[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ENGLISH LANGUAGE FLUENCY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD

                                of guam

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 10, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration 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:

  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, there are very few people in this body 
who can claim to be not only a parent of children in bilingual 
education, but who worked in bilingual education. I am proud to be 
associated with bilingual education and its implementation on a 
nationwide basis.
  There are legitimate arguments about the implementation of bilingual 
education and whether it fits some communities. The existing Bilingual 
Education Act allows for this. It does not force bilingual education on 
anyone, and if some communities do not want it, they do not have to 
have it.
  There is a legitimate discussion about the length of time in 
bilingual instruction, and there is legitimate debate about the age 
factors involved in language learning.
  These are important considerations and they should be discussed 
between parents and educators within the communities throughout the 
country, in the best tradition of local control and responsiveness.
  These are the arguments that are not legitimate. An impression will 
be given (clearly unsubstantiated and based on anecdotes recirculated 
to mythical proportions) that bilingual education is not about 
acquiring English. It is, and those of us who support bilingual 
education support and acknowledge the fundamental truth that life in 
America without English is a life without economic options and access 
to the full benefits of American public life.
  It is bilingual education that will provide this access to our 
children and young adults, and the termination of this program in our 
Nation's educational system will certainly be detrimental to limited 
English proficient (LEP) students.
  On the other hand, this bill we have before us today will take us 
several steps backward in educating LEP students. The so-called English 
Language Fluency Act contains provisions unacceptable to me as a Member 
of Congress, as a former educator, and as a parent.
  H.R. 3892 disregards the authority of parents and local schools. This 
legislation mandates that LEP students entering kindergarten must 
master English by the end of the first grade. In addition, LEP children 
must be moved out of specialized classrooms in 2 years, not exceeding 3 
years. Because you see, if LEP students need further assistance in 
learning the English language, and even if school administrators and 
parents believe further Federal assistance is necessary, after 3 years, 
this bill will not give these students the educational resources they 
will require. Common sense would have us believe that children in 
different age groups will have different educational needs. H.R. 3892 
says no. It requires the 3-year limit on specialized learning and will 
effectively slam the education doors on LEP students needing further 
assistance.
  H.R. 3892 is a violation of the voluntary compliance agreements 
between the Office of Civil Rights, local schools, and parents if these 
agreements involve bilingual education. Parties to these agreements 
will not even be consulted nor will individual consent degrees be 
examined. These compliance agreements ensure access to quality 
education for LEP students and protects their civil rights under title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational 
Opportunity Act of 1974.
  Voiding these arrangements is another affront to the authority of 
local schools and robs students of the opportunity to excel in other 
school subjects. H.R. 3892, with its main focus on English learning, 
ignores the priorities just as vital to the development of LEP 
students, such as the basic comprehension of other school subjects like 
math and science.
  Even the funding plans under H.R. 3892 are problematic. Instead of 
providing funds for the most efficient programs, H.R. 3892 will utilize 
formula grants for each school district. This legislation means not 
providing funds to the neediest students, or rewarding the best 
efforts.
  We will soon be considering the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Assessment of the Bilingual Education 
Program should take place within this context of comprehensive school 
reform. To initiate legislation at this time, which is what H.R. 3892 
would do, is simply rash and foolhardy. We owe it to our children and 
youth to carefully evaluate and analyze the effects of bilingual 
education.
  My colleagues, I urge you to oppose the passage of H.R. 3892. It is a 
shortsighted proposal which will serve more to harm LEP students rather 
than aid them. Although the intentions of this legislation are notable, 
the language in this bill will simply not serve its purpose for it 
disregards the other educational priorities of LEP students, for their 
parents and for their teachers.
  Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3892.

                          ____________________