[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.
____________________