that I approached 
this issue with a closed mind. I am still open at this date to positive 
and constructive suggestions, and I will listen very carefully to the 
arguments that are made on behalf of the Democratic amendments during 
consideration of this bill today.
  But I keep coming back to the concerns and the rights of parents. I 
think back to a gentleman by the name of George Louie who testified 
before our subcommittee at the field hearing in San Diego about his 
experiences with his son Travell, who was born and raised in the United 
States yet placed in a Chinese, actually a Cantonese, bilingual 
education program in his Oakland, California, school, which is under a 
court order consent decree.
  Mr. Louie was horrified to find that his son had been placed in that 
class and made repeated attempts to try to get the permission and the 
cooperation of school authorities in transferring his son out of that 
class to another class.
  He testified that he made over 75 contacts with the school district 
but was told, because of the court ordered consent decree, that his 
son, a native American, English-proficient, English-fluent son, could 
not be transferred into another classroom.
  Now, what do we say to Mr. Louie under those circumstances? Would we 
not stand with Mr. Louie and say, we support your right to make sure 
that your child gets a good education? And the way that we can 
safeguard against the same thing happening to any other American child 
as happened to your son is to require local school districts driving 
that control, driving that decision-making right down to the local 
levels closest to the parents in that community, who are, after all, 
the consumers of public education, and make sure that parents have the 
right to decide whether their child will be placed in a native 
language, that is to say a non-English-speaking classroom, particularly 
again a young man such as Travell Louie, who is English speaking.
  So what we have done here in this legislation is a couple of things. 
One is, we are saying to local school districts they can select the 
method of bilingual instruction that they deem most appropriate for 
their children in their community.
  And let me tell my colleagues, show me in the legislation where we 
have inserted any language that would prevent that local school 
district if they so chose, if a majority of the governing board, the 
duly elected school board members from that community, if they chose to 
offer bilingual education through native language immersion, show me a 
provision in the bill that would prevent a local school district and 
local school board from doing that; and they will not be able to.
  But I will acknowledge that the converse of that is true, that that 
local school district could decide, particularly in California, under 
the mandate of Prop 227, to offer bilingual education instruction in an 
English immersion program. But the flip side is true and any 
combination thereof.
  What we are trying to do is take out the mandate in current law that 
again requires that 75 percent of Federal taxpayer funding go for 
traditional, transitional, bilingual education instruction, a mandate 
that a majority of the instruction time actually be in the native 
language.
  We want more flexibility, and that again is in keeping with the long-
standing American tradition of decentralized decision-making, local 
control in public education. And we are trying to improve on current 
law by requiring that local school and that local school district to go 
one step further and obtain, not just notify the parent that their 
child will be placed in a bilingual education class, a native language 
instruction class, but to actually get the formal, written permission 
or consent of the parent before the child can be placed in the class. 
That seems to me to be a very reasonable reform to address in part the 
concerns of parents like Mr. Louie.
  Mr. Chairman, I will finish my remarks and then I will defer to the 
chairman and floor manager.
  So, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and others pointed 
out, English is the language of this Nation and the mastery of the 
English language is the key to success. It is the key to success in 
school, and it is the key to success later on in life.
  We are consigning whole generations of young people to failure by 
passing them through 12 years, or in the case of kindergarten, 13 years 
of public education without giving them the proper

[[Page H7532]]

understanding and the proper foundation in English, the official common 
and commercial language of our country.
  With this bill, I would hope we would send a message to school 
districts across the country that this practice of consigning kids to 
an inadequate public education that fails to prepare them for later in 
life and professional success in adult life, that all that stops with 
this legislation.
  Now, some of the critics of this legislation have already and will in 
the next few hours, as we debate this bill, claim that this legislation 
is discriminatory. But I can think of nothing that discriminates 
against people who come to America with dreams of success more than 
making them permanent outsiders in American society, in American life, 
leaving them on the outside looking in at the American dream. That is 
what graduating the children of immigrants from public schools without 
a good, fundamental grasp of English guarantees.
  Depriving immigrant children of the best, quickest method of learning 
to speak, write, read and genuinely understand English is 
discrimination at its worst. I hope my colleagues will just contemplate 
that when we get into the debate here.
  Now, the chairman and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) mentioned 
the whole debate on school lunch in the first session of the last 
Congress, the 104th Congress. And we all remember the more recent 
debate regarding reform of the Federal Welfare Act.

  My colleagues will remember, certainly many of our constituents 
listening and watching this debate will remember that when we insisted 
on reforming America's failing welfare system, our political opponents 
and many of our media critics predicted that the sky would fall, the 
world would end, and we would be throwing millions of people out into 
the streets to be destitute.
  Well, today one million former welfare recipients have made that 
transition from welfare to work, they are working at jobs, they are 
achieving financial independence and the self-respect and self-esteem 
that comes with financial independence. The taxpayers have saved $5 
billion, which States and local communities are now using to meet other 
very legitimate human and social needs in those communities. And we 
have successfully reformed a Federal program that trapped millions of 
poor people in a cycle of poverty and failure. We took bold action and 
we have seen a sweeping turnaround, and that has been attested to by 
many, many articles in the mainstream media.
  This is what we are going to do for bilingual education. This is what 
we should do for public education in general. And the critics are again 
saying, and we will hear one after another stand down here in this well 
or take the microphone on the other side of the aisle, and they will 
say that the sky will fall. But millions of students destined for 
failure in federally funded bilingual education programs will have a 
real chance to speak and master English under this bill.
  So I strongly support the legislation. I urge my colleagues to take a 
bold stand, support this vitally needed legislation. Because I truly 
believe, as I have said all along, that reform of Federal bilingual 
education programs is overdue and inevitable.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to, as I said earlier, defer to 
the chairman of the full committee, who manages the time, to yield.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, it is apparent that Chicken Little would have 
yielded. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez).
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
It is called the English Language Fluency Act. More appropriately, it 
should be called the anti-children civil rights bill.
  This bill, in my estimation, would dismantle the civil rights 
protection that is now afforded to the language-minority children all 
over this country. The Supreme Court decision in Lau v. Nichols 
established that limited-English-proficient children have the 
constitutional right to meaningful access to education.
  In enforcing this mandate, the Department of Education's Office of 
Civil Rights has worked with school districts to fashion voluntary 
compliance agreements to provide limited-English-proficient students 
with access to high, high-quality education.
  This bill would unilaterally void all 276 current voluntary, 
voluntary compliance agreements with no consideration given to the 
protection of the civil rights of those children covered by them.
  Tragically, the justification for this action has been based on ill-
conceived notions based on biased and mythical information. In 
addition, this legislation would alter the nature of the Federal 
bilingual education program to one solely focused on English language 
acquisition, not on the fact that children need to learn more than just 
English.
  That is why current law provides assistance to local school districts 
to help them teach English to LEP students, but it also fosters efforts 
to educate these children to high standards in other subjects in a 
language that they can understand. In other words, the object is not 
just to help children learn English, but to help them learn in English.
  Mr. Chairman, in undermining the essential purpose of the current 
bilingual education program, this bill flies in the face of the Lau 
decision, which mandates that children be guaranteed access to complete 
education, not one that teaches them English at the expense of learning 
math, science, history, or the rest of the basics.
  This bill would also prohibit States from administering assessments 
of educational achievement in LEP students in languages other than 
English. The only evaluations called for under this bill are those that 
would assess a child's acquisition of the English language, thus 
severing all ties in current law that work to ensure that LEP students 
are educated with the same high standards as their classmates. This is 
just plain wrong.
  The legislation further constrains the educational quality afforded 
to language minority students by mandating that local programs be 
designed to push LEP students into the mainstream classrooms in 2 
years. And if my colleagues would care, I would read the law to them 
that where the first two measure of standards are 2 years and the third 
year is only given in consideration that it is obvious to someone that 
they have not learned well enough.
  And the crux of that is that this is under the penalty of termination 
of Federal assistance. And I want to know, what happens to the slower 
students? Do they just fall by the wayside?
  Mr. Chairman, this bill also undermines the quality of education 
provided to LEP students by changing the entire structure of the 
bilingual education program from a competitive grant which awards funds 
directly to school districts based on the quality of local programs to 
a formula grant which sends funds to all States regardless of need or 
merit of their service.
  Considering that there are limited Federal education dollars 
available and that there have been calls to ensure that we fund 
initiatives that work, I question the elimination of all targeting of 
Federal bilingual education spending.
  This legislation even repeals the Emergency Immigration Education 
Act, which provides support to States with the greatest influx of 
immigrants to help them provide education to newly arrived immigrant 
children. It is amazing that this program would be completely 
eliminated, given the fact that appropriators have demonstrated their 
strong support by providing substantial increases. In fact, funding has 
tripled in recent years.

                              {time}  1500

  In addition, Members should be aware that presently nearly all states 
receive some allotment of immigration education funding. Under this 
bill, only a handful of states would receive those dollars.
  Let me just set one thing clear in closing. Sixty-one percent voted 
for this bill, but 63 percent of the Latinos

[[Page H7533]]

voted against it. As far as I am concerned, the debate is not about 583 
grants, it is about 900,000 children being served with this Federal 
bilingual education dollar.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to merely point out that testimony would indicate that the word 
``coerced'' would be a much better word to use than ``voluntary,'' 
since the heavy hand and arm of the Office of Civil Rights coerced many 
of those agreements, rather than voluntarily orchestrated them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, do opponents of the English 
language instruction want a Nation divided by our inability to speak a 
common language? I think not. I know not. But as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has already stated, followed by the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Riggs), this bill simply lets communities and parents decide what form 
of English language instruction is best for the community and best for 
the child; not some Federal mandate that may not fit their needs.
  Let us take a quick look at my hometown as an example. During the 
farm crisis in the mid-eighties, our major employer closed down because 
of the farm economy. A few years later another major employer, a meat 
packing company, came in and brought in thousands of new workers, many 
of whom were immigrants from dozens of different countries.
  Almost overnight our school system became overloaded, both in terms 
of numbers of students, but also in terms of new challenges, 
particularly English language instruction. There is no possible way my 
small town can hire scores of bilingual teachers to teach a variety of 
subjects. We have to use English language immersion.
  I have been told of the success they have had in teaching parents and 
students in English, but under the Bilingual Education Act, their hands 
are tied. They cannot use an instruction method they know works, as 
much as they might like to use such a method.
  We have been told that sometimes English language immersion may not 
help in all cases. Guess what? This bill lets my hometown and your 
hometown up for air, to have the liberty to provide that extra help, 
without being hamstrung by inflexible Federal mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, the English Language Fluency Act is about helping 
children enjoy the American dream, and not relegating them to becoming 
second class citizens. The bill is about letting communities whose 
front line experience with immigrants make them the experts in knowing 
what does or does not work and helping children acquire English 
fluency. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3892.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
anti-English education bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
misguided piece of legislation.
  As most know, prior to my election to this body two years ago I 
served for eight years as the elected state superintendent of the 
schools of North Carolina. North Carolina has experienced tremendous 
growth in our Spanish-speaking population, and our professional 
educators, in my opinion, have done an outstanding job in providing 
these students with special attention to their educational needs, and 
this includes other students who have deficiencies in English.
  This bill would destroy that progress and replace it with a one-size-
fits-all Washington-knows-best approach. Do not forget that. You cannot 
impose an arbitrary time limit and expect children to learn. Anyone who 
knows anything about education knows children learn at different 
speeds, and it just does not work that way if you want to set an 
arbitrary limit.
  This Congress should leave that decision to the professionals, the 
teachers. H.R. 3892 would jeopardize the progress that we have made and 
many other students have made with educational help by violating the 
agreement between the Department of Education and local school 
districts in their instruction of English.
  When I first was elected superintendent of North Carolina in 1988, we 
had 3,000 students not proficient in English in our state. Last year 
that number was 25,000, and growth has been close to 30 percent in the 
last five years.
  My state's English-as-a-second-language classes are taught in 
English. Students do not spend their entire day in these classes, but 
these classes provide them with the specialized attention they need to 
overcome the barriers to their learning, and they cannot do it in just 
two years and be cut off. Can North Carolina improve its education of 
limited English proficient students? Of course they can, and so can 
other states. But this bill does nothing to improve English education, 
and it deserves to be defeated. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me try to clarify a couple of points. Some of the 
speakers on the other side of the aisle have said that this bill will 
not void current consent agreements, compliance agreements we have with 
about 288 different school districts, voluntarily agreed to. You may 
want to say they were coerced, but they still took a vote and 
voluntarily agreed to do this.
  Section 7404 reads

       Any compliance agreement entered into between a state, 
     locality or local education agency and the Department of 
     Education is void.
  ``Is void.'' It does void our compliance agreements that try to help 
these districts make sure that we are educating all of our children 
properly.
  It is a cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all, because it tells those 
local districts how they must do things. It is an effort to undermine 
the ability of children to learn English because it does not take the 
best practices that we have seen from all the research and say this is 
the way that you can do it, but you do it how you see fit.
  In San Francisco and San Jose they just finished taking, along with 
every other school district in the State of California, a standardized 
test to find out where California's kids are. The kids in San Jose and 
San Francisco who were graduates of bilingual education programs in 
those districts, guess what, scored higher than native English speaking 
children; higher.
  When Governor Pete Wilson, who is an adamant opponent of bilingual 
education, when his spokesman was asked how do you react to this, the 
reaction by Mr. Shawn Walsh was, ``It is remarkable.'' While the 
Governor was never totally against different types of programs to help 
kids transition, it was too late by then, because by then he had been 
behind and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help pass 
Proposition 227.
  All we are saying here is if we are real serious about trying to 
reform whatever it is, in this case bilingual education, let us do it 
in a meaningful way. Let us not do it in a rush way, that does not give 
everyone an opportunity to really provide input. Let us do it the way 
we would reauthorize any legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3892. The English 
Language Fluency Act is really a drastic misnomer. In the wake of 
Proposition 227 in California, this issue is vital to my district. In 
the Oakland Unified School District, for example, 18,000 students, or 
one-third of our students, are in Limited English Proficient Programs, 
a 61 percent increase over the past 10 years. Since school districts 
across the country are experiencing similar trends, we logically need 
to support increased resources for bilingual education.
  This bill does just the opposite. Mandating all students to master 
the English language in just two years is a dangerous and restrictive 
policy. Although some exceptional children can survive in this sink or 
swim program, these artificial deadlines only set up the majority to 
fail. After two years in a foreign land, with a foreign language and 
culture, if we were required to pass

[[Page H7534]]

a test to get a job, to enter an education class or access other 
necessary opportunities, we would not be able to pass. I do not believe 
most Members of Congress could learn Greek or Russian in two years.
  By turning existing bilingual programs into block grants, this bill 
does not require states to distribute funds to the most needy students. 
Without this protection, the students most in need become even more 
vulnerable to fail. By eliminating the emergency immigrant education 
program, this bill leaves no support or assistance for new immigrants, 
those who are most likely to have limited English language skills and 
require extensive programs to learn English.
  Finally, in order to promote effective English education programs, we 
obviously need to increase resources for new teachers and teacher 
training, not eliminate them. This bill cuts bilingual teacher training 
programs. For these reasons, I urge a no vote on H.R. 3892. It is a 
disastrous anti-education bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, we want our children to learn English. Immigrant 
communities know that without English proficiency, there is no upward 
mobility, no chance to succeed in our society. We want our students to 
be able to comprehend and learn the language thoroughly so they will 
not be left behind academically. But, at the same time, with increased 
international commerce and global competition, we need our students to 
master multiple languages so they can provide a cutting edge advantage 
for America in Asia, in Europe, in Latin America.
  Those who have advocated for greater trade on this floor will agree 
with me that we not only need to be ahead in product and technology 
development, but also in our capacity to have a work force that has the 
ability to effectively communicate worldwide. Ask Chevrolet, when they 
tried to sell the Chevy Nova in Latin America. ``Nova'' means ``does 
not move, won't go.'' I do not care what type of marketing program you 
have, language in that context made a big dent in Chevrolet's success.
  This bill is not designed to empower or limit English proficient 
students to succeed. It does not provide more resources or more 
language teachers to deal with the growing number of today's students 
who require extra help to learn English. Rather, it in effect stunts 
our students' growth academically while they learn English as quickly 
as possible.
  In today's global economy, the ability to be bilingual or 
multilingual is a precious commodity. Let us not destroy our country's 
bilingual education policy, one that is locally controlled and 
federally enforced, a policy that promotes civil rights and fights 
discrimination. Let us not undermine what is in our Nation's academic 
and economic interests. We should be voting against H.R. 3892.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3892, 
the so-called English Language Fluency Act. This bill attempts to 
destroy the Bilingual Education Act, a law that has benefitted 
countless members of limited English proficiency, students, since its 
enactment in 1969. This bill is an unwise and ill-timed effort to 
dismantle this program, and will have an adverse effect on the students 
it is supposed to assist.
  As the Member of Congress who represents the largest population of 
bilingual speakers, I am acutely aware of the importance of bilingual 
education programs and the positive effect they have had on students 
with limited language proficiency. In Puerto Rico we have not 
benefitted from this program until this year. We have a very small 
amount for this year. But, yet the teaching of both languages in Puerto 
Rico is necessary.
  I was born speaking Spanish. My first language was Spanish, and I am 
bilingual. My wife is bilingual. Our four children are bilingual. We 
taught them to speak both languages at an early age, and at an early 
age you can learn, within six months, a different language.

                              {time}  1515

  The older you get, the longer it takes to learn another language, and 
to try to impose an amount of time on anyone, it is unwise. It goes 
against everything that we know about the way to learn a language.
  I think that discrimination for racial reasons, discrimination for 
ethnic reasons is intolerable. So is discrimination for cultural and 
language reasons, and this attacks and affects the Hispanic speakers in 
a personal way because to say that you cannot speak English and be an 
American citizen, you cannot speak Spanish and be an American citizen, 
together with English, and to be able to teach Spanish and also to be 
able to learn Spanish, and be proficient in Spanish, as well as 
English, that is important not only to the individual, not only 
important to his community but also to the Nation, because we live in a 
continent from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. The two most important 
languages are English and Spanish. To say that we should only speak one 
language, it goes against all of the national interests, the community 
interests and the personal interests.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I would 
point out that in Minnesota, I represent the St. Paul School District. 
Actually, I taught in Minneapolis many years ago. Today, the student 
population of those communities has changed. In St. Paul, I have nearly 
9,000 students in St. Paul schools that are English-as-a-second-
language recipients that need assistance that makes sense not political 
points for those who are so full of anti-immigrant slogans and 
panaceas. They are mostly Hmong, Southeast Asian students. In fact, 30 
percent of the elementary classes in St. Paul are Southeast Asian 
students.
  The fact is, what they are reporting to me is that these kids 
speaking in their first language and taking tests in their first 
language are 2 or 3 years ahead of where they would be taking tests in 
English. In other words, if the student is in the fourth grade, if you 
only teach him in English he will be learning at the first or second 
grade level. That is what he is capable of or she is capable of in the 
English instruction requirement mandated by this bill. In other words, 
they need this, they need this type of experience of learning in their 
native language for a period of time.
  This measure, H.R. 3892, is a punitive, arrogant, top-down, 
Washington-knows-best approach, which tries to force-feed a diet of 
English language to a new and diverse U.S. student population that is 
already immersed and struggling in our culture.
  In a sink-or-swim situation, this proposal chooses to throw a 
limited-English-speaking student an anchor. Are we so insecure and 
fearful that we can no longer tolerate the language differences and 
cultural diversity that defines America?
  Mr. Chairman, I think it was said best by my friend Jim Morelli, from 
St. Paul, when he said that I would hope that today we would extend the 
same kindness, the same consideration, the same thoughtfulness and help 
that was extended to our grandparents when they came from Italy in the 
early part of this century.
  Are we so limited and unwilling to extend that type of help to people 
that are culturally, ethnically, religiously different than us who need 
it now more than ever in the 1990's? These are Southeast Asian students 
that I represent, the others that I taught in Minneapolis, and half the 
black population in Minneapolis schools are Africans, from Africa that 
indeed speak and read English as their second language.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the defeat of this ill-considered bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the English Language 
Fluency Act, H.R. 3892. This legislation will hinder, not help, 
America's

[[Page H7535]]

language-minority children learn both English as well as the myriad of 
topics that are taught in our schools today. Our nation is comprised of 
people from many diverse backgrounds. Providing opportunities for non-
English speakers to learn the language is a prerequisite for ensuring 
that all citizens are able to fully participate in and become 
productive members of our society. While the current bilingual 
education efforts may not be the absolute perfect venue for 
accomplishing this goal, implementing H.R. 3892 would substantially 
undermine the program.
  It makes good educational sense to teach a student in his or her 
native language while, at the same time, developing that student's 
English language capacity. There is no magical number of years for this 
transition; children come into the program with varied levels of 
proficiency. Setting an arbitrary limit to the amount of time a child 
may remain in a bilingual program is doing them a great disservice. 
While students are learning English, they should also be able to keep 
up with their peers in other subjects. In fact, students who spend a 
limited time in bilingual programs tend not to be as successful in 
their subsequent school years, because pushing them to master the 
language in such a short amount of time comes at the expense of 
mastering other academic and analytical skills.
  This is indeed an inflexible mandated methodology that is being 
foisted upon non-English speaking students--one size does not fit all 
children. Where is the evidence that bilingual education isn't 
effective, and the evidence that mandated English-only education is the 
best approach? In fact, studies raise important questions regarding the 
proposed method, questions which have gone unaddressed by the emotional 
arguments of the proponents of this legislation.
  Additionally, the proposed funding of this legislation is flawed. 
Block granting money to states is a method which has proven ineffective 
in delivering and targeting help to America's neediest students. 
H.R.3892 also eliminates financial support for preparing teachers to 
instruct language-minority students. This plan is unacceptable in light 
of the shortage of qualified teachers we face. Essentially, this 
appears to be yet another scheme which will undermine public education 
and short change America's children, by dictating to local schools the 
manner in which they should deal with students who have special needs. 
Our schools need to be user friendly and welcoming places, where a 
diverse group of Americans from different cultures, incomes and 
backgrounds are not threatened. What has happened to our national 
policy where we help, not intimidate, those who come to learn under 
such rigid circumstances? H.R. 3892 promotes a sink or swim philosophy, 
and I fear we will surely drown many fragile young minority students 
with an English only curriculum.
  The opportunity to gain an education is a fundamental right and a 
value which should be shared by all Americans. Clearly, it is important 
for all of our citizens to be able to communicate in a common language 
in order to promote unity and understanding within our society. Again I 
would point out that, H.R. 3892 is a punitive, arrogant, top down 
Washington-knows-best approach which tries to force feed a diet of 
English language to a new and diverse U.S. student population who are 
already immersed and struggling in our culture. In a sink or swim 
situation, this proposal chooses to throw minority English speaking 
students an anchor. Are we so insecure and fearful that we can no 
longer tolerate the language differences and cultural diversity which 
defines America? I don't think so. I oppose the English Language 
Fluency Act, which actually does little to help and hurts those with 
limited English proficiency to learn the language, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, contention between people who speak different languages 
is as old as the story of Babel. The ancient Greeks referred to those 
who spoke in other tongues as the babblers. Ancient Slavs called the 
Germans across their border the mute or unspeaking people.
  Today, United States residents whose primary language is other than 
English, especially Spanish speakers, are being regarded as un-
American. The English Language Fluency Act plans to un-Americanize 
people who so desperately want to be American. I am concerned that this 
bill would hinder those who by the bill's definition it should help.
  The English Language Fluency Act has in it provisions that move 
language minority children out of specialized classes, cuts bilingual 
education funding to States with large immigrant populations and voids 
all voluntary compliance agreements made by State and local school 
districts to provide bilingual education.
  This bill, as written, will reduce Federal funds used for teachers 
and learning materials while at the same time demand students to learn 
in an environment that does not promote or assist them in learning. In 
essence, this bill implies that America wants you to learn as long as 
you do not learn too much.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is imperative that we make access to 
learning as easy as possible for people who must already overcome the 
language barrier. We will get the best results in education if we leave 
its management to people whose motives are to educate. I urge all 
Members to join me in opposing this bill because it will hinder, not 
help, the education of America's children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and I do so 
representing the third most diverse city in the Nation, Albuquerque, 
New Mexico. It was a couple of years ago that there was an article in 
the newspaper that said, only New York and Los Angeles are more diverse 
than Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  It is our culture, our rich and diverse culture, which makes New 
Mexico unique. Our art, our architecture, our cuisine, our literature, 
our dance, makes us what we are and, yes, our language, whether that be 
Tewa or English or Navajo or Spanish.
  Something else I believe all of us can agree on is that all of our 
children must learn English in order to be given the tools to succeed 
in America and to achieve their dreams. That does not mean that we do 
not respect their culture, that they should not be proud of who they 
are and that they should not be multilingual, because let us face it, 
folks, being able to speak more than one language is a strength, not a 
weakness. So we should be talking about English plus and not English 
only.
  This bill does not affect funding levels. There is a hold-harmless 
clause for all States, and I am very pleased to say that I am working 
with the Committee on Appropriations to expand multilingual education 
funds for the elementary school level.
  What this bill is about is local control. It is about taking power 
from Washington and giving it back to local school boards to decide 
what is the best way to educate our children. It is about parental 
choice and parental consent, that no child should be in a program that 
their parents do not approve of just because somebody else says it is 
best for them.
  It is about making sure that there are no dead ends for our children 
who do not arrive at school able to speak English. There is no separate 
but equal, there are no side tracks, and there is no second class. That 
is what this bill is about, and that is why I am supporting it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me that a party that 
claims to be trying to win Hispanic votes attacks us time and time 
again. Worse yet, today they are attacking our children.
  I hope that every Latino in this country hears this message loud and 
clear. We do not count with the Republicans, our children do not count, 
and our future does not count.
  Why else would bilingual education come under attack year after year? 
Already, Republicans tried to slash $75 million for bilingual and 
immigrant education, 22 percent for fiscal year 1998 funding, and this 
is in a bill that provides disaster aid to flood victims. Today's move 
makes perfect sense for a party that plays politics with virtually 
every issue.
  Well, I have news for my colleagues across the aisle. Your English 
Language Fluency Act will have the opposite effect. It will force 
children into illiteracy. It will ruin their futures. It will hold back 
their families, and it will hurt our country.

[[Page H7536]]

  According to supporters of H.R. 3892, bilingual education does not 
work, it is a waste of money, and so on. The fact is, bilingual 
education does work. By teaching core classes like math and science in 
a child's native language, while effectively teaching English, we can 
make sure that children do not fall behind in basic skills. But 
Republicans will slash funding, eliminate training, weaken programs, 
and then say that the programs do not work.
  Opponents of bilingual education are correct on one count: Without 
real support and commitment, children with limited English proficiency 
will not get the skills they need to succeed.
  My colleagues, is this how a nation with over 3 million limited-
English-proficient students, should treat those children? Just think of 
the message that we are sending these children. We are telling them 
that they are second-rate citizens. They do not even deserve to receive 
a decent education or the tools they need to have a bright future.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for our children and their 
future and vote no.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I understand 
the gentleman only has a closing statement, so I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's 
English Language Fluency Act, and I believe in this age of 
communications it is extremely important and vital that English be the 
dominant language here in the United States. We in Congress should 
support any bill, any bill, that supports accelerating students' 
acquisition of English.
  Studies in California have shown that only about 5 percent of English 
learning students a year can be classified as English proficient, so 
this bilingual education program is not doing the job it should be 
doing. Mastering the English language is the best formula for personal 
and professional success in America.
  The late Senator Hayakawa said:

       America is an open society, more open than any other in the 
     world. People of every race, of every color, of every culture 
     are welcomed here to create a new life for themselves and 
     their families. And what do these people who enter into the 
     American mainstream have in common? English. English, our 
     shared, common language.

  It is imperative that we help our immigrant students to learn their 
new language as quickly as possible. We must help them to enter the 
mainstream and not ostracize them and limit them.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say as we close 
general debate on this bill that if one of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle can point to language in this bill that mandates a 
particular form of bilingual education, I will ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the bill, because the bill does exactly the opposite.
  The bill removes the existing mandate in Federal law that 75 percent 
of Federal taxpayer funding for bilingual education must be used for 
innovative language instruction. So I have to believe that given the 
insistence, when talking about a 2-year time limit, when the funding 
limitation is 3 years, talking about mandates, I at this point in the 
debate now have to believe that the opponents of this bill have to rely 
on demagoguery and mischaracterization of the bill because they cannot 
win the debate based on the merits of the particular legislation.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, not as I close debate. The gentleman will 
have time, and I am not going to yield, in part because the last time 
we got into this discussion, the ranking minority member saw fit to 
refer to me as Chicken Little, which is a reference I do not appreciate 
and which is inappropriate for someone with his years of service in the 
House.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. I request regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) has the time 
and may proceed.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying I referred to him as 
Chicken Little, and I did not refer to him as Chicken Little.
  Mr. RIGGS. I request regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman from California to 
proceed.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier I talked about a study, and I quote from the 
August 26 Santa Rosa Press Democrat in my congressional district, a 
study which says that most young immigrants prefer to speak English 
over their native language. In fact, the survey which focused on recent 
immigrant families says that the older children get, the more eager 
they are to embrace English. The study was produced by Michigan State 
University's Children of Immigrant Longitudinal study, and it says that 
88 percent of immigrant children questioned prefer speaking English. 
Six years ago, the percentage was 73 percent.

                              {time}  1530

  I do not believe that the opponents of this legislation, who 
represent largely ethnic American constituencies, are really speaking 
for those constituencies. I really question whether they have at heart 
the best interests of those constituencies.
  I want to, at the appropriate time, also include in the Record a 
commentary from the Wednesday, July 1, Wall Street Journal by one of 
our former colleagues, a man by the name of Herman Badillo, who says, 
``By the time I arrived in New York from Puerto Rico at age 11, I was 
brought up Democratic. And when I went into politics--as a U.S. 
Congressman, Bronx borough President, and deputy mayor--I did so as a 
Democrat. Last week, after more than 30 years in Democratic politics, I 
joined the Republican Party.
  ``In recent years I have found myself questioning inflexible 
Democratic policies. I have seen a disturbing lack of vision among 
local Democratic leaders. . .. Democratic leaders doggedly fought to 
preserve failed, anachronistic policies.
  ``This inertia has been most evident in their approach to schools, 
where students not even fluent in English have been awarded degrees. 
And when I challenge the practice of social promotion in elementary and 
secondary schools and call for academic standards, prominent Democrats 
attack me.
  ``This defense of low standards reflects a fundamental Democratic 
problem. Many Democrats believe that some ethnic groups, such as 
Hispanics, should not be held to the same standards as others. This is 
a repellent and destructive concept, a self-fulfilling prophecy of 
failure. Fortunately, the ethnic groups hurt by these patronizing 
policies are beginning to understand that low standards mean low 
results, a realization that will move people in these groups to the 
GOP.''
  So do not be misled, colleagues. Members on the other side of the 
aisle speaking for, let us be honest about it, special interest groups 
and ethnic constituencies, purporting to represent all people with 
those viewpoints, are in fact expressing a monolithic viewpoint. There 
are other people such as our former colleague, Mr. Badillo, who agree 
with this legislation.
  I urge passage of these amendments offered on this side of the aisle, 
and passage of the bill as amended.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, parents across America are rightly 
concerned about the continued viability of our system of public 
elementary and secondary education. Public schools are great 
equalizers, the entities we've created to help socialize all children 
and give them the skills necessary to take advantage of the social and 
economic opportunities our country affords them.
  When schools fail to do their job, it's our children who suffer. To 
fix them we certainly need more resources, particularly textbooks, for 
children and teachers. But we also need standards and merit pay for 
teachers, the end of social promotion, the setting of goals for 
children, and most importantly, holding parents, teachers and 
administrators accountable for the performance of our school system. 
And until we begin looking seriously at these and other reforms, 
proposals like vouchers will continue to look attractive though, in my 
view, they are panaceas, if not anathema to public education itself.

[[Page H7537]]

  While each of us who have had children in public schools can measure 
success in our children's development, one category of children who 
have been particularly hurt are those for whom English is not a primary 
language--children from non-English speaking families or who otherwise 
have limited English proficiency.
  As I traveled across the State of California earlier this year, many 
parents told me of their dissatisfaction with California's bilingual 
education system. Indeed, the debate and vote for our state's 
Proposition 227, which required school districts to use immersion as 
the means of teaching English, demonstrated that many non-English 
speaking parents wanted change.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I did not support Proposition 227 because it 
represented a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to a complex problem--and 
as such it took away control over the education of our kids from our 
local school districts, where it belongs.
  Similarly, I must oppose the English Language Fluency Act. While I 
believe this legislation is well intentioned, it will have the same 
unfortunate result across the country as Proposition 227 did in 
California: it will restrict the flexibility of our local districts to 
impart the best education possible on all our kids--the education that 
will prepare them to perform and succeed in our economy. Mainstreaming 
kids is the right goal, but the means should be left to the level of 
government with primary responsibility for education: local government.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Lisa 
Gonzales. I met Lisa when I visited Branciforte Junior High School in 
Santa Cruz, California earlier this week.
  Lisa told me that kids are dropping out, that they're losing hope. 
The students who are most at risk are the ones who need special help 
learning English. I want our schools to be able to help them.
  Our children are our Nation's best hope for the future. They all 
bring special needs to our classrooms, and that includes language 
training for those who don't speak, read or write English. We are 
morally and constitutionally obligated to use the best methods possible 
to teach them the language of their new country. Parents, teachers and 
administrators all over the country know that our children need 
bilingual education in our schools.
  This bill doesn't fix bilingual education. Its goal is divisiveness 
and rhetoric. We need to focus on student performance, not political 
controversy.
  These programs keep hope alive for the children who need it most. 
Reject this legislation.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called 
``English Language Fluency Act'' (H.R. 3892). I find it deplorable that 
the Republican Majority has yet again mobilized their attack on the 
Department of Education, legal immigrants, and multiculturalism in 
general. However, what disturbs me about this particular piece of 
legislation is that it would ultimately harm our nation's most 
vulnerable, the children. They have been snared in a tangled web of 
political opportunism and grandstanding. H.R. 3892 takes a 
``sledgehammer'' approach to reforming bilingual education without 
retaining the essence of this vital educational program. This bill 
loses sight of the purpose of bilingual education which is to help 
students master not only language skills but a plethora of subjects 
ranging from history to math.
  This legislation is part of a larger misguided plot to strip America 
of her cultural richness. It is my sincere belief that this bill 
represents an attempt by extremists in the Republican party to revive 
the ``English Only'' debate. Proponents of this backwards movement wish 
to destroy and handicap the very thing that makes America wonderful, 
her diversity. I do not dispute that the mastery of the English 
language is an important component of attaining success in America. 
However, I can testify to that fact that most non-English speaking 
immigrants desperately want to learn English. As a matter of fact, the 
non-English speaking constituents of my district work tirelessly by day 
and night in schools and community centers trying to learn English.
  And to the merits of this bill, I am sad to report that I have found 
few. All through the Committee process Republicans continued their 
pitiful legacy of stacking hearings with witnesses that I found to be 
misinformed. They either produced reports that had been statistically 
manipulated or reports that had been politically manipulated. H.R. 3892 
would scale back limited-English-proficient (LEP) student's access to 
education services. Moreover, the two year predetermined time frame 
mandated by this bill is unreasonably short and would effectively kill 
proven bilingual programs. The bill will also overturn existing 
compliance agreements between the Office of Civil Rights of the 
Department of Education and local school districts that had not been 
providing LEP students with equal educational opportunities. The result 
may be massive civil rights violations. And this sad list goes on and 
on.
  This preoccupation of the Republican Party with the destruction of 
bilingualism is also harmful to this nation's economic interests. In 
our present global economy diversity and the capacity to speak more 
than one language is a clear asset. Instead of harassing bilingual 
education programs we should be increasing their funding.
  Mr. Chairman, let us turn back the clock to a time when immigrants 
were openly discouraged from embracing their heritage. Let us not turn 
our backs on America's children. We must not rob any of our youth of 
the opportunity to receive a decent education regardless of their 
diverse background. A ``no'' vote on H.R. 3892 is an affirmation of the 
right of every child in America to an equal and comprehensive 
education.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3892, 
``The English Language Fluency Act''. This legislation ``block grants'' 
Federal bilingual education programs and eliminates numerous 
protections contained in current law. I view this bill as a significant 
setback on bilingual education. Several educational agencies and 
organizations also believe this bill would harm current Federally-
funded bilingual education programs. For example, the Council of the 
Great City Schools, the New York Board of Regents, and the New York 
State Board of Education all oppose this measure.
  Let's examine just what kind of negative impact this legislation 
would really have on bilingual education programs. H.R. 3892 removes 
existing enforcement and compliance standards. For example, current 
bilingual education agreements between the Education Department's Civil 
Rights office and local school districts would be eliminated. The bill 
also would limit the ability of these agencies to negotiate future 
agreements. Additionally, the bill eliminates Civil Rights Act 
protections that ensure that students who are learning English continue 
to achieve high academic standards. In fact, it would force students to 
leave transitional education programs after two years, regardless of 
their proficiency in English. Moreover, the bill's total lack of 
attention to core subject matter, with all emphasis on English 
development only, is not sound education practice.
  In the case of New York State, the bill would reduce overall funding 
as well as funding for planning, administration, and interagency 
cooperation within the State due to a change in the allocation formula. 
At the same time, New York State would be required to taken on added 
responsibility for the management of the funds with sufficient monies 
to do so.
  Perhaps most significantly, this legislation overrides the tradition 
of local control on public education matters. Local school districts 
and states with a large percentage of students who are learning to 
speak English should be able to make their own decisions on how best to 
educate their students. H.R. 3892 is a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach 
to a complicated problem that requires autonomy and flexibility for 
local jurisdictions.
  Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that this bill repeals 
the Emergency Immigrant Education program and undermines Title VII 
funds, from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that have 
already been awarded to local school districts. This legislation is 
will hinder the advances made in bilingual education and I would urge 
my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3892.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, we must end federal support for 
disastrous bilingual education programs. Federal complicity in stifling 
English learning in the name of politically correct multiculturalism is 
just one more example of elitist bureaucrats thinking they know what's 
best for local schools and parents. Bilingual education has been a 
grave injustice to people who immigrate to America and to their 
children.
  The vast majority of immigrants who chose to leave their ancestral 
homelands did so in hopes of providing a better future for their 
children. Absolutely essential to realizing their dreams of success in 
America is for their children to learn, and master, the English 
language. Otherwise, they will be doomed to menial, unrewarding, and 
low-paying jobs for life. Additionally, they will be unable to fully 
enjoy mainstream American culture, including interaction with people of 
other ethnic groups through our common language--English.
  These multiculturalists who would keep immigrant children in a 
linguistic ghetto are preventing them from enjoying the ethnic 
diversity the multiculturalists pretend to value so highly. A child who 
speaks only Spanish and a child who speaks only Vietnamese cannot 
communicate and learn about each other.
  It is unrealistic to assume immigrant children can succeed in America 
if they only know the language of their parents. And, as people get 
older their ability to learn another language declines. Therefore, the 
highest priority for

[[Page H7538]]

educating non-English speaking children must be to learn English. Of 
course, I don't feel it's up to the U.S. Congress to set priorities in 
what is properly a decision of local schools and parents, but the 
federal government most certainly shouldn't be encouraging 
counterproductive measures.
  Advocacy of bilingual education on the part of the teachers unions 
unfortunately fits the historical pattern of labor union disregard for 
the well-being of immigrants in the financial interest of the union's 
members and leadership. Just as unions in the past worked to restrict 
immigrants from the labor pool in order to artifically maintain their 
own wages, the teachers unions want to protect the salary bonuses given 
to bilingual-certified teachers. Never mind how effective bilingual 
education programs actually are in teaching these children English, say 
the teachers union bosses, we want to maintain the salaries they 
provide the instructors.
  Enough with the corrupt labor unions and centralized bureaucratic 
power and feel-good multiculturalism that threatens to balkanize this 
country. Let's give power to parents and local schools and give 
opportunity to these immigrant children. Support the Riggs English 
Language Fluency Act.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my strong opposition 
to H.R. 3892. I am a strong supporter of bilingual education, however, 
instead of bolstering federal efforts to help immigrant children, this 
bill penalizes them.
  This bill also does not advance our national education policy. H.R. 
3892 does not attempt to establish criteria for teachers and school 
districts, nor does it set realistic goals for our children. This bill 
instead restricts local school districts and jeopardizes successful 
bilingual education programs by cutting federal support for teacher 
training and virtually eliminating successful programs that currently 
help immigrant children.
  In fact, this bill even lowers academic standards and expectations 
for immigrant children by focusing exclusively on English language 
proficiency rather than math, science and history. H.R. 3892 
jeopardizes these children's futures by setting an arbitrary and 
unrealistic punitive two-year federal mandate on their ability to 
master English. This in effect becomes a two-year ``impediment'' to 
their educational future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3892 and join me in 
opposing this destructive and politically motivated bill.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3892, ``The 
English Language Fluency Act.'' While the supporters of this bill have 
argued that it will improve bilingual education for our Nation's 
children, all the evidence points in a different direction. In fact, 
this bill will make a number of changes to bilingual education that 
will harm children who need assistance the most. Language in the bill 
will require that all children have only two years of bilingual 
education regardless of their ability to master English. The bill will 
also violate the Civil Rights Act by voiding the current voluntary 
compliance agreements between schools, parents and the Department of 
Education, Office of Civil Rights. Finally, this bill will block grant 
bilingual competitive grants to the States therefore eliminating the 
structure this program currently has. In Newark, NJ, a city I represent 
here in Congress, close to 40 percent of all students come from homes 
where English is not the primary language spoken. In the city of 
Elizabeth, portions of which I also represent, the immigrant population 
is thriving and the schools need a structured bilingual education 
program to keep students in school. I recognize that many bilingual 
programs need improvement. However, there are many effective bilingual 
programs in place across the country that really do improve the 
language skills of children who are not yet English proficient. A new 
program at the Benjamin Franklin School in my district was just awarded 
funds from the Department of Education. This program called ``Project 
Two-Way'' will engage both English proficient students and limited 
English proficient (LEP) students in classes that will be taught in 
Spanish and English enabling both types of students to be bilingual by 
the time they are in the fourth grade. The need is to not pare down 
these programs but instead take the ones that work and educate school 
districts on how to replicate them. However, like many other issues on 
the majority's education agenda, this bill is not a remedy to the real 
problems that children face. It is for that reason that I will vote 
against passage of this bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my 
opposition to H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act. Although I 
supported the bill when it was marked-up before the Education and 
Workforce Committee, after having an opportunity to study the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)'s scoring of H.R. 3892, I realized 
that I must oppose this bill because it increases expenditures for 
bilingual education. Thus, this bill actually increases the Federal 
Government's role in education.
  I originally supported this bill primarily because of the provisions 
voiding compliance agreements between the Department of Education and 
local school districts. Contrary to what the name implies, compliance 
agreements are the means by which the Federal Government has forced 288 
schools to adapt the model of bilingual education favored by the 
Federal bureaucrats in complete disregard of the wishes of the people 
in those communities.
  The English Language Fluency Act also improves current law by 
changing the formula by which schools receive Federal bilingual funds 
from a competitive to a formula grant. Competitive grants are a fancy 
term for forcing States and localities to conform to Federal dictates 
before the Federal Government returns to them some of the moneys 
unjustly taken from the American people. Formula grants allow States 
and localities greater flexibility in designing their own education 
programs and thus are preferable to competitive grants.
  Although H.R. 3892 takes some small steps forward toward restoring 
local control of education, it takes a giant step backward by extending 
bilingual education programs for three years beyond the current 
authorization and according to CBO this will increase Federal spending 
by $719 million! Mr. Chairman, it is time that Congress realized that 
increasing Federal funding is utterly incompatible with increasing 
local control. The primary reason State and local governments submit to 
Federal dictates in areas such as bilingual education is because the 
Federal Government bribes States with moneys illegitimately taken from 
the American people to confer to Federal dictates. Since he who pays 
the piper calls the tune, any measures to take more moneys from the 
American people and give it to Federal educrats reduces parental 
control by enhancing the Federal stranglehold on education. Only by 
defunding the Federal bureaucracy can State, local and parental control 
be restored.
  In order to restore parental control of education I have introduced 
the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents 
with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for elementary and secondary 
education expenses. This bill places parents back in charge and is thus 
the most effective education reform bill introduced in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, despite having some commendable features, such as 
eliminating consent decrees, the English Language Fluency Act, H.R. 
3892, is not worthy of support because it authorizes increasing the 
Federal Government's control over education dollars. I therefore call 
on my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work for 
constitutional education reform by returning money and control over 
education to America's parents through legislation such as the Family 
Education Freedom Act.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address an issue of paramount and 
long-term importance to California and the nation--Official English 
legislation.
  Nothing unites a people as effectively as a common language; it is 
especially important when members of society, often immigrants, do not 
necessarily share a common heritage. The common ground which language 
provides has led many nations to declare an official language. The fact 
that America does not have an official language makes us unique among 
the world's leading nations. At the same time, the United States does 
have a common language, English. This dichotomy results in today's 
Americans being subjected to a barrage of language issues.
  For California, bilingual education is immensely important. There are 
1\1/2\ million California school children whose primary language is not 
English. These children need to be equipped with the absolutely 
essential skill of English fluency while they are at a young age and 
are more naturally able to learn language. It is important that the 
education program functions efficiently and successfully to fully 
integrate non-English speaking children into an English-speaking 
society as quickly as possible. Without this basic skill, these 
children will most likely remain outside mainstream society, politics, 
and the economy.
  The bilingual education policy began in the 1970's with good 
intentions but has become a failure. Only 6.7% of limited English 
students going to school in California have been mainstreamed into 
English Only classrooms. California voters passed Proposition 227 last 
June by an overwhelming \2/3\ of the vote. Proposition 227 replaces the 
current system that allows a slow phasing in of English into one where 
the curriculum supports a faster one-year English immersion program. 
Such a program is designed to teach children English as quickly as 
possible in order to help them open doors of opportunity and reach 
their full potential in an English speaking society.
  Besides failing students, the bilingual education program is also 
costly. The California Department of Education reports that limited 
English proficiency programs received nearly

[[Page H7539]]

$3 million in special funding, over and above the base funding amount 
of $5,000 per student in 1997. The same amount of public funds could 
have paid a year's tuition at UCLA for almost one thousand students!
  With similar goals to fundamentally reform bilingual education 
programs on a federal level, H.R. 3892 is expected to be considered by 
the House this fall. This bill, known as the English Language Fluency 
Act, would give parents the authority to refuse enrollment or remove 
their child from a bilingual education program; give states, 
municipalities, and schools the power to create individualized English 
language instruction programs specific to community needs; and create 
accountability measures to ensure federal funding is given only to 
programs which are effective in teaching English to children. By these 
measures, H.R. 3892 hopes to reform a failing bilingual education 
program.
  Bilingual Education has failed those it was intended to help. It has 
been costly to taxpayers, has hurt those children who want to be fully 
prepared to take part in America's economy, and has forced us to lower 
our standards in education. Official English legislation would provide 
a means to deal with these and other English issues. More importantly, 
establishing English as the official language of the United States 
sends a powerful message to all Americans and those wishing to become 
American citizens. Designating English as the nation's language makes 
it clear that proficiency in this common language is absolutely 
critical for those who wish to fully participate in America's unlimited 
economic and social opportunities. I believe this legislation may go a 
long way in helping us achieve these goals.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is any 
doubt that we, as a nation, must make sure that all children learn 
English. English is our common language, and if we want young people to 
succeed, then they must be fluent in English.
  Most people would agree that our federal bilingual education program 
can be improved. In fact, New York is working to improve its own 
program, as are many states. However, I am deeply concerned that H.R. 
3892 will hurt many of the young people we want to help.
  In particular, I believe that this legislation will place inflexible 
mandates on states and school districts. It will not allow children 
with limited English skills to excel in their other course work. And it 
will not guarantee that federal funds go to where they are most needed.
  According to the New York State Board of Regents, this bill would 
directly contradict our state's laws on bilingual education. They say--
and I quote:

       Enactment of H.R. 3892 would effectively remove limited-
     English proficient students from the overall reform effort 
     underway nationwide and in New York State--where our reforms 
     focus on improving education and achievement for all 
     students.

  In addition, this bill would severely limit funds needed to prepare 
bilingual teachers. As the sponsor of the America's Teacher Preparation 
Improvement Act, I do not believe we should reduce support for our 
students, including those with limited English skills. All young people 
deserve a qualified teacher.
  Congress will have an excellent chance to reform the bilingual 
education programs when we re-authorize the ESEA next year. I am 
strongly committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to draft a common-sense bilingual education bill that will ensure 
that no child is left behind.
  We should not let that opportunity slip away, but we also should not 
rush through a bill this year that may end up denying many children the 
best education possible.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the English 
Language Fluency Act. In many ways this bill typifies what it means to 
be an American. Traditionally, our language unites us and defines our 
citizenship.
  This bill would allow localities to decide how to teach English to 
their immigrants. It would stress the goal of transitioning within two 
years, and leave it up to the locality to decide which method is most 
effective.
  Further, the school would lose federal funding for their bilingual 
education program after 3 years. This does not prevent localities from 
using their own funds to continue such a program--it just means that 
federal funds cannot be used.
  English proficiency is essential to immigrant success.
  English proficiency helps one's family, which in turn would help 
their neighborhood, which in turn would help their communmity.
  English proficiency is good for the overall well-being of our 
society. For more than 100 years it was the core of America as the 
melting pot, the melting pot that was the uniting hope and ideal of our 
nation.
  My support for this legislation stems from the experience of my 
family. My husband is the first member of his Dutch large family to be 
born in the United States. My grandparents emigrated from Italy.
  Our families made the conscious decision to assimilate into American 
society as quickly as possible. Assimilation and being Americanized was 
the goal and the principle of being an American. They knew 
instinctively that English proficiency was absolutely essential to 
their success.
  It is true that this is a nation of immigrants. But this is not a 
nation of nations. We are one country, not just an endless set of 
ethnic enclaves. We have one language that unites us and defines 
citizenship. And that language is English! This bill will underscore 
that goal.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support H.R. 3892, 
the English Language Fluency Act.
  Every child in the United States deserves a change to learn the 
English language so they may take advantage of the extraordinary 
opportunities this nation has to offer.
  Our schools are now overwhelmed by the high number of immigrant 
enrollments.
  The current Federal Bilingual Education Act is too restrictive and 
extremely ineffective.
  The current law's lack of proper tracking and accountability has led 
to some perverse incentives.
  Rather than developing programs that teach English effectively so 
that students are quickly able to move into mainstream classes, schools 
have an incentive to keep as many students in bilingual education for 
as long as possible, in order to receive extra funding.
  H.R. 3892 is committed to the goal of English fluency.
  H.R. 3892 is a responsible and sound piece of legislation which will 
correct the problems the current Federal Bilingual Education Act has 
caused.
  Unfortunately, the federal government currently earmarks 75 percent 
of its bilingual education funding for programs that teach children in 
their native language. This simply perpetuates dependency and 
effectively guarantees many children will not learn English for a long 
period of time; and perhaps not at all.
  It is time for legislation which will enhance and provide opportunity 
for success. This Congress must send funds back to our local school 
communities so they may choose a program that will suit their area 
best, for they are ones that know the best.
  Instead of making it easier for people to avoid learning English, we 
should be empowering them economically and socially by forging a common 
language.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the English Language 
Fluency Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for 3 hours and thereafter as provided in 
section 2 of House Resolution 516.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and 
is considered as having been read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3892

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

     SECTION 1. ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION.

       Part A of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is amended to 
     read as follows:

                  ``PART A--ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

     ``SEC. 7101. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `English Language Fluency 
     Act'.

     ``SEC. 7102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       ``(1) English is the common language of the United States 
     and every citizen and other person residing in the United 
     States should have a command of the English language in order 
     to develop to their full potential.
       ``(2) States and local school districts need assistance in 
     developing the capacity to provide programs of instruction 
     that offer and provide an equal educational opportunity to 
     immigrant children and youth and children and youth who need 
     special assistance because English is not their dominant 
     language.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
       ``(1) to help ensure that children and youth who are 
     English language learners master English and develop high 
     levels of academic attainment in English; and
       ``(2) to assist eligible local educational agencies that 
     experience unexpectedly large increases in their student 
     population due to immigration to help immigrant children and 
     youth with their transition into society, including mastery 
     of the English language.

     ``SEC. 7103. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND CONSENT TO 
                   PARTICIPATE.

       ``(a) In General.--A parent or the parents of a child 
     participating in an English language instruction program for 
     English language learners assisted under this Act shall be 
     informed of--
       ``(1) the reasons for the identification of the child as 
     being in need of English language instruction;

[[Page H7540]]

       ``(2) the child's level of English proficiency, how such 
     level was assessed, and the status of the child's academic 
     achievement; and
       ``(3) how the English language instruction program will 
     specifically help the child acquire English and meet age-
     appropriate standards for grade promotion and graduation.
       ``(b) Parental Consent.--
       ``(1) In general.--A parent or the parents of a child who 
     is an English language learner and is identified for 
     participation in an English language instruction program 
     assisted under this Act--
       ``(A) shall sign a form consenting to their child's 
     placement in such a program prior to such time as their child 
     is enrolled in the program;
       ``(B) shall select among methods of instruction, if more 
     than one method is offered in the program; and
       ``(C) shall have their child removed from the program upon 
     their request.
       ``(2) Effect of lau decision.--A local educational agency 
     shall not be relieved of any of its obligations under the 
     holding in the Supreme Court case of Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 
     563 (1974), because any parent chooses not to enroll their 
     child in an English language instruction program using their 
     native language in instruction.
       ``(c) Receipt of Information.--A parent or the parents of a 
     child identified for participation in an English language 
     instruction program for English language learners assisted 
     under this Act shall receive, in a manner and form 
     understandable to the parent or parents, the information 
     required by this section. At a minimum, the parent or parents 
     shall receive--
       ``(1) timely information about English language instruction 
     programs for English language learners assisted under this 
     Act; and
       ``(2) if a parent of a participating child so desires, 
     notice of opportunities for regular meetings for the purpose 
     of formulating and responding to recommendations from such 
     parents.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--An individual may not be admitted to, 
     or excluded from, any federally assisted education program 
     solely on the basis of a surname, language-minority status, 
     or national origin.

          ``Subpart 1--Grants for English Language Acquisition

                    ``CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 7111. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this subpart, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1999 and each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(b) Reservation for Entities Serving Native Americans and 
     Alaska Natives.--From the sums appropriated under subsection 
     (a) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve not less 
     than .5 percent to provide Federal financial assistance under 
     this subpart to entities that are considered to be a local 
     educational agency under section 7112(a).

     ``SEC. 7112. NATIVE AMERICAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN IN 
                   SCHOOL.

       ``(a) Eligible Entities.--For the purpose of carrying out 
     programs under this subpart for individuals served by 
     elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools operated 
     predominately for Native American or Alaska Native children 
     and youth, the following shall be considered to be a local 
     educational agency:
       ``(1) An Indian tribe.
       ``(2) A tribally sanctioned educational authority.
       ``(3) A Native Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander 
     native language educational organization.
       ``(4) An elementary or secondary school that is operated or 
     funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or a consortium of 
     such schools.
       ``(5) An elementary or secondary school operated under a 
     contract with or grant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in 
     consortium with another such school or a tribal or community 
     organization.
       ``(6) An elementary or secondary school operated by the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs and an institution of higher 
     education, in consortium with an elementary or secondary 
     school operated under a contract with or grant from the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs or a tribal or community 
     organization.
       ``(b) Submission of Applications for Assistance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, an 
     entity that is considered to be a local educational agency 
     under subsection (a), and that desires to submit an 
     application for Federal financial assistance under this 
     subpart, shall submit the application to the Secretary. In 
     all other respects, such an entity shall be eligible for a 
     grant under this subpart on the same basis as any other local 
     educational agency.

          ``CHAPTER 2--GRANTS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

     ``SEC. 7121. FORMULA GRANTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of each State that in 
     accordance with section 7122 submits to the Secretary an 
     application for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make a 
     grant for the year to the State for the purposes specified in 
     subsection (b). The grant shall consist of the allotment 
     determined for the State under section 7124.
       ``(b) Purposes of Grants.--
       ``(1) Required expenditures.--The Secretary may make a 
     grant under subsection (a) only if the State involved agrees 
     that the State will expend at least 90 percent of the amount 
     of the funds provided under the grant for the purpose of 
     making subgrants to eligible entities to provide assistance 
     to children and youth who are English language learners and 
     immigrant children and youth in accordance with section 7123.
       ``(2) Authorized expenditures.--Subject to paragraph (3), a 
     State that receives a grant under subsection (a) may expend 
     not more than 10 percent of the amount of the funds provided 
     under the grant for one or more of the following purposes:
       ``(A) Professional development and activities that assist 
     personnel in meeting State and local certification 
     requirements for English language instruction.
       ``(B) Planning, administration, and interagency 
     coordination related to the subgrants referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Providing technical assistance and other forms of 
     assistance to local educational agencies that--
       ``(i) educate children and youth who are English language 
     learners and immigrant children and youth; and
       ``(ii) are not receiving a subgrant from a State under this 
     chapter.
       ``(D) Providing bonuses to subgrantees whose performance 
     has been exceptional in terms of the speed with which 
     children and youth enrolled in the subgrantee's programs and 
     activities attain English language proficiency.
       ``(3) Limitation on administrative costs.--In carrying out 
     paragraph (2), a State that receives a grant under subsection 
     (a) may expend not more than 2 percent of the amount of the 
     funds provided under the grant for the purposes described in 
     paragraph (2)(B).

     ``SEC. 7122. APPLICATIONS BY STATES.

       ``For purposes of section 7121, an application submitted by 
     a State for a grant under such section for a fiscal year is 
     in accordance with this section if the application--
       ``(1) describes the process that the State will use in 
     making subgrants to eligible entities under this chapter;
       ``(2) contains an agreement that the State annually will 
     submit to the Secretary a summary report, describing the 
     State's use of the funds provided under the grant;
       ``(3) contains an agreement that the State will give 
     special consideration to applications for a subgrant under 
     section 7123 from eligible entities that describe a program 
     that--
       ``(A)(i) enrolls a large percentage or large number of 
     children and youth who are English language learners and 
     immigrant children and youth; and
       ``(ii) addresses a need brought about through a significant 
     increase, as compared to the previous 2 years, in the 
     percentage or number of children and youth who are English 
     language learners in a school or school district, including 
     schools and school districts in areas with low concentrations 
     of such children and youth; or
       ``(B) on the day preceding the date of the enactment of 
     this section, was receiving funding under a grant--
       ``(i) awarded by the Secretary under subpart 1 or 3 of part 
     A of the Bilingual Education Act (as such Act was in effect 
     on such day); and
       ``(ii) that was not due to expire before a period of one 
     year or more had elapsed;
       ``(4) contains an agreement that, in carrying out this 
     chapter, the State will address the needs of school systems 
     of all sizes and in all geographic areas, including rural and 
     urban schools;
       ``(5) contains an agreement that the State will coordinate 
     its programs and activities under this chapter with its other 
     programs and activities under this Act and other Acts, as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(6) contains an agreement that the State will monitor the 
     progress of students enrolled in programs and activities 
     receiving assistance under this chapter in attaining English 
     proficiency and withdraw funding from such programs and 
     activities in cases where--
       ``(A) students enrolling when they are in kindergarten are 
     not mastering the English language by the end of the first 
     grade; and
       ``(B) other students are not mastering the English language 
     after 2 academic years of enrollment.

     ``SEC. 7123. SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Purposes of Subgrants.--A State may make a subgrant 
     to an eligible entity from funds received by the State under 
     this chapter only if the entity agrees to expend the funds 
     for one of the following purposes:
       ``(1) Developing and implementing new English language 
     instructional programs for children and youth who are English 
     language learners, including programs of early childhood 
     education and kindergarten through 12th grade education.
       ``(2) Carrying out locally designed projects to expand or 
     enhance existing English language instruction programs for 
     children and youth who are English language learners.
       ``(3) Assisting a local educational agency in providing 
     enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children 
     and youth.
       ``(b) Authorized Subgrantee Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State may 
     make a subgrant to an eligible entity from funds received by 
     the State under this chapter in order that the eligible 
     entity may achieve one of the purposes described in 
     subsection (a) by undertaking one or more of the following 
     activities to improve the understanding, and use, of the 
     English language, based on a child's learning skills:
       ``(A) Developing and implementing comprehensive preschool 
     or elementary or secondary school English language 
     instructional programs that are coordinated with other 
     relevant programs and services.
       ``(B) Providing training to classroom teachers, 
     administrators, and other school or community-based 
     organizational personnel to improve the instruction and 
     assessment of children and youth who are English language 
     learners, immigrant children and youth, or both.
       ``(C) Improving the program for children and youth who are 
     English language learners, immigrant children and youth, or 
     both.
       ``(D) Providing for the acquisition or development of 
     education technology or instructional materials, access to 
     and participation in electronic networks for materials, 
     providing training

[[Page H7541]]

     and communications, and incorporation of such resources in 
     curricula and programs, such as those funded under this 
     subpart.
       ``(E) Such other activities, related to the purpose of the 
     subgrant, as the State may approve.
       ``(2) Moving children out of specialized classrooms.--Any 
     program or activity undertaken by an eligible entity using a 
     subgrant from a State under this chapter shall be designed to 
     assist students enrolled in the program or activity to move 
     into a classroom where instruction is not tailored for 
     English language learners or immigrant children and youth--
       ``(A) by the end of the first grade, in the case of 
     students enrolling when they are in kindergarten; or
       ``(B) by the end of their second academic year of 
     enrollment, in the case of other students.
       ``(3) Maximum enrollment period.--An eligible entity may 
     not use funds received from a State under this chapter to 
     provide instruction or assistance to any individual who has 
     been enrolled for a period exceeding 3 years in a program or 
     activity undertaken by the eligible entity under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Selection of Method of Instruction.--To receive a 
     subgrant from a State under this chapter, an eligible entity 
     shall select one or more methods or forms of English language 
     instruction to be used in the programs and activities 
     undertaken by the entity to assist English language learners 
     and immigrant children and youth to achieve English fluency. 
     Such selection shall be consistent with the State's law, 
     including State constitutional law.
       ``(d) Duration of Subgrants.--The duration of a subgrant 
     made by a State under this section shall be determined by the 
     State in its discretion.
       ``(e) Applications by Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--To receive a subgrant from a State under 
     this chapter, an eligible entity shall submit an application 
     to the State at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the State may require.
       ``(2) Required documentation.--The application shall 
     describe the programs and activities proposed to be 
     developed, implemented, and administered under the subgrant 
     and shall provide an assurance that the applicant will only 
     employ teachers and other personnel for the proposed programs 
     and activities who are proficient in English, including 
     written and oral communication skills.
       ``(3) Requirements for approval.--A State may approve an 
     application submitted by an eligible entity for a subgrant 
     under this chapter only if the State determines that--
       ``(A) the eligible entity will use qualified personnel who 
     have appropriate training and professional credentials in 
     teaching English to children and youth who are English 
     language learners and immigrant children and youth;
       ``(B) in designing the programs and activities proposed in 
     the application, the needs of children enrolled in private 
     elementary and secondary schools have been taken into account 
     through consultation with appropriate private school 
     officials;
       ``(C) the eligible entity has provided for the 
     participation of children enrolled in private elementary and 
     secondary schools in the programs and activities proposed in 
     the application on a basis comparable to that provided for 
     children enrolled in public school;
       ``(D) the eligible entity has based its proposal on sound 
     research and theory; and
       ``(E) the eligible entity has described in the application 
     how students enrolled in the programs and activities proposed 
     in the application will be taught English--
       ``(i) by the end of the first grade, in the case of 
     students enrolling when they are in kindergarten; or
       ``(ii) by the end of their second academic year of 
     enrollment, in the case of other students.
       ``(4) Quality.--In determining which applications to select 
     for approval, a State shall consider the quality of each 
     application.
       ``(f) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each eligible entity that receives a 
     subgrant from a State under this chapter shall provide the 
     State, at the conclusion of every second fiscal year during 
     which the grant is received, with an evaluation, in a form 
     prescribed by the State, of--
       ``(A) the programs and activities conducted by the entity 
     with funds received under this chapter during the two 
     immediately preceding fiscal years; and
       ``(B) the progress made by students in learning the English 
     language.
       ``(2) Use of evaluation.--An evaluation provided by an 
     eligible entity under paragraph (1) shall be used by the 
     entity and the State--
       ``(A) for improvement of programs and activities;
       ``(B) to determine the effectiveness of programs and 
     activities in assisting children and youth who are English 
     language learners to master the English language; and
       ``(C) in determining whether or not to continue funding for 
     specific programs or projects.
       ``(3) Evaluation components.--An evaluation provided by an 
     eligible entity under paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) an evaluation of whether students enrolling in a 
     program or activity conducted by the entity with funds 
     received under this chapter--
       ``(i) are mastering the English language--

       ``(I) by the end of the first grade, in the case of 
     students enrolling when they are in kindergarten; or
       ``(II) by the end of their second academic year of 
     enrollment, in the case of other students; and

       ``(ii) have achieved a working knowledge of the English 
     language that is sufficient to permit them to perform, in 
     English, regular classroom work; and
       ``(B) such other information as the State may require.

     ``SEC. 7124. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF ALLOTMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) 
     and (c), from the sum available for the purpose of making 
     grants to States under this chapter for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall allot to each State an amount which bears the 
     same ratio to such sum as the total number of children and 
     youth who are English language learners and immigrant 
     children and youth and who reside in the State bears to the 
     total number of such children and youth residing in all 
     States (excluding the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the 
     outlying areas) that, in accordance with section 7122, submit 
     to the Secretary an application for the year.
       ``(b) Puerto Rico.--From the sum available for the purpose 
     of making grants to States under this chapter for any fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall allot to the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico an amount equal to 1.5 percent of the sums appropriated 
     under section 7111(a).
       ``(c) Outlying Areas.--
       ``(1) Total available for allotment.--From the sum 
     available for the purpose of making grants to States under 
     this chapter for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot 
     to the outlying areas, in accordance with paragraph (2), a 
     total amount equal to .5 percent of the sums appropriated 
     under section 7111(a).
       ``(2) Determination of individual area amounts.--From the 
     total amount determined under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall allot to each outlying area an amount which bears the 
     same ratio to such amount as the total number of children and 
     youth who are English language learners and immigrant 
     children and youth and who reside in the outlying area bears 
     to the total number of such children and youth residing in 
     all outlying areas that, in accordance with section 7122, 
     submit to the Secretary an application for the year.
       ``(d) Use of State Data for Determinations.--For purposes 
     of subsections (a) and (c), any determination of the number 
     of children and youth who are English language learners and 
     reside in a State shall be made using the most recent English 
     language learner school enrollment data available to, and 
     reported to the Secretary by, the State. For purposes of such 
     subsections, any determination of the number of immigrant 
     children and youth who reside in a State shall made using the 
     most recent data available to, and reported to the Secretary 
     by, the State.
       ``(e) No Reduction Permitted Based on Teaching Method.--The 
     Secretary may not reduce a State's allotment based on the 
     State's selection of the immersion method of instruction as 
     its preferred method of teaching the English language to 
     children and youth who are English language learners or 
     immigrant children and youth.

     ``SEC. 7125. CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring a 
     State or a local educational agency to establish, continue, 
     or eliminate a program of native language instruction.

                ``Subpart 2--Research and Dissemination

     ``SEC. 7141. AUTHORITY.

       ``The Secretary may conduct, through the Office of 
     Educational Research and Improvement, research for the 
     purpose of improving English language instruction for 
     children and youth who are English language learners and 
     immigrant children and youth. Activities under this section 
     shall be limited to research to identify successful models 
     for teaching children English and distribution of research 
     results to States for dissemination to schools with 
     populations of students who are English language learners. 
     Research conducted under this section may not focus solely on 
     any one method of instruction.''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EMERGENCY IMMIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       Part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7541 et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION.

       Part D of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7571 et seq.) is 
     redesignated as part C of such title and amended to read as 
     follows:

                        ``PART C--ADMINISTRATION

     ``SEC. 7301. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) States.--Based upon the evaluations provided to a 
     State under section 7123(f), each State receiving a grant 
     under this title annually shall report to the Secretary on 
     programs and activities undertaken by the State under this 
     title and the effectiveness of such programs and activities 
     in improving the education provided to children and youth who 
     are English language learners and immigrant children and 
     youth.
       ``(b) Secretary.--Every other year, the Secretary shall 
     prepare and submit to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report on 
     programs and activities undertaken by States under this title 
     and the effectiveness of such programs and activities in 
     improving the education provided to children and youth who 
     are English language learners and immigrant children and 
     youth.

     ``SEC. 7302. COMMINGLING OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) ESEA Funds.--A person who receives Federal funds 
     under subpart 1 of part A may commingle such funds with other 
     funds the person receives under this Act so long as the 
     person satisfies the requirements of this Act.
       ``(b) State and Local Funds.--Except as provided in section 
     14503, a person who receives Federal funds under subpart 1 of 
     part A may commingle such funds with funds the person 
     receives under State or local law for the purpose of teaching 
     English to children and youth who are English language 
     learners and immigrant children and youth, to the extent 
     permitted under such State or local law, so long as the 
     person satisfies the requirements of this title and such 
     law.''.

[[Page H7542]]

     SEC. 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       Part E of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is 
     redesignated as part D of such title and amended to read as 
     follows:

                      ``PART D--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 7401. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) Children and youth.--The term `children and youth' 
     means individuals aged 3 through 21.
       ``(2) Community-based organization.--The term `community-
     based organization' means a private nonprofit organization of 
     demonstrated effectiveness or Indian tribe or tribally 
     sanctioned educational authority which is representative of a 
     community or significant segments of a community and which 
     provides educational or related services to individuals in 
     the community. Such term includes a Native Hawaiian or Native 
     American Pacific Islander native language educational 
     organization.
       ``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) one or more local educational agencies;
       ``(B) one or more local educational agencies in 
     collaboration with--
       ``(i) an institution of higher education;
       ``(ii) a community-based organization;
       ``(iii) a local educational agency; or
       ``(iv) a State; or
       ``(C) a community-based organization or an institution of 
     higher education which has an application approved by a local 
     educational agency to enhance an early childhood education 
     program or a family education program.
       ``(4) English language learner.--The term `English language 
     learner', when used with reference to an individual, means an 
     individual--
       ``(A) aged 3 through 21;
       ``(B) who--
       ``(i) was not born in the United States; or
       ``(ii) comes from an environment where a language other 
     than English is dominant and who normally uses a language 
     other than English; and
       ``(C) who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, 
     writing, or understanding the English language that the 
     difficulty may deny the individual the opportunity--
       ``(i) to learn successfully in a classroom where the 
     language of instruction is English; or
       ``(ii) to participate fully in society.
       ``(5) Immigrant children and youth.--The term `immigrant 
     children and youth' means individuals who--
       ``(A) are aged 3 through 21;
       ``(B) were not born in any State; and
       ``(C) have not attended school in any State for more than 
     three full academic years.
       ``(6) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
     community, including any Alaska Native village or regional 
     corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
     which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and 
     services provided by the United States to Indians because of 
     their status as Indians.
       ``(7) Native american; native american language.--The terms 
     `Native American' and `Native American language' have the 
     meanings given such terms in section 103 of the Native 
     American Languages Act (25 U.S.C. 2902).
       ``(8) Native hawaiian or native american pacific islander 
     native language educational organization.--The term `Native 
     Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander native language 
     educational organization' means a nonprofit organization--
       ``(A) a majority of whose governing board, and a majority 
     of whose employees, are fluent speakers of the traditional 
     Native American languages used in the organization's 
     educational programs; and
       ``(B) that has not less than five years of successful 
     experience in providing educational services in traditional 
     Native American languages.
       ``(9) Native language.--The term `native language', when 
     used with reference to an individual who is an English 
     language learner, means the language normally used by such 
     individual.
       ``(10) Outlying area.--The term `outlying area' means any 
     of the following:
       ``(A) The Virgin Islands of the United States.
       ``(B) Guam.
       ``(C) American Samoa.
       ``(D) The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(11) State.--The term `State' means any of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, or any outlying area.
       ``(12) Tribally sanctioned educational authority.--The term 
     `tribally sanctioned educational authority' means--
       ``(A) any department or division of education operating 
     within the administrative structure of the duly constituted 
     governing body of an Indian tribe; and
       ``(B) any nonprofit institution or organization that is--
       ``(i) chartered by the governing body of an Indian tribe to 
     operate a school described in section 7112(a) or otherwise to 
     oversee the delivery of educational services to members of 
     the tribe; and
       ``(ii) approved by the Secretary for the purpose of 
     carrying out programs under subpart 1 of part A for 
     individuals served by a school described in section 7112(a).

     ``SEC. 7402. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary shall issue regulations under this title 
     only to the extent that such regulations are necessary to 
     ensure compliance with the specific requirements of this 
     title.

     ``SEC. 7403. LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW.

       ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to negate or 
     supersede the legal authority, under State law, of any State 
     agency, State entity, or State public official over programs 
     that are under the jurisdiction of the agency, entity, or 
     official.

     ``SEC. 7404. RELEASE FROM COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS.

       ``Notwithstanding section 7403, any compliance agreement 
     entered into between a State, locality, or local educational 
     agency and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
     or the Department of Education, that requires such State, 
     locality, or local educational agency to develop, implement, 
     provide, or maintain any form of bilingual education, is 
     void.

     ``SEC. 7405. RULEMAKING ON OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS GUIDELINES 
                   AND COMPLIANCE STANDARDS.

       ``(a) In General.--In accordance with subchapter II of 
     chapter 5 of part I of title 5, United States Code, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(1) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking with respect to the enforcement 
     guidelines and compliance standards of the Office of Civil 
     Rights of the Department of Education that apply to a program 
     or activity to provide English language instruction to 
     English language learners that is undertaken by a State, 
     locality, or local educational agency;
       ``(2) shall undertake a rulemaking pursuant to such notice; 
     and
       ``(3) shall promulgate a final rule pursuant to such 
     rulemaking on the record after opportunity for an agency 
     hearing.
       ``(b) Effect of Rulemaking on Compliance Agreements.--The 
     Secretary may not enter into any compliance agreement after 
     the date of the enactment of this section pursuant to a 
     guideline or standard described in subsection (a)(1) with an 
     entity described in such subsection until the Secretary has 
     promulgated the final rule described in subsection (a)(3).

     ``SEC. 7406. REQUIREMENT FOR STATE STANDARDIZED TESTING IN 
                   ENGLISH.

       ``(a) Requirement.--In the case of a State receiving a 
     grant under this title that administers a State standardized 
     test to elementary or secondary school children in the State, 
     the State shall not exempt a child from the requirement that 
     the test be administered in English, on the ground that the 
     child is an English language learner, if the child--
       ``(1) has resided, throughout the 3-year period ending on 
     the date the test is administered, in a geographic area that 
     is under the jurisdiction of only one local educational 
     agency; and
       ``(2) has received educational services from such local 
     educational agency throughout such 3-year period (excluding 
     any period in which such services are not provided in the 
     ordinary course).
       ``(b) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, if a State fails to fulfill the requirement of 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall withhold, in accordance 
     with section 455 of the General Education Provisions Act, all 
     funds otherwise made available to the State under this title, 
     until the State remedies such failure.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Title Heading.--The title heading of title VII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to 
     read as follows:
``TITLE VII--ENGLISH LANGUAGE FLUENCY AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 
                              PROGRAMS''.
       (b) Elementary and Secondary Education Act.--The Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended--
       (1) in section 2209(b)(1)(C)(iii) (20 U.S.C. 
     6649(b)(1)(C)(iii)), by striking ``Bilingual Education 
     Programs under part A of title VII.'' and inserting ``English 
     language education programs under part A of title VII.''; and
       (2) in section 14307(b)(1)(E) (20 U.S.C. 8857(b)(1)(E)), by 
     striking ``Subpart 1 of part A of title VII (bilingual 
     education).'' and inserting ``Chapter 2 of subpart 1 of part 
     A of title VII (English language education).''.
       (c) Department of Education Organization Act.--
       (1) In general.--The Department of Education Organization 
     Act is amended by striking ``Office of Bilingual Education 
     and Minority Languages Affairs'' each place such term appears 
     in the text and inserting ``Office of English Language 
     Acquisition''.
       (2) Clerical amendments.--
       (A) Section 209.--The section heading for section 209 of 
     the Department of Education Organization Act is amended to 
     read as follows:


              ``office of english language acquisition''.

       (B) Section 216.--The section heading for section 216 of 
     the Department of Education Organization Act is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 216. OFFICE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION.''.

       (C) Table of contents.--
       (i) Section 209.--The table of contents of the Department 
     of Education Organization Act is amended by amending the item 
     relating to section 209 to read as follows:

``Sec. 209. Office of English Language Acquisition.''.

       (ii) Section 216.--The table of contents of the Department 
     of Education Organization Act is amended by amending the item 
     relating to section 216 to read as follows:

``Sec. 216. Office of English Language Acquisition.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, or October 1, 1998, 
     whichever occurs later.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, before consideration of any other 
amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in 
the Congressional Record  numbered 1 if offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) or his designee. That

[[Page H7543]]

amendment shall be considered read, shall 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.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
  After disposition of amendment No. 1, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record  numbered 2, 
if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) or his 
designee. That amendment shall be considered 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 for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered by the 
gentleman from California.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 516, it is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in the Congressional Record.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 
2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Page 16, line 16, strike ``and''.
       Page 17, line 3, strike ``students.'' and insert 
     ``students; and''.
       Page 17, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(F) the eligible entity is not in violation of any State 
     law, including State constitutional law, regarding the 
     education of English language learners.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 516, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes of debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would explain this very, very straightforward 
amendment. As we completed consideration of this bill in committee, we 
realized that additional language would be necessary to make sure that 
there was no conflict or inconsistency between this legislation, new 
Federal law, and existing State law with respect to bilingual 
educational, so I am offering an amendment here which will permit 
States to approve applications from eligible entities, that is to say, 
from local school districts, only if that local school district is not 
in violation of any provision in State law with respect to bilingual 
education, including State constitutional law.
  Again, I am doing that to make sure that we attempt to anticipate any 
potential problem or conflict between new provisions in Federal law and 
existing State law. We want to make sure that both State and Federal 
law are compatible with respect to the education of limited or non-
English-speaking proficient students and immigrant children and youth.
  The amendment still respects a State's right to determine how to 
educate limited English proficient students, and it penalizes eligible 
entities, local school districts by withholding Federal funding only if 
that local school district, again, is not in compliance or refuses to 
comply with State law.
  We strongly believe that Federal funding should not be used to 
support local school districts that refuse to comply with State laws 
governing the education of children, and again, particularly with 
respect to limited English proficient students and bilingual programs 
for immigrant children and youth.
  So it is a very straightforward, commonsense amendment. It is one 
that I hope the minority will accept. Just before yielding the floor, I 
want to go back to one point, so that Members are not confused or 
further confused as debate proceeds here, because we have used, up 
until this point, the terms ``consent decree'' and ``compliance 
agreement'' interchangeably.
  I want to again make very, very clear that in part because of what I 
felt was the legitimate, constructive criticism of the draft 
legislation offered by my Democratic colleagues, and specifically the 
ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez), we dropped the provision, the earlier provision in the bill, 
that would have, by passage of this legislation and enactment into law 
of this legislation, effectively terminated or vacated court-ordered 
consent decrees.
  I thought the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and others made very legitimate arguments 
that if we attempted to, if you will, impose such a mandate on the 
courts, we would very definitely be encroaching upon the prerogative of 
the judicial branch of government, so we deleted those provisions from 
the bill.
  The bill is now completely silent on court-ordered consent decrees 
with respect to the civil rights of non-English or limited English 
speaking students to get a quality public education.
  It does still, and this would be legitimate, valid criticism with 
which I would respectfully disagree, it does effectively void or, 
again, terminate the administratively-issued, by the Federal Department 
of Education Office of Civil Rights, compliance agreements between the 
Federal Government and a particular school district at the local level.
  It vacates those because in the bill we require the Office of Civil 
Rights to publish new guidelines for compliance agreements, and then we 
allow for a review period when interested members of the public, 
certainly interested members of the education profession, the education 
community, and the respective committees of the Congress with 
authorizing and oversight responsibilities can comment on those 
guidelines before they would then go into effect.
  Again, I want to make sure that our colleagues are very clear, here, 
that we are in no way attempting to infringe on the legitimate 
prerogative and authority of the judicial branch of government, and we 
in no way tamper, modify, or undo the existing court-ordered consent 
decrees that are in place in many local school districts around the 
country.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) opposed to 
the amendment?
  Mr. CLAY. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) yielding 15 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez)?
  Mr. CLAY. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) is 
recognized.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Martinez to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. 
                                 Riggs

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to amendment No. 2.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Martinez to amendment No. 2 
     offered by Mr. Riggs:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment on 
     page 17, after line 3, of the bill, strike ``learners.'' and 
     insert ``learners, except if necessary for the eligible 
     entity to comply with Federal law (including a Federal court 
     order).''.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  As I said earlier, the bill today is based more on myth than 
exceptions to the rule, and polling numbers rather than sound policy. 
The Riggs amendment that he was just addressing requires adherence to 
State laws above all else, and it further creates a problem by singling 
out school districts

[[Page H7544]]

that have expressed their commitment to the comprehensive education of 
LEP children.
  San Francisco in particular has operated its bilingual program 
education under a court order since the Lau decision. In addition, 
Chicago, Denver, New York, and others are operating under similar 
court-ordered arrangements.
  The school districts in these cities continue to take the steps 
necessary to ensure that the language minority children in their 
communities are provided with meaningful access to the general 
education curriculum. In San Francisco's case, this includes not 
implementing California's Proposition 227, which would compel them to 
cease instruction in any language but English, a practice that landed 
them in court over two decades ago.
  The subcommittee chairman has argued that no one approach to 
bilingual education is mandated in H.R. 3892. His amendment that we are 
currently considering would clearly mandate immersion in all California 
schools as a condition of maintaining Federal aid.
  This amendment would reaffirm that Federal law and the U.S. 
Constitution are primary concerns. As such, schools should not be 
forced to deny services to students and deprive them of full access to 
the general curriculum in direct conflict with the civil rights of 
those children.
  In the case of San Francisco, they should not be forced to give up 
over $1 million in Federal aid because they work to ensure the civil 
rights of their students. To make it clear that the constitutional 
guarantee of equal access to education supersedes all other educational 
mandates, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on first blush, I think we would have to oppose the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) as 
overly broad. Let me say to the gentleman that I think I understand his 
intent, and that we might be able to accept a modification of his 
amendment that would add the end of my amendment.
  I would propose this now, and I quote, ``. . . learners, except if 
necessary for the eligible entity to comply with a Federal court 
order.'' In other words, we would be deleting, ``to comply with Federal 
law.'' That is overly broad, but I think it would still go to his 
concern and the concern of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), which is that if a Federal court issued a court order, if you 
will, stymying or delaying the implementation of Proposition 227, that 
would be a court order. So I would have no problem narrowing the scope 
of his amendment along those lines, but would have to oppose the 
amendment as it is currently drafted as, again, overly broad.
  I would ask the gentleman, would not that modification, as I just 
proposed, address his concern or the concern of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) and still satisfy the intent of his proposed 
amendment?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Not really, because of the gentleman's restriction on 
the ability of them to get Federal dollars simply because they are 
actually complying with a Federal law, they are complying with a 
Federal law under the language the gentleman suggests. I do not think 
the bill as it was drafted by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) is that broad.

                              {time}  1545

  It is very definite in stating that what we are trying to do here is 
prevent people from being punished who are complying with a court 
order.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I just said to the 
gentleman, that would be fine as he describes it with a court order.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
but also Federal law. There are two things, first the court order and 
then Federal law.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time with the purpose of 
yielding to the gentleman again, what specific Federal law or laws does 
the gentleman have in mind?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. The Civil Rights Act.
  Mr. RIGGS. I see. I think we might have some potential to work 
something out here, but I need to give it a little bit further thought 
and reflection and would propose that our staffs have a chance to 
perhaps huddle on this particular amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also, while I still control the time, just point 
out our concern. Our concern is that we do not want Federal law to 
necessarily override State law with respect to the day-to-day 
administration of bilingual education programs. I think the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Martinez) would acknowledge that bilingual 
education is first and foremost a responsibility of State and local 
government, and that is the concern that we have on this side.
  I am very open to the suggestion that we make sure that a Federal 
court order would have the highest priority and would override State 
and local law. I think that is consistent with what I said earlier 
about the reason for our deleting the language in the bill dealing with 
court ordered consent decrees. I will leave that with the gentleman.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, in 
the gentleman's revision of the bill, he did go to some degree to doing 
that. But in his published bill now, he has reverted back to the same 
position that he had before.
  Now, I think our staffs are willing to work with the gentleman's 
staffs in trying to work something out so that we might come to a 
mutual agreement where we can thereby protect especially the County of 
San Francisco who must comply both with the court order and the Federal 
law.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a perfect example of why this legislation is 
premature. We are trying to craft legislation on the floor of the 
House. That is why we have committee processes and that is why we take 
deliberative time and witnesses' testimony to know where we go with 
this legislation.
  We are not there yet. That has been the complaint of a number of us. 
Not that we do not want to see changes, but let us do them right. We 
are about to enact law. We do not have time to say we just passed the 
law, can we just tweak it a little bit more? You cannot do that. That 
is not the way a deliberative body works.
  Secondly, this amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Riggs) actually tries to impose upon the local school districts, 
usurp local control by telling a local school district, which went to 
court and found that the court agreed with it, that it must continue 
its current programs. This amendment would say to that local school 
district: ``You cannot do that. We high and mighty up here in 
Washington, D.C. have decided you cannot do that.''
  That is not in the current bill, but the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Riggs) wants to put it in the bill to take that local guidance, 
that local opportunity to decide what to do, away from that local 
school district after a court has agreed with it. That does not to me 
seem like local control.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would take a look at what the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is trying to do. He is trying to 
say that because a court found that a school district should be 
entitled to continue its program to try to educate its kids, he wants 
to enact an amendment that would stop that school district that has 
been found by a court to be correct in its administration of its 
educational programs.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members want to talk about usurping local control, 
this amendment is it because it is telling one or two local school 
districts, of the several thousand that the chairman and the committee 
noted that we have in this country, that because they have a court 
order, they should not go forward. That is how egregious we have gotten 
in these amendments and that is why this bill is such a denial of local 
opportunities to make decisions for the education of our kids.

[[Page H7545]]

  Somehow the Members of this House of Representatives know better than 
all the elected school officials on the school boards of our Nation; 
all the principals of our schools and all the administrators. And by 
the way, that is probably why the National PTA, the School 
Administrators Association, the school board associations nationally, 
all of those organizations oppose this legislation, because it truly 
does strip away local control and it tells them: This is the way to do. 
If they do not like the shape of this cookie, too bad, because that is 
the way all of the cookies will be shaped.
  We should reject this amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs), certainly accept the second degree amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). But still we 
are talking about trying to improve a monster. A monster is still a 
monster. No matter how much you comb its hair, it is still a monster.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would oppose this legislation at the 
end of the day. I urge my colleagues to pass the Martinez second degree 
amendment, defeat the Riggs amendment, and ultimately defeat the bill.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is simply this, that under the bill's present 
language, school districts who did not comply with State law will lose 
Federal dollars. And the County and City of San Francisco would lose 
over a million dollars, which is hardly something it can afford, simply 
because, simply because they are required by a court order to provide 
this education for these children.
  I think that is a terrible thing to do for an entity as large as San 
Francisco with as many children as they serve. I think it is 
inappropriate. I would insist on my amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield before he closes 
debate?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, again, I just wanted to make the point one 
more time. It does not sound like we are going to be able to work 
something out on this, but I want to say one more time that I am very 
comfortable with language that would say that a court order, Federal 
court order would take precedence over State and local law with respect 
to bilingual education or State local policy.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support an amendment that appears to be 
intended to create an escape hatch, an ``out clause'' for local school 
districts in California that do not want to comply with a voter-
approved ballot initiative that passed by a margin of 61 to 39 percent.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I understand the 
gentleman right, what it is is that the language in there, ``complying 
with Federal law,'' is what the gentleman considers too broad and 
covers too many bases. In other words, what the gentleman thinks is 
that gives school districts all over the country an escape hatch of not 
having to comply with Federal law. That would only occur if they were 
under a court order.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
think then we are moving in the same direction again. It seems if we 
take the San Francisco Unified School District, or any school district, 
if they want to go to a Federal court for relief from Proposition 227, 
and they are successful in obtaining a court order that says that they 
do not need to comply with Proposition 227, I can live with that. That 
is why I am suggesting that the gentleman change his amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I cannot see 
that a school district of its own volition would go to the court to get 
relief in order to put themselves under a court order. As it has been 
in most cases, those court orders that were issued were because the 
school districts fought, fought to have to comply with a Federal law. 
The voluntary ones were when they were approached about violation of 
the Federal law, they then complied voluntarily, and the gentleman has 
already eliminated those.
  So in this instance I cannot see, I cannot envision a school district 
who does not want to comply or who automatically would want to comply 
would then put themselves in the Federal court process in order to be 
able to get out of the laws as the gentleman has written it in this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand, we are winding down debate on the 
Martinez amendment to my amendment No. 2. I want to make this point 
again. Again, I do not sense that we are that far apart and this may 
just be a matter of semantics. But as I understand what the gentleman 
is saying, if there is a legitimate legal or policy dispute in the eyes 
of a local school district and ultimately its governing board and its 
top administrators, and if that dispute is between Federal and State 
law, it seems to me by definition that is an issue that has to be 
adjudicated in the courts.
  That is why I am saying to the gentleman that if the court does 
adjudicate that matter, and if the court does issue an order that says 
for all intents and purposes Federal law supersedes State law, takes 
precedence over any provisions in the State law or the State 
Constitution, I could live with that decision and I would be happy to 
reflect that in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot go along with a provision that is so broad as 
to say ``Federal law generally.'' Again, it seems to me that the very 
purpose of the judicial branch, the third branch of government, is to 
adjudicate a dispute between Federal and State law. That is why I am 
suggesting to the gentleman that he narrow his amendment so that it 
would say except as necessary for the general entity, in other words 
the local school district, to comply with a Federal court order. 
Because I still think that accomplishes the same purpose, but would not 
be so broad as to create confusion in the minds of local school 
districts, should this legislation become law.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, in the scenario the gentleman just laid 
out, what he is envisioning is if there were a conflict between let us 
say the PTA or the citizens who have children in the school would be in 
conflict with their board, that they would go to court to get a court 
order that they teach bilingual education? Is that what the fear is?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know that it is 
a fear. I want to go back to the gentleman's position.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Maybe fear is the wrong word, but is that the concept, 
that that would be a possibility?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, yes, and my opinion is that that local 
school district should have to go to court to adjudicate an unclear or 
conflicting provision between Federal and State law. And then if a 
Federal court order results, then obviously that local school district 
should have to comply with the ultimate decision and interpretation or 
decision and ruling of the Federal court.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
if it were members of the community who were in disagreement with the 
school board, they elect that school board so they are their bosses. 
And if they want that school board to teach bilingual education, who 
are we to tell them that they cannot go to court to get that court 
order in order that they be able to get that program there?
  I would think that the gentleman would want that, because he has 
repeatedly, coming from a school board himself, being elected by the 
local constituencies, that he would understand that the constituent is 
the controller of what our actions are and what we do. They elect us to 
represent them. Why would the gentleman be in conflict with that?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I am not sure 
I

[[Page H7546]]

am. I would reverse the gentleman's argument and ask him if he is 
suggesting, going back to our home State of California, that in every 
community where a majority of the electorate supported Proposition 227, 
that that decision should be binding on the local school district?
  As the gentleman knows, my legislation does not go that far. It 
allows the local school district to determine the bilingual 
instructional method most appropriate for that school, whether it is 
English language immersion, native language immersion, or dual 
immersion. So, it does not go nearly as far as Proposition 227.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, think the gentleman is on the right track. I 
think he makes a valid point that there could be a potential for 
conflict between Federal and State law. That should be, by definition, 
adjudicated and decided by the judicial branch of government and than 
that court order should be binding. That is why I am suggesting that 
his amendment should apply only to Federal court orders and not so 
broadly as to apply to Federal law.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, the whole thing is that you ought to be 
able to give constituencies in different areas the right to select what 
they want for their school district. You have said that repeatedly.
  Mr. RIGGS. I think we do that.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. If there is a school constituency that wants bilingual 
programs, and their school board will not give it to them, and they do 
not want to wait until the next election to vote these people out and 
vote people in that will give it to them, then they ought to be able to 
go to court and get a court order.
  That is where I cannot see where my colleague is in conflict with 
that terminology that says that it comply with Federal law. Federal law 
does supersede State law, and they ought to be able to take advantage 
of that.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can try to capture what 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) was trying to do. It seems to 
me that the gentleman from California is encountering resistance on our 
part to accept his offer on the amendment to accept language that 
limits the provisions of the amendment of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Martinez) to court order, because if we limit the application of 
this amendment to a Federal court order, in essence, we are saying all 
Federal laws and all Federal constitutional laws would not be grounds 
to allow these school districts to maintain their programs.
  Ultimately, we cannot deny someone a constitutional right. But my 
colleagues are trying to almost explicitly exclude other Federal 
protections, like our civil rights laws, 1964 Civil Rights Act. By not 
including that, my colleagues have implicitly excluded them from 
consideration.
  That is the reason the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and 
those of us here would be resistant to that amendment that my colleague 
has to the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
because it would overly limit the application of the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez).
  So I would hope that we would not want to try to exclude a local 
school district, that school board members, its principals, its 
teachers from saying we believe that the constitutional rights of the 
children in our schools or of the parents or of the educational body in 
San Francisco, in this case, is being violated by current State law, 
and we would like to test that in Federal court. They apparently tested 
it, and they have a Federal court order. They are allowed to continue 
teaching.
  I would like to, I think, end with this: The school district we are 
talking about, which is in jeopardy of losing more than $1 million 
under the Riggs amendment is also the school I cited about an hour ago 
as having had very remarkable results when its children took the 
standardized testing and reporting exam offered by the State of 
California, the State's standardized test.
  Third graders from a San Francisco school district who had graduated 
from a bilingual education program scored 40 percentage points higher 
than their native English speaking counterparts on math.
  On language, bilingual fourth graders, or fourth graders who had 
graduated from bilingual programs, I should say, scored 25 percentage 
points higher than native English speakers.
  A program which is showing success, and I suspect that you can point 
to some programs which are not doing so well, some of these kids, but a 
program that is demonstrating ample success for kids that are limited 
English proficient to, not only score well, but score better than their 
native English speaking peers is now placed in jeopardy by the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) because the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) would prohibit 
that school district from continuing to operate a program which has 
shown such dramatic success, so much success that Governor Wilson's 
spokesperson even said it is remarkable. That alone would be enough 
reason to oppose this amendment.
  But because it also would limit the application of other Federal 
laws, I think there is good reason to say we should go with the 
secondary amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
and, ultimately, as I said before, put this to bed, put this to rest, 
and let us move on to those things that we need to do this year and 
move next year to try to, all in a bipartisan fashion, work on 
bilingual education.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Martinez Amendment 
to the Riggs Amendment. I appreciate Rep. Martinez offering the 
Amendment in my absence. I was unable to leave the Appropriations 
Committee mark up.
  The Riggs Amendment denies funding to school districts because they 
are out of compliance with State Law or State Constitutional Law, even 
if compliance is not possible given federal court mandates. This 
amendment will punish school districts, and the students they are 
responsible for, merely because these districts are caught in a bind 
between conflicting laws.
  The San Francisco Unified School District is currently under a 
federal court decree to provide access to English as a Second Language 
classes and bilingual education. Though the District has pledged to 
comply with state law to the greatest extent possible, the District is 
acting appropriately and legally by obeying a federal court decree.
  The Martinez amendment to the Riggs amendment simply provides an 
exception for school districts, like San Francisco, which are caught 
between state and federal legal mandates. The Martinez amendment states 
that funding will not be denied if violation of state law is 
``necessary for the eligible entity to comply with Federal law 
(including a Federal court order).''
  If the Riggs Amendment passes without the Martinez amendment, the San 
Francisco Unified School District stands to lose over $1 million in 
fideral funds used to provide services to over 21,000 children. At 
least five other school districts--including Chicago, Denver, New York 
City, San Jose, and St. Paul--are under court-ordered consent decree 
regarding bilingual education.
  The Congress should not force school officials in these districts to 
choose between resources for children and compliance with a federal 
court order. The Martinez Amendments to the Riggs Amendment protects 
school districts that are simply trying to comply with the law.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment of Mr. Riggs and in equally strong support of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Martinez to the Riggs Amendment. The amendment being 
offered by Mr. Martinez is the result of thoughtful hard legislative 
work by my distinguished colleague Congresswoman Pelosi, who together 
with me represents the City of San Francisco. I thank her for her 
important efforts in this regard.
  Under the Riggs Amendment, school districts--such as the San 
Francisco Unified School District--would lose Federal funding if they 
do not comply with State Law, even if those school districts were 
adhering to a Federal court order that conflicts with state law.
  The Riggs Amendment puts responsible, functioning school districts in 
an untenable situation. If the Riggs Amendment passes,

[[Page H7547]]

school districts would be asked to choose between compliance with 
Federal law as mandated by United States courts and with receiving 
Federal funding. Is this the message we in the Federal Government wish 
to send the American people? Should we penalize American school-
children simply because their school district has acted properly to 
observe the laws of the United States as interpreted by Federal courts? 
Our Constitution provides that federal law takes precedence over state 
law, and clearly school districts acting in accordance with Federal law 
should not loose Federal funding because there is a conflicting state 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, the Riggs Amendment specifically attacks school 
districts in cities such as Chicago, Denver, New York City, San Jose, 
and St. Paul--each of which is following a court-ordered mandate 
regarding bilingual education. The San Francisco Unified School 
District could lose nearly $1 million in federal funding if the Riggs 
Amendment is adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage that Mr. Riggs' Amendment would enact 
legislation that would harm school districts in this manner. The Riggs 
Amendment will hurt rather than help our school children. The Riggs 
Amendment will subordinate the quality of our children's education to 
politics. This amendment is a poison whose only antidote is the 
Martinez Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Riggs Amendment and 
support the Martinez Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez) to amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 516, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) will be postponed and the subsequent vote on the amendment 
No. 2 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) will also be 
postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Under the rule, is 
this the appropriate juncture where I am to offer another preprinted 
amendment, or can I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) who 
also has an amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Any Member may offer an amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I will defer to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla).


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered By Mr. Bonilla

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bonilla:
       Page 30, line 10, strike ``(a)(3).'' and insert 
     ``(a)(3).'.''.
       Beginning on page 30, strike line 11 through page 31, line 
     8.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a neighborhood where over 90 
percent of the people growing up in my neighborhood and in my school 
district spoke Spanish as their first language. I thank my lucky stars 
every day that my mother had the wisdom at the time to teach me and my 
two brothers and two sisters English when we were very young so that we 
would be better prepared for school and better prepared to achieve 
other goals in our lives.
  Back then, there was no bilingual education. I understand that, over 
the years, bilingual education has helped many students in this 
country. But somehow the situation that we have now has gotten out of 
control in some areas with too much Federal control.
  That is why I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) for 
his effort today in trying to return more power to the people in 
neighborhoods across this country where it belongs so that parents and 
administrators and teachers can decide for themselves what is right for 
the curriculum in their own neighborhoods.
  My amendment specifically addresses a portion of the bill of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) that addresses any national 
testing. My amendment would eliminate any effort of national testing 
undertaken as part of this reform.
  In my view, after this amendment is passed, if it is passed, the bill 
would be an excellent bill to move forward on because it would go even 
one step further in taking Federal control away from local school 
districts. The requirement for Federally mandated testing is now part 
of this bill.
  My understanding is the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is 
accepting my amendment to give States, and not Washington bureaucrats, 
content with the status quo and know-how, and let the locals decide how 
to administer tests.
  This bill is about moving from the status quo in bilingual education 
toward real opportunity for students. This bill does not abolish 
bilingual education. I hope that we do not get sidetracked in rhetoric 
among some Members here that somehow this is an attack on bilingual 
education.
  Bilingual education can still serve a purpose in this country, but, 
again, it should be administered by the people in communities to serve 
their children as they see fit. This bill gives American students the 
chance they deserve to achieve the American dream.
  Again, I looked at the students that I grew up with in the south side 
of San Antonio and notice that those who were given the choice of 
learning English as quickly as possible tended to be those who achieved 
faster.
  We have had revolutions in some parts of the country, some in 
California and other parts in the west from parents who want to have 
that local control and would like to have a say in whether or not their 
kids are part of a bilingual education program. That is what this bill 
tries to do, to give them a helping hand in establishing that parental 
decision and choice about their own children's education.
  Again, my amendment simply deals with any effort to impose any kind 
of national testing related to bilingual education, and I would hope 
that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support my 
amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. BONILLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, we, of course, do not intend to oppose the 
amendment. We will accept it. But I think we ought to point out that 
this shows the deficiency in this bill when we try to correct it 
piecemeal, in a piecemeal fashion.
  So that is why we are opposed to the bill. There are too many 
deficiencies in this bill that my colleagues are not correcting on that 
side in the piecemeal fashion. But we will accept this. We have no 
objection to this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Clay), my friend, of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                    Amendments Offered By Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendments No. 5, 7, 8 and 9, and I 
ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments No. 5, 7, 8, and 9 offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Amendment No. 5: Page 24, line 21, strike ``or''.
       Page 25, line 2, strike ``program.'' and insert ``program; 
     or''.
       Page 25 after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(D) a State educational agency, in the case of a state 
     educational agency that also serves as a local educational 
     agency.
       Amendment No. 7: Page 13, after line 18, insert the 
     following:
       ``(E) Developing tutoring programs for English language 
     learners that provide early intervention and intensive 
     instruction in order to improve academic achievement, to 
     increase graduation rates among English language learners, 
     and to prepare students for transition as soon as possible 
     into classrooms where instruction is not tailored for English 
     language learners or immigrant children and youth.
       Page 13, line 19, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       Amendment No. 8: Page 17, line 17, strike ``and''
       Page 17, line 19, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.

[[Page H7548]]

       Page 17, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(C) the number and percentage of students in the programs 
     and activities mastering the English language by the end of 
     each school year.
       Page 19, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(4) Evaluation measures.--In prescribing the form of an 
     evaluation provided by an entity under paragraph (1), a State 
     shall approve evaluation measures for use under paragraph (3) 
     that are designed to assess--
       ``(A) oral language proficiency in kindergarten;
       ``(B) oral language proficiency, including speaking and 
     listening skills, in first grade; and
       ``(C) both oral language proficiency, including speaking 
     and listening skills, and reading and writing proficiency in 
     grades two and higher.
       Amendment No. 9: Page 19, line 5, strike ``(b) and (c),'' 
     and insert ``(b), (c), and (d),''.
       Page 20, after line 13, insert the following:
       ``(d) Minimum Allotment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) through 
     (c), the Secretary shall not allot to any State, for fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2003, an amount that is less than 100 
     percent of the baseline amount for the State.
       ``(2) Baseline amount defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `baseline amount', when used with 
     respect to a State, means the total amount received under 
     parts A and C of this title for fiscal year 1998 by the 
     State, the State educational agency, and all local 
     educational agencies of the State.
       ``(3) Ratable reduction.--If the amount available for 
     allotment under this section for any fiscal year is 
     insufficient to permit the Secretary to comply with paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall ratably reduce the allotments to all 
     States for such year.
       Page 20, line 14, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 20, line 24, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, let me very quickly do something I do not 
normally do or like to do, and that is just respond to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), which has already passed, just 
to make sure that Members are clear, because I know the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) just cited the amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) as evidence that the bill was hastily crafted.
  I just wanted to make it clear that on this side of the aisle that 
what we were trying to do in the original bill is ensure that, again, 
Federal and State law, to the extent possible, are consistent and 
making sure that the Federal taxpayer funding and Federal bilingual 
education programs do not create a loophole in States where the State 
and local elected decision makers have decided that State standardized 
tests and assessments will be administered only in English. We were 
just trying to make that consistent.
  But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) had concerns. He had 
concerns that the bill was even addressing State testing in any 
fashion. I understood those concerns, understood his desire that our 
bill be silent with respect to State testing and agree with him that, 
in the end run, by the bill being silent, State and local decision 
makers can still make a decision that they will administer State and 
local standardized tests only in English for all students, and that 
would include those students who are limited-English proficient.
  I now turn my attention to the en bloc amendments. It is again very 
simple, straightforward. First of all, a provision providing a 100 
percent hold harmless so the States do not experience any dramatic 
decrease in funding as a result of changing or transitioning these two 
programs, the Federal bilingual education and the Federal immigrant 
education programs into a single block grant.
  The new formula would obviously, as a result of the 100 percent hold 
harmless, only apply to new funding, that is to say, annual 
appropriations over and above the current spending levels for these two 
programs.
  Secondly, we add to the list of approved local activities, tutoring 
programs for limited-English proficient and immigrant children and 
youth, that would provide early intervention services to help prevent 
these children from dropping out of school.
  I have already spoken earlier about the alarmingly high dropout rate 
for Hispanic American students hovering in the 54 to 55 percent range. 
What we are trying to do is focus more services earlier on helping 
these young people provide the kind of intensive educational services 
through tutoring so that, hopefully, they will remain in school and at 
least obtain a high school degree.
  I think every Member of this body would agree particularly, you know, 
as an extension, if you will, of our committee hearings over the last 2 
years, that all the evidence suggests that a young person today has to 
have some degree or some amount of postsecondary education, college 
education, hopefully a college degree if they want to go out and 
successfully compete in the adult work force.

                              {time}  1615

  So it is just critically important that we do a better job at all 
levels of government, by the way, Federal, State and local, in helping 
limited or non-English speaking students. And that is what we are 
attempting to do here by expanding the list and the scope of allowable 
local activities.
  We also make two changes to the evaluation section to clarify that 
academic progress be determined by both the number and percentage of 
children having attained mastery in English at the end of the school 
year, and we outline the suggested design for measures to evaluate the 
English language skills of students based on the grade of the child.
  I think there was a suggestion earlier in the debate that we were 
somehow lowering or removing standards all together for the Federal 
bilingual education program. And, in fact, I think that is one of the 
main arguments or criticisms that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) made of the bill, judging from his ``Dear Colleague''. And, 
again, nothing could be further from the truth.
  We do have, I think, a very sound methodology incorporated into the 
bill for evaluating the academic progress and, hopefully, the academic 
success of English language learners.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to debate the amendments?
  The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs).
  The amendments were agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
No. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       Page 30, after line 10, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent sections accordingly):

     ``SEC. 7406. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the 
     preservation or use of Native American languages as defined 
     in the Native American Languages Act or Alaska Native 
     languages.''.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply clarifies that 
nothing in this bill will limit the preservation or the use of Native 
American or Native Alaskan languages.
  As many Members of this body know, nearly one in four of my 
constituents are Native American. I represent eight tribes, including 
the largest sovereign tribe, the great Navajo Nation. Through 
constitutional and treaty obligations, Native Americans are guaranteed 
certain rights and protections, and I can think of no more important 
protection than the preservation of the languages and cultures of the 
first Americans.
  While it is important that every American learn English to succeed, 
it is also important that we ensure that native languages and cultures 
continue to thrive. Indeed, these unique cultures provide a deeper 
understanding of our country's history. It is also important that we 
preserve these languages because, unlike immigrants who came to our 
country by choice or circumstance, Native Americans have always 
inhabited the land we now call the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, my point is simple: Native American languages are an 
important part of our country's heritage and must be protected and 
preserved. My amendment ensures that these indigenous languages will 
not be affected by this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education 
and the

[[Page H7549]]

Workforce, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), for 
his support of my amendment. As vice chair of the Native American 
Caucus, I know he is deeply concerned about Native American issues.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I have a very great concern about the whole area of native 
languages, and I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment.
  We have immersion programs where young children are encouraged to use 
the Native American language, which in our case is Native Hawaiians. We 
have special provisions in this legislation that have an acceptance of 
our unique situation, both Native Hawaiian and Native Alaskans. But I 
am also advised by counsel that that notwithstanding these special 
provisions that have been included for Native Hawaiians and Native 
Alaskans, that we are bound under the 2-year limit, which would 
completely nullify the whole idea which we are starting in Hawaii, 
which is to have an immersion program which permits, or encourages the 
revitalization of our native culture through language.
  So I have a question to ask the chairman of the subcommittee as to 
whether the interpretation of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona would mean that the 2-year limit would not apply to the 
Native American concerns that the offeror of the amendment has just 
suggested. Because that would be key to the continuance of our program 
and extremely vital to the survival of this whole idea of a Native 
American language preservation concept which we have adopted.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding and also rise in support of his amendment.
  With respect to the gentlewoman's inquiry, first of all, the funding 
limitation again is 3 years, not 2 years; 2 years is the goal, 3 years 
is the funding level.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. The length of time a child could be in a program 
is a 2-year limit under the gentleman's bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. No, it is actually 3 years, the funding limitation. And I 
attempted to clarify that earlier and will be happy to refer the 
gentlewoman to that provision of the bill.
  That said, I think the gentleman's amendment is extremely 
straightforward. It is very short: ``Nothing in this act shall be 
construed to limit the preservation or use of Native American languages 
as defined in the Native American Languages Act or the Alaskan Native 
Languages,'' which I understand may also address the concern of our 
colleague, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  And it was never the intent of this legislation to prevent the 
preservation or use of the Alaska Native or Native American languages. 
It is the intent of the legislation to ensure individuals living in the 
United States have a fluid command of the English language so that they 
may do well in school and in later adult life. And I know the 
gentlewoman supports that goal.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer 
amendment No. 6.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       Page 13, after line 18, insert the following:
       ``(E) Providing family literacy services to English 
     language learners and immigrant children and youth and their 
     families to improve their English language skills and assist 
     parents in helping their children to improve their academic 
     performance.
       Page 13, line 19, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       Page 25, after line 21, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(4) Family literacy services.--The term `family literacy 
     services' means services provided to participants on a 
     voluntary basis that are of sufficient intensity in terms of 
     hours, and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable 
     changes in a family (such as eliminating or reducing welfare 
     dependency) and that integrate all of the following 
     activities:
       ``(A) Interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their children.
       ``(B) Equipping parents to partner with their children in 
     learning.
       ``(C) Parent literacy training, including training that 
     contributes to economic self-sufficiency.
       ``(D) Appropriate instruction for children of parents 
     receiving parent literacy services.''

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering 
today would allow funds under this act to be used for family literacy 
services. The objective is to provide more cooperation and partnership 
between parent and child.
  In other programs, such as the Bilingual Education Act, funds are 
permitted to be used for both the children and their parents. I believe 
H.R. 3892 will be even more effective in helping our Nation's English 
language learners if we allow local communities to use these funds for 
family literacy services. Oftentimes, both English language learners 
and their parents are in need of assistance in obtaining the English 
language skills they need for success. Family literacy programs have 
already provided successful results with immigrant populations and 
their families of limited English proficiency.
  While in Michigan, in the Michigan Senate in the 1980's, I started a 
program called Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth. That 
program worked with parents and helped them work with their children 
for at-risk families. The results of that program were exceptionally 
encouraging because not only were the youth, when they went to school, 
much more successful compared to a test group of those students that 
had not had those services, but the parents themselves increased their 
reading proficiency by 200 and 300 percent and went on to finish 
school.

  Over the years, we have accumulated a great deal of evidence that 
working with children and their parents at the same time is a highly 
successful method of helping families improve their skills. Now, at the 
same time, these programs provide parents with the assistance they need 
to make sure that their child's success is going to be most successful 
because they are that child's most important teachers. These programs 
do empower parents.
  In addition, family literacy programs provide parents and children 
with time to interact for the purpose of enhancing the child's learning 
and developing a relationship of reciprocal learning and teaching.
   Mr. Chairman, my amendment also includes a definition of family 
literacy that is consistent with the recently passed Adult Education 
and Family Literacy Act, which was part of the Workforce Investment Act 
of 1998. If my colleagues will allow me to define the way I have 
defined family literacy in this act, (a) consistent with the Workforce 
Investment Act, it is that parents and children work together; (b) 
equipping parents to partner with their children in learning; (c) 
parent literacy training, including training that contributes to 
economic self-sufficiency; and (d) appropriate instruction for children 
of parents receiving parent literacy services.
   Mr. Chairman, family literacy programs provide valuable literacy 
service to our Nation's families, and I encourage my colleagues to 
adopt this amendment and allow funds under this act to be used for 
these effective programs.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to 
inform him that we have no objections to the amendment on this side.
  I would like to point out that, once again, here we are amending a 
bill that was hastily drafted, with no input, no bipartisan input 
whatsoever. Because all of this could have been corrected had we had an 
opportunity to give out views. We had a hearing on the bill, but the 
witnesses were eight-to-one picked by the gentleman's side, only one by 
our side, and then there was even no cooperation at the staff level.
  So I think that we support what the gentleman is doing because it is

[[Page H7550]]

present law. It was taken out by this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
the comments from the gentleman from Missouri, and if I can be a 
surrogate in helping him improve the bill, I am glad to do that.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. I 
think it is a good one. But I want to clear something up, because 
several times it has been debated here, or one side suggested it is a 
2-year limit and the other side suggested there is a 3-year. Let me say 
that it is a very confusing thing in the bill because in a State plan 
it is required for a grant.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Smith. As the father of the Even Start Family Literacy 
Program, I know the power of family literacy programs.
  It has been demonstrated over and over again that efforts to assist 
families with literacy problems are more successful when they work with 
children and their parents at the same time. Parents participate longer 
than they would in normal adult education classes and children receive 
the extra assistance they need to make sure they are ready to enter 
school or to overcome any difficulties they may currently be 
experiencing in school.
  These programs have been proven to be effective in families where 
children and their parents are of limited English proficiency. In fact, 
many Even Start programs successfully work with immigrant families, 
migrant families, and other families of limited English proficiency.
  I want to thank Congressman Smith for his strong support of family 
literacy programs. His efforts to improve the quality of such programs 
in meeting the literacy needs of families should not go unnoticed.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3892. This bill represents 
bad education policy because it hurts limited-English-proficient 
students by placing an arbitrary time limit on services without regard 
to the individual needs of the student.
  In addition to our discussions about the education policy involved, 
we should also discuss the bill's impact on fundamental civil rights 
protections for LEP students. This bill seeks to void all voluntary 
compliance agreements between the Federal Office for Civil Rights and 
the school districts that protect the meaningful access to effective 
education programs.
  Now, let us remember that the Office for Civil Rights in the 
Department of Education is charged with the responsibility of ensuring 
that school districts provide LEP students with an equal educational 
opportunity in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in Lau v. Nichols.
  Often, when a district is found to be in violation of the law, school 
districts and the Office of Civil Rights enter into compliance 
agreements. Those agreements reduce litigation expenses needed to 
ensure compliance with the law, and in addition, they ensure the 
schools will be protected from other lawsuits by parents, students and 
the Department of Justice.

                              {time}  1630

  They even protect the schools from additional administrative 
enforcement provisions by the Office of Civil Rights. But by seeking to 
void all 276 compliance agreements, we will leave school districts 
vulnerable to a barrage of lawsuits by private individuals and the 
Department of Justice and subject them to other means of enforcement 
actions by the Office of Civil Rights.
  Perhaps what is most egregious about voiding the existing agreements 
is that we will be doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the 
underlying violations of the school districts affected.
  Now, let us not pretend that those violations will simply disappear 
because we have eliminated the compliance agreement. OCR will still 
have the responsibility to ensure that those school districts are 
taking appropriate steps to be in compliance with the law.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by citing the bipartisan U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission in 1997, when they said that ``The OCR's current policy does 
not disturb the traditional State and local autonomy and flexibility in 
fashioning education programs to assist students with limited English 
proficiency in addressing their language barriers. Schools remain free 
to choose between a wide variety of instructional methodologies and 
approaches, including bilingual education, English as a second 
language, and an array of other language assistance programs.
  Overall, OCR has shown exemplary restraint in respecting State and 
local prerogatives in that it has not sought to place limits on State 
and local discretion by proposing requirements that in any way limit 
that discretion.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents not only poor education 
policy but also poor policy from a legal process perspective; and, 
therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will try 
to be as brief as possible.
  I just, first of all, want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for what I think is a good-faith decision on his part to raise 
this issue for debate but perhaps not to pursue an amendment.
  We disagree on, if you will, the origin and the mechanism by which so 
many of these compliance agreements have come into being. We have heard 
testimony from a variety of people, including local school board 
members. We had a particular witness who was galvanized by the clash 
between the Federal Department of Education Office of Civil Rights in 
the Denver school district to ultimately run successfully for the local 
school board. She testified at our hearing.
  But we heard from other witnesses as well, a long-time employee of 
the Office of Civil Rights, that they felt the Office of Civil Rights 
used coercive tactics to force local school districts into entering 
into these compliance agreements or else face the alternative of very 
costly, extensive, and time-consuming litigation.
  As we have heard earlier today, during the period between 1975 and 
1980, some 500-plus agreements were initiated by the Office of Civil 
Rights, and today there are 228 in force.
  One of the main areas of contention here is that the internal 
guidelines that the Office of Civil Rights has used in extracting these 
agreements were developed internally by the Office of Civil Rights 
staff and have never been open to public comment or scrutiny. And we 
are proposing to do that now by requiring the department and the office 
to publish for comment new compliance agreement guidelines, or 
guidelines for compliance agreements.
  There also is confusion because the Office of Civil Rights is 
currently using at least three internal enforcement memoranda that have 
never really been subject to proper public scrutiny or congressional 
oversight.
  We feel that there is no basis for OCR's policy of pushing bilingual 
education as opposed to English as a second language or English 
immersion as a preferable method of bilingual instruction. The Lau v. 
Nichols decision in 1974, which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
as a constitutional lawyer, an expert in this area, is very conversant 
with, is the basis of OCR's activities in this area.
  But while that decision did require school systems enrolling native-
language students or native-origin students who were deficient in 
English to take affirmative steps to open their instructional programs, 
it did not specify which instructional programs schools should use.
  Instead, the Supreme Court deliberately left that up to State and 
local authorities, again consistent with the whole idea of State and 
local control in decision-making in public education.
  The Lau remedies, as developed by the Office of Civil Rights, 
required schools to implement transitional bilingual education; and 
that has become the de facto compliance standard that is still in 
effect today.

[[Page H7551]]

  Schools wanting to implement alternatives such as English language 
immersion are told that they are not acceptable unless they are equally 
effective as bilingual education. And, again, we think this is a form 
of coercing schools to accept transitional bilingual education unless 
they can prove that their preferred method is superior.
  The Denver public schools I alluded to earlier refused to accept all 
of OCR's demands. And as a result, they have been referred to the 
Federal Department of Justice for litigation. The Department of 
Justice, on the referral from the Office of Civil Rights, is still 
pursuing litigation against the San Juan, Utah School District, 
primarily again because the department does not feel that that district 
offers the appropriate type of bilingual education.
  So we think the OCR staff that negotiated these agreements lacked the 
proper educational expertise. This is a timely juncture to review these 
agreements. We need to start over. That is why we are suggesting with 
this legislation that we vacate the existing agreements and, as a 
result, we release schools from these compliance agreements and we 
empower them and provide them with true local control over the type of 
English language instruction program that they deem is the best and 
most appropriate for their students.
  And I submit to my colleagues, because that is what this legislation 
all boils down to, we trust local schools and we trust locally elected 
decision-makers to do what is right for the children of that community 
and to act in the best interest of those particular children.
  So I appreciate, again, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
deciding to hold off on his amendment. I hope we have now concluded 
just about all debate on this.
  Mr. Chairman, bilingual education is hurting minority children, 
keeping them from learning English at an early age, and ultimately 
slowing their ability to assimilate into mainstream America.
  The ``English Language Fluency Act'' proposes a number of innovative 
steps to help students with limited English skills attain early 
fluency. Its cornerstones, parental choice and flexibility for state 
and local policymakers, are designed so that children are taught 
English as soon as possible once they enter school. The act allows them 
to participate in English language instruction programs funded with 
federal dollars for three years.
  As we end our debate on this important issue, I wanted to bring to 
your attention an important article from the Washington Times on 
bilingual education by Don Soifer of the Lexington Institute. The essay 
follows:

               [From the Washington Times, July 1, 1998]

                        An Obstacle To Learning

                            (By Don Soifer)

       Earlier this month, California voters soundly rejected 
     bilingual education. Proposition 227, the ``English for the 
     Children Initiative,'' won widespread support among white and 
     Hispanic voters despite being opposed by President Clinton, 
     all four major candidates for governor, the state's large and 
     powerful teachers' unions and the education bureaucracy. As a 
     result, the state with 1.3 million students classified as 
     ``Limited English Proficient'' will be teaching them almost 
     entirely in English when the new school year starts this 
     fall.
       What impact does the California proposition's stunning 
     victory hold for the rest of the country? California's 
     massive and largely ineffectual bilingual establishment, born 
     of a social experiment 30 years ago, is being dismantled 
     virtually overnight, barring intervention from the courts. 
     But what about the rest of the nation? Bilingual education 
     programs can be found in all 50 states. It would be wrong to 
     assume that the problems of such a widespread approach are 
     limited to California, or the costs.
       The Clinton administration sought $387 million in federal 
     spending for bilingual education in its 1999 budget request, 
     a drop in the bucket compared with the estimated $8 billion 
     spent annually by state and local governments prior to the 
     recent vote, according to Linda Chavez of the Center for 
     Equal Opportunity.
       But as vastly rooted as bilingual education has become in 
     the nation's schools and with such a troubled record, its 
     real costs are even greater. Children in bilingual programs 
     generally learn English slower, later, and less effectively 
     than their peers. The bilingual approach delays for years the 
     time when students can graduate to ``mainstream'' classrooms. 
     Many children are in bilingual programs for five to seven 
     years and do not even learn to write English until the fourth 
     or fifth grade.
       Furthermore, an article in Education Week pointed out that 
     a number of New York City students in bilingual classrooms 
     actually scored lower on English-proficiency tests at the end 
     of the school year than at the beginning.
       Prominent economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway of 
     Ohio University recently studied the costs to the American 
     economy resulting from poor English fluency among immigrants 
     and estimated the costs of lost productivity to be 
     approximately $80 billion annually. How could bilingual 
     education have become so vast and yet so ineffective in the 
     30 years since its inception? The answer may reside in large 
     part with the fact that those responsible for its 
     administration have lost sight of its initial goals.
       Rep. Claude Pepper, a sponsor of the 1967 Bilingual 
     Education Opportunity Act, explained during the discussion on 
     the bill that, ``By about third grade, when concepts of 
     reading and language have been firmly established, they 
     (children) will begin the shift to broadened English usage.''
       The only reason children are segregated out of mainstream 
     classrooms in the first place is because they lack the 
     English skills they need. But much of the bilingual 
     establishment has lost sight of this, often inventing their 
     own goals. A 1995 report by the Office of Bilingual Education 
     of the U.S. Department of Education advises teachers that 
     ``maintaining primary language proficiency is a key long-term 
     goal.''
       The report adds, ``To help students overcome the obstacles 
     presented by an English-dominated educational system without 
     losing the resource of fluency in a second language . . . 
     Teachers must be able to recognize the cultural origins of 
     their own behavior and to respond reflectively to students 
     who might be acting under the influence of an alternative, 
     culturally based expectation.''
       The current movement to end bilingual education began when 
     Hispanic parents in Los Angeles began keeping their children 
     at home in protest because they weren't learning English at 
     school. Those parents and others are far less concerned about 
     an ``English-dominated educational system'' than they are 
     with simply having their children learn English. Spanish can 
     often be maintained and spoken at home, making intensive 
     English instruction in school that much more important.
       Now California has shown the way to removing the obstacles 
     of bilingual education. But for the rest of the country, as 
     long as the diffuse and obscure goals of the education 
     bureaucrats continue to take precedence over parents who just 
     want their children to learn English in school, bilingual 
     education will continue to stand in the way of progress.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I will not take the 5 minutes. I know we want to wrap this up. But I 
do want to make a couple of things clear. I wish that we would trust 
the locals enough to let them determine how long it would take for a 
young person to be able to master language sufficiently so that they 
could be academically qualified and learn the rest of their subjects 
while they are doing it.
  But we are not trusting them to do that. We are saying that we know 
best, that they have got to do it within 2 years. That has been the 
question here that has come up time after time is whether it is 2 years 
or not.
  But in section 7121, and that is what I want to clarify, in section 
7121, the Formula Grants to States, where it outlines the authority for 
the grants, then subsequently in 1722, the Application by States, the 
applications they must make for the grants, it starts out and says, 
``For purposes of section 7121, an application submitted by a State for 
a grant under such subsection for a fiscal year is in accordance with 
this section, if the application,'' understand, ``'if the application' 
contains all these things.'' And it goes down to (A) and (B) of 
paragraph 6, and here is what it says.
  ``Students enrolling in,'' understand this, that is in the 
application for the grant that the grant proposal must have this 
information, ``students enrolling when they are in kindergarten are not 
mastering the English language by the end of the first grade; and other 
students are not mastering the English language after 2 academic years 
of enrollment.'' They would not receive funds. Because right before 
that, in section 6, it says the grant must contain an agreement that 
the State must ``monitor the progress of the student enrolled in 
programs and activities receiving assistance under this chapter in 
attaining English proficiency and withdraw funding from such 
programs.''
  In other words, the State would withdraw funding from those programs, 
and those local school districts in those local communities would 
withdraw funding from such programs and activities where the students 
enrolling when they are in kindergarten are not mastering the English 
language by the end of the first grade; and other students not 
mastering the English language

[[Page H7552]]

after the second academic year of enrollment.
  Now, there becomes a conflict in the bill itself, because in the next 
section, in the Subgrants to Eligible Entities, it goes on to say, 
that, yes, in fact, they may. Down in the last paragraph on page (3) it 
says Maximum Enrollment Period. ``An eligible entity may not use funds 
received from a State under this chapter to provide instruction or 
assistance to any individual who has been enrolled for a period 
exceeding 3 years in a program or activity undertaken by the eligible 
entity under this section.''
  Well, how do they get to the 3 years if they cut them off at 2 years 
prior to that by the previous section? And that is where the bone of 
contention comes in.
  My contention is, if they were really interested in kids and how they 
benefit to the highest degree, they would say, we keep them in these 
programs as long as is necessary and do what it takes to get these kids 
up to speed with the rest of their classmates. We are not doing that.
  Now, it earlier was said, the other side does not want reform, we 
want status quo. I have for years wanted reform of the bilingual 
education program. And in the beginning, where the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) did offer to talk about this and we agreed to 
disagree on this particular section, it was because it would be 
fruitless because of the notion that these should be grant programs to 
the State when right now the programs are receiving the monies directly 
from the Federal Government.
  When the State gets the money, even with this hold-harmless act, we 
do not know if the same programs that are existing now are going to 
receive funds because that is up to the State, and the State, not the 
locals, but the State will determine whether or not those programs get 
those grants. Therein lies another fallacy in the bill, and that is why 
I oppose the bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Martinez to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. 
                                 Riggs

  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Martinez) to the amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs), on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time in which a vote by 
electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the Riggs amendment, as 
amended or not by the Martinez amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 208, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 422]

                               AYES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--208

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Archer
     Barcia
     Berry
     Burr
     Ehrlich
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennelly
     Largent
     McGovern
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1705

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Berry for, with Mr. Scarborough against.

  Messrs. BACHUS, KIM, BEREUTER, DAVIS of Virginia and Mrs. KELLY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 184, not voting 20, as follows:

[[Page H7553]]

                             [Roll No. 423]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barcia
     Berry
     Burr
     Ehrlich
     Etheridge
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennelly
     Largent
     McGovern
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1712

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Scarborough for, with Mr. Berry against.

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  There being no other amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1715

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gutknecht) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 516, he reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question 
is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 189, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 424]

                               AYES--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)

[[Page H7554]]


     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Barcia
     Berry
     Burr
     Davis (VA)
     Ehrlich
     Etheridge
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     McCrery
     McGovern
     Nussle
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Smith (TX)
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1731

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Scarborough for, with Mr. Berry against.
       Mr. Ehrlich for, with Mr. McGovern against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________