[Pages H10386-H10398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

READING EXCELLENCE ACT

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2614) to improve the reading and literacy skills of children
and families by improving in-service instructional practices for
teachers who teach reading, to stimulate the development of more high-
quality family literacy programs, to support extended learning-time
opportunities for children, to ensure that children can read well and
independently not later than third grade, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2614

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reading Excellence Act''.
TITLE I--READING GRANTS

SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO ESEA FOR READING GRANTS.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``TITLE XV--READING GRANTS

``SEC. 15101. PURPOSE.

``The purposes of this title are as follows:
``(1) To teach every child to read in their early childhood
years--
``(A) as soon as they are ready to read; or
``(B) as soon as possible once they enter school, but not
later than 3d grade.
``(2) To improve the reading skills of students, and the
in-service instructional practices for teachers who teach
reading, through the use of findings from reliable,
replicable research on reading, including phonics.
``(3) To expand the number of high-quality family literacy
programs.
``(4) To reduce the number of children who are
inappropriately referred to special education due to reading
difficulties.

``SEC. 15102. DEFINITIONS.

``For purposes of this title:
``(1) Eligible professional development provider.--The term
`eligible professional development provider' means a provider
of professional development in reading instruction to
teachers that is based on reliable, replicable research on
reading.
``(2) Eligible research institution.--The term `eligible
research institution' means an institution of higher
education at which reliable, replicable research on reading
has been conducted.
``(3) 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.
``(4) Reading.--The term `reading' means the process of
comprehending the meaning of written text by depending on--
``(A) the ability to use phonics skills, that is, knowledge
of letters and sounds, to decode printed words quickly and
effortlessly, both silently and aloud;
``(B) the ability to use previously learned strategies for
reading comprehension; and
``(C) the ability to think critically about the meaning,
message, and aesthetic value of the text.
``(5) Reading readiness.--The term `reading readiness'
means activities that--
``(A) provide experience and opportunity for language
development;
``(B) create appreciation of the written word;
``(C) develop an awareness of printed language, the
alphabet, and phonemic awareness; and
``(D) develop an understanding that spoken and written
language is made up of phonemes, syllables, and words.
``(6) Reliable, replicable research.--The term `reliable,
replicable research' means objective, valid, scientific
studies that--
``(A) include rigorously defined samples of subjects that
are sufficiently large and representative to support the
general conclusions drawn;
``(B) rely on measurements that meet established standards
of reliability and validity;
``(C) test competing theories, where multiple theories
exist;
``(D) are subjected to peer review before their results are
published; and
``(E) discover effective strategies for improving reading
skills.

``SEC. 15103. GRANTS TO READING AND LITERACY PARTNERSHIPS.

``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary may make grants on
a competitive basis to reading and literacy partnerships for
the purpose of permitting such partnerships to make subgrants
under sections 15104 and 15105.
``(b) Reading and Literacy Partnerships.--
``(1) Composition.--
``(A) Required participants.--In order to receive a grant
under this section, a State shall establish a reading and
literacy partnership consisting of at least the following
participants:
``(i) The Governor of the State.
``(ii) The chief State school officer.
``(iii) The chairman and the ranking member of each
committee of the State legislature that is responsible for
education policy.
``(iv) A representative, selected jointly by the Governor
and the chief State school officer, of at least 1 local
educational agency that has at least 1 school that is
identified for school improvement under section 1116(c) in
the geographic area served by the agency.
``(v) A representative, selected jointly by the Governor
and the chief State school officer, of a community-based
organization working with children to improve their reading
skills, particularly a community-based organization using
volunteers.
``(B) Optional participants.--A reading and literacy
partnership may include additional participants, who shall be
selected jointly by the Governor and the chief State school
officer, which may include--

[[Page H10387]]

``(i) State directors of appropriate Federal or State
programs with a strong reading component;
``(ii) a parent of a public or private school student or a
parent who educates their child or children in their home;
``(iii) a teacher who teaches reading; or
``(iv) a representative of (I) an institution of higher
education operating a program of teacher preparation in the
State; (II) a local educational agency; (III) an eligible
research institution; (IV) a private nonprofit or for-profit
eligible professional development provider providing
instruction based on reliable, replicable research on
reading; (V) a family literacy service provider; (VI) an
adult education provider; (VII) a volunteer organization that
is involved in reading programs; or (VIII) a school or a
public library that offers reading or literacy programs for
children or families.
``(2) Agreement.--The contractual agreement that
establishes a reading and literacy partnership--
``(A) shall specify--
``(i) the nature and extent of the association among the
participants referred to in paragraph (1); and
``(ii) the roles and duties of each such participant; and
``(B) shall remain in effect during the entire grant period
proposed in the partnership's grant application under
subsection (e).
``(3) Functions.--Each reading and literacy partnership for
a State shall prepare and submit an application under
subsection (e) and, if the partnership receives a grant under
this section--
``(A) shall solicit applications for, and award, subgrants
under sections 15104 and 15105;
``(B) shall oversee the performance of the subgrants and
submit performance reports in accordance with subsection (h);
``(C) if sufficient grant funds are available under this
title--
``(i) work to enhance the capacity of agencies in the State
to disseminate reliable, replicable research on reading to
schools, classrooms, and providers of early education and
child care;
``(ii) facilitate the provision of technical assistance to
subgrantees under sections 15104 and 15105 by providing them
information about technical assistance providers; and
``(iii) build on, and promote coordination among, literacy
programs in the State, in order to increase their
effectiveness and to avoid duplication of their efforts; and
``(D) shall ensure that each local educational agency to
which the partnership makes a subgrant under section 15104
makes available, upon request and in an understandable and
uniform format, to any parent of a student attending any
school selected under section 15104(a)(2) in the geographic
area served by the agency, information regarding the
qualifications of the student's classroom teacher to provide
instruction in reading.
``(4) Fiscal agent.--The State educational agency shall act
as the fiscal agent for the reading and literacy partnership
for the purposes of receipt of funds from the Secretary,
disbursement of funds to subgrantees under sections 15104 and
15105, and accounting for such funds.
``(c) Pre-Existing Partnership.--If, before the date of the
enactment of the Reading Excellence Act, a State established
a consortium, partnership, or any other similar body, that
includes the Governor and the chief State school officer and
has, as a central part of its mission, the promotion of
literacy for children in their early childhood years through
the 3d grade, but that does not satisfy the requirements of
subsection (b)(1), the State may elect to treat that
consortium, partnership, or body as the reading and literacy
partnership for the State notwithstanding such subsection,
and it shall be considered a reading and literacy partnership
for purposes of the other provisions of this title.
``(d) Multi-State Partnership Arrangements.--A reading and
literacy partnership that satisfies the requirements of
subsection (b) may join with other such partnerships in other
States to develop a single application that satisfies the
requirements of subsection (e) and identifies which State
educational agency, from among the States joining, shall act
as the fiscal agent for the multi-State arrangement. For
purposes of the other provisions of this title, any such
multi-State arrangement shall be considered to be a reading
and literacy partnership.
``(e) Applications.--A reading and literacy partnership
that desires to receive a grant under this section shall
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and including such information as the Secretary may
require. The application--
``(1) shall describe how the partnership will ensure that
95 percent of the grant funds are used to make subgrants
under sections 15104 and 15105;
``(2) shall be integrated, to the maximum extent possible,
with State plans and programs under this Act, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, and, to the extent
appropriate, the Adult Education Act;
``(3) shall describe how the partnership will ensure that
professional development funds available at the State and
local levels are used effectively to improve instructional
practices for reading and are based on reliable, replicable
research on reading;
``(4) shall describe--
``(A) the contractual agreement that establishes the
partnership, including at least the elements of the agreement
referred to in subsection (b)(2);
``(B) how the partnership will assess, on a regular basis,
the extent to which the activities undertaken by the
partnership and the partnership's subgrantees under this
title have been effective in achieving the purposes of this
title;
``(C) what evaluation instruments the partnership will use
to determine the success of local educational agencies to
whom subgrants under sections 15104 and 15105 are made in
achieving the purposes of this title;
``(D) how subgrants made by the partnership under such
sections will meet the requirements of this title, including
how the partnership will ensure that subgrantees will use
practices based on reliable, replicable research on reading;
and
``(E) how the partnership will, to the extent practicable,
make grants to subgrantees in both rural and urban areas;
``(5) shall include an assurance that each local
educational agency to whom the partnership makes a subgrant
under section 15104--
``(A) will carry out family literacy programs based on the
Even Start family literacy model authorized under part B of
title I to enable parents to be their child's first and most
important teacher, and will make payments for the receipt of
technical assistance for the development of such programs;
``(B) will carry out programs to assist those kindergarten
students who are not ready for the transition to 1st grade,
particularly students experiencing difficulty with reading
skills;
``(C) will use supervised individuals (including tutors),
who have been appropriately trained using reliable,
replicable research on reading, to provide additional
support, before school, after school, on weekends, during
non-instructional periods of the school day, or during the
summer, for students in grades 1 through 3 who are
experiencing difficulty reading; and
``(D) will carry out professional development for the
classroom teacher and other appropriate teaching staff on the
teaching of reading based on reliable, replicable research on
reading; and
``(6) shall describe how the partnership--
``(A) will ensure that a portion of the grant funds that
the partnership receives in each fiscal year will be used to
make subgrants under section 15105; and
``(B) will make local educational agencies described in
section 15105(a)(1) aware of the availability of such
subgrants.
``(f) Peer Review Panel.--
``(1) Composition of peer review panel.--
``(A) In general.--The National Institute for Literacy, in
consultation with the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, and the Secretary, shall
convene a panel to evaluate applications under this section.
At a minimum the panel shall include representatives of the
National Institute for Literacy, the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the
Secretary.
``(B) Experts.--The panel shall include experts who are
competent, by virtue of their training, expertise, or
experience, to evaluate applications under this section, and
experts who provide professional development to teachers of
reading to children and adults, based on reliable, replicable
research on reading.
``(C) Limitation.--Not more than \1/3\ of the panel may be
composed of individuals who are employees of the Federal
Government.
``(2) Payment of fees and expenses of certain members.--The
Secretary shall use funds reserved under section 15109(b)(2)
to pay the expenses and fees of panel members who are not
employees of the Federal Government.
``(3) Duties of panel.--
``(A) Model application forms.--The peer review panel shall
develop a model application form for reading and literacy
partnerships desiring to apply for a grant under this
section. The peer review panel shall submit the model
application form to the Secretary for final approval.
``(B) Selection of applications.--
``(i) Recommendations of panel.--

``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall receive grant
applications from reading and literacy partnerships under
this section and shall provide the applications to the peer
review panel for evaluation. With respect to each
application, the peer review panel shall initially recommend
the application for funding or for disapproval.
``(II) Priority.--In recommending applications to the
Secretary, the panel shall give priority to applications from
States that have modified, are modifying, or provide an
assurance that not later than 1 year after receiving a grant
under this section the State will modify, State teacher
certification in the area of reading to reflect reliable,
replicable research, except that nothing in this Act shall be
construed to establish a national system of teacher
certification.
``(III) Ranking of applications.--With respect to each
application recommended for funding, the panel shall assign
the application a rank, relative to other recommended
applications, based on the priority described in subclause
(II), the extent to which the application furthers the
purposes of this part, and the overall quality of the
application.
``(IV) Recommendation of amount.--With respect to each
application recommended for

[[Page H10388]]

funding, the panel shall make a recommendation to the
Secretary with respect to the amount of the grant that should
be made.

``(ii) Secretarial selection.--

``(I) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the Secretary
shall determine, based on the peer review panel's
recommendations, which applications from reading and literacy
partnerships shall receive funding and the amounts of such
grants. In determining grant amounts, the Secretary shall
take into account the total amount of funds available for all
grants under this section and the types of activities
proposed to be carried out by the partnership.
``(II) Effect of ranking by panel.--In making grants under
this section, the Secretary shall select applications
according to the ranking of the applications by the peer
review panel, except in cases where the Secretary determines,
for good cause, that a variation from that order is
appropriate.

``(iii) Minimum grant amounts.--Each reading and literacy
partnership selected to receive a grant under this section
shall receive an amount for each fiscal year that is not less
than $100,000.
``(g) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--A reading and
literacy partnership that receives a grant under this section
may use not more than 3 percent of the grant funds for
administrative costs.
``(h) Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--A reading and literacy partnership that
receives a grant under this section shall submit performance
reports to the Secretary pursuant to a schedule to be
determined by the Secretary, but not more frequently than
annually. Such reports shall include--
``(A) the results of use of the evaluation instruments
referred to in subsection (e)(4)(C);
``(B) the process used to select subgrantees;
``(C) a description of the subgrantees receiving funds
under this title; and
``(D) with respect to subgrants under section 15104, the
model or models of reading instruction, based on reliable,
replicable research on reading, selected by subgrantees.
``(2) Provision to peer review panel.--The Secretary shall
provide the reports submitted under paragraph (1) to the peer
review panel convened under subsection (f). The panel shall
use such reports in recommending applications for funding
under this section.

``SEC. 15104. LOCAL READING IMPROVEMENT SUBGRANTS.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Subgrants.--A reading and literacy partnership that
receives a grant under section 15103 shall make subgrants, on
a competitive basis, to local educational agencies that have
at least 1 school that is identified for school improvement
under section 1116(c) in the geographic area served by the
agency.
``(2) Role of local educational agencies.--A local
educational agency that receives a subgrant under this
section shall use the subgrant in a manner consistent with
this section to advance reform of reading instruction in any
school selected by the agency that--
``(A) is identified for school improvement under section
1116(c) at the time the agency receives the subgrant; and
``(B) has a contractual association with 1 or more
community-based organizations that have established a record
of effectiveness with respect to reading readiness, reading
instruction for children in kindergarten through 3d grade,
and early childhood literacy.
``(b) Grant Period.--A subgrant under this section shall be
for a period of 3 years and may not be revoked or terminated
on the ground that a school ceases, during the grant period,
to be identified for school improvement under section
1116(c).
``(c) Applications.--A local educational agency that
desires to receive a subgrant under this section shall submit
an application to the reading and literacy partnership at
such time, in such manner, and including such information as
the partnership may require. The application--
``(1) shall describe how the local educational agency will
work with schools selected by the agency under subsection
(a)(2) to select 1 or more models of reading instruction,
developed using reliable, replicable research on reading, as
a model for implementing and improving reading instruction by
all teachers and for all children in each of the schools
selected by the agency under such subsection and, where
appropriate, their parents;
``(2) shall select 1 or more models described in paragraph
(1), for the purpose described in such paragraph, and shall
describe each such selected model;
``(3) shall demonstrate that a person responsible for the
development of each such model, or a person with experience
or expertise about such model and its implementation, has
agreed to work with the applicant in connection with such
implementation and improvement efforts;
``(4) shall describe--
``(A) how the applicant will ensure that funds available
under this title, and funds available for reading for grades
kindergarten through grade 6 from other appropriate sources,
are effectively coordinated and, where appropriate,
integrated, with funds under this Act in order to improve
existing activities in the areas of reading instruction,
professional development, program improvement, parental
involvement, technical assistance, and other activities that
can help meet the purposes of this title; and
``(B) the amount of funds available for reading for grades
kindergarten through grade 6 from appropriate sources other
than this title, including title I of this Act (except that
such description shall not be required to include funds made
available under part B of title I of this Act unless the
applicant has established a contractual association in
accordance with subsection (d)(2) with an eligible entity
under such part B), the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, and any other law providing Federal financial
assistance for professional development for teachers of such
grades who teach reading, which will be used to help achieve
the purposes of this title;
``(5) shall describe the amount and nature of funds from
any other public or private sources, including funds received
under this Act and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, that will be combined with funds received
under the subgrant;
``(6) shall include an assurance that the applicant--
``(A) will carry out family literacy programs based on the
Even Start family literacy model authorized under part B of
title I to enable parents to be their child's first and most
important teacher, will make payments for the receipt of
technical assistance for the development of such programs;
``(B) will carry out programs to assist those kindergarten
students who are not ready for the transition to 1st grade,
particularly students experiencing difficulty with reading
skills;
``(C) will use supervised individuals (including tutors),
who have been appropriately trained using reliable,
replicable research on reading, to provide additional
support, before school, after school, on weekends, during
non-instructional periods of the school day, or during the
summer, for students in grades 1 through 3 who are
experiencing difficulty reading; and
``(D) will carry out professional development for the
classroom teacher and other teaching staff on the teaching of
reading based on reliable, replicable research on reading;
``(7) shall describe how the local educational agency
provides instruction in reading to children who have not been
determined to be a child with a disability (as defined in
section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act), pursuant to section 614(b)(5) of such Act, because of a
lack of instruction in reading; and
``(8) shall indicate the amount of the subgrant funds (if
any) that the applicant will use to carry out the duties
described in section 15105(b)(2).
``(d) Priority.--In approving applications under this
section, a reading and literacy partnership shall give
priority to applications submitted by applicants who
demonstrate that they have established--
``(1) a contractual association with 1 or more Head Start
programs under the Head Start Act under which--
``(A) the Head Start programs agree to select the same
model or models of reading instruction, as a model for
implementing and improving the reading readiness of children
participating in the program, as was selected by the
applicant; and
``(B) the applicant agrees--
``(i) to share with the Head Start programs an appropriate
amount of their information resources with respect to the
model, such as curricula materials; and
``(ii) to train personnel from the Head Start programs;
``(2) a contractual association with 1 or more State- or
federally-funded preschool programs, or family literacy
programs, under which--
``(A) the programs agree to select the same model or models
of reading instruction, as a model for implementing and
improving reading instruction in the program's programs, as
was selected by the applicant; and
``(B) the applicant agrees to train personnel from the
programs who work with children and parents in schools
selected under subsection (a)(2); or
``(3) a contractual association with 1 or more public
libraries providing reading or literacy services to preschool
children, or preschool children and their families, under
which--
``(A) the libraries agree to select the same model or
models of reading instruction, as a model for implementing
and improving reading instruction in the library's reading or
literacy programs, as was selected by the applicant; and
``(B) the applicant agrees to train personnel, including
volunteers, from such programs who work with preschool
children, or preschool children and their families, in
schools selected under subsection (a)(2).
``(e) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an applicant
who receives a subgrant under this section may use the
subgrant funds to carry out activities that are authorized by
this title and described in the subgrant application,
including the following:
``(A) Making reasonable payments for technical and other
assistance to a person responsible for the development of a
model of reading instruction, or a person with experience or
expertise about such model and its implementation, who has
agreed to work with the recipient in connection with the
implementation of the model.
``(B) Carrying out a contractual agreement described in
subsection (d).

[[Page H10389]]

``(C) Professional development (including training of
volunteers), purchase of curricular and other supporting
materials, and technical assistance.
``(D) Providing, on a voluntary basis, training to parents
of children enrolled in a school selected under subsection
(a)(2) on how to help their children with school work,
particularly in the development of reading skills. Such
training may be provided directly by the subgrant recipient,
or through a grant or contract with another person. Such
training shall be consistent with reading reforms taking
place in the school setting.
``(E) Carrying out family literacy programs based on the
Even Start family literacy model authorized under part B of
title I to enable parents to be their child's first and most
important teacher, and making payments for the receipt of
technical assistance for the development of such programs.
``(F) Providing instruction for parents of children
enrolled in a school selected under subsection (a)(2), and
others who volunteer to be reading tutors for such children,
in the instructional practices based on reliable, replicable
research on reading used by the applicant.
``(G) Programs to assist those kindergarten students
enrolled in a school selected under subsection (a)(2) who are
not ready for the transition to 1st grade, particularly
students experiencing difficulty with reading skills.
``(H) Providing additional support for students, enrolled
in a school selected under subsection (a)(2), in grades 1
through 3, who are experiencing difficulty reading, before
school, after school, on weekends, during non-instructional
periods of the school day, or during the summer using
supervised individuals (including tutors), who have been
appropriately trained using reliable, replicable research on
reading.
``(I) Carrying out the duties described in section
15105(b)(2) for children enrolled in a school selected under
subsection (a)(2).
``(J) Providing reading assistance to children who have not
been determined to be a child with a disability (as defined
in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act), pursuant to section 614(b)(5) of such Act, because of a
lack of instruction in reading.
``(2) Limitation on administrative expenses.--A recipient
of a subgrant under this section may use not more than 3
percent of the subgrant funds for administrative costs.
``(f) Training Non-Recipients.--A recipient of a subgrant
under this section may train, on a fee-for-service basis,
personnel are from schools, or local educational agencies,
that are not receiving such a subgrant in the instructional
practices based on reliable, replicable research on reading
used by the recipient. Such a non-recipient school may use
funds received under title I of this Act, and other
appropriate Federal funds used for reading instruction, to
pay for such training, to the extent consistent with the law
under which such funds were received.

``SEC. 15105. TUTORIAL ASSISTANCE SUBGRANTS.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Subgrants.--A reading and literacy partnership that
receives a grant under section 15103 shall make subgrants on
a competitive basis to--
``(A) local educational agencies that have at least 1
school in the geographic area served by the agency that--
``(i) is located in an area designated as an empowerment
zone under part I of subchapter U of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(ii) is located in an area designated as an enterprise
community under part I of subchapter U of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(B) in the case of local educational agencies that do not
have any such empowerment zone or enterprise community in the
State in which the agency is located, local educational
agencies that have at least 1 school that is identified for
school improvement under section 1116(c) in the geographic
area served by the agency.
``(2) Applications.--A local educational agency that
desires to receive a subgrant under this section shall submit
an application to the reading and literacy partnership at
such time, in such manner, and including such information as
the partnership may require. The application shall include an
assurance that the agency will use the subgrant funds to
carry out the duties described in subsection (b) for children
enrolled in 1 or more schools selected by the agency and
described in paragraph (1).
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A local educational agency that receives
a subgrant under this section shall carry out, using the
funds provided under the subgrant, each of the duties
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Duties.--The duties described in this paragraph are
the provision of tutorial assistance in reading to children
who have difficulty reading, using instructional practices
based on the principles of reliable, replicable research,
through the following:
``(A) The promulgation of a set of objective criteria,
pertaining to the ability of a tutorial assistance provider
successfully to provide tutorial assistance in reading, that
will be used to determine in a uniform manner, at the
beginning of each school year, the eligibility of tutorial
assistance providers, subject to the succeeding subparagraphs
of this paragraph, to be included on the list described in
subparagraph (B) (and thereby be eligible to enter into a
contract pursuant to subparagraph (F)).
``(B) The promulgation, maintenance, and approval of a list
of tutorial assistance providers eligible to enter into a
contract pursuant to subparagraph (F) who--
``(i) have established a record of effectiveness with
respect to reading readiness, reading instruction for
children in kindergarten through 3d grade, and early
childhood literacy;
``(ii) are located in a geographic area convenient to the
school or schools attended by the children who will be
receiving tutorial assistance from the providers; and
``(iii) are capable of providing tutoring in reading to
children who have difficulty reading, using instructional
practices based on the principles of reliable, replicable
research and consistent with the instructional methods used
by the school the child attends.
``(C) The development of procedures (I) for the receipt of
applications for tutorial assistance, from parents who are
seeking such assistance for their child or children, that
select a tutorial assistance provider from the list described
in subparagraph (B) with whom the child or children will
enroll, for tutoring in reading; and (II) for considering
children for tutorial assistance who are identified under
subparagraph (D) and for whom no application has been
submitted, provided that such procedures are in accordance
with this paragraph and give such parents the right to select
a tutorial assistance provider from the list referred to in
subparagraph (B), and shall permit a local educational agency
to recommend a tutorial assistance provider from the list
under subparagraph (B) in a case where a parent asks for
assistance in the making of such selection.
``(D) The development of a selection process for providing
tutorial assistance in accordance with this paragraph that
limits the provision of assistance to children identified, by
the school the child attends, as having difficulty reading,
including difficulty mastering essential phonic, decoding, or
vocabulary skills. In the case of a child included in the
selection process for whom no application has been submitted
by a parent of the child, the child's eligibility for receipt
of tutorial assistance shall be determined under the same
procedures, timeframe, and criteria for consideration as is
used to determine the eligibility of a child whose parent has
submitted such an application. Such local educational agency
shall apply the provisions of subparagraphs (F) and (G) to a
tutorial assistance provider selected for a child whose
parent has not submitted an application pursuant to
subparagraph (C)(I) in the same manner as the provisions are
applied to a provider selected in an application submitted
pursuant to subparagraph (C)(I).
``(E) The development of procedures for selecting children
to receive tutorial assistance, to be used in cases where
insufficient funds are available to provide assistance with
respect to all children identified by a school under
subparagraph (D) that--
``(i) gives priority to children who are determined,
through State or local reading assessments, to be most in
need of tutorial assistance; and
``(ii) gives priority, in cases where children are
determined, through State or local reading assessments, to be
equally in need of tutorial assistance, based on a random
selection principle.
``(F) The development of a methodology by which payments
are made directly to tutorial assistance providers who are
identified and selected pursuant to subparagraphs (C) (D),
and (E) that is selected for funding. Such methodology shall
include the making of a contract, consistent with State and
local law, between the tutorial assistance provider and the
local educational agency carrying out this paragraph. Such
contract--
``(i) shall contain specific goals and timetables with
respect to the performance of the tutorial assistance
provider;
``(ii) shall require the tutorial assistance provider to
report to the parent and the local educational agency on the
provider's performance in meeting such goals and timetables;
and
``(iii) shall contain provisions with respect to the making
of payments to the tutorial assistance provider by the local
educational agency.
``(G) The development of procedures under which the local
educational agency carrying out this paragraph--
``(i) will ensure oversight of the quality and
effectiveness of the tutorial assistance provided by each
tutorial assistance provider who is identified and selected
by a parent in an application submitted pursuant to
subparagraph (C) that is selected for funding;
``(ii) will remove from the list under subparagraph (B)
ineffective and unsuccessful providers (as determined by the
local educational agency based upon the performance of the
provider with respect to the goals and timetables contained
in the contract between the agency and the provider under
subparagraph (F));
``(iii) will provide to each parent of a child identified
under subparagraph (D) who requests such information for the
purpose of selecting a tutorial assistance provider for the
child, in a comprehensible format, information with respect
to the quality and effectiveness of the tutorial assistance
referred to in clause (i); and
``(iv) will ensure that each school identifying a child
under subparagraph (D) will provide upon request, to a parent
of the child, assistance in selecting, from among the
tutorial assistance providers who are included on the list
described in subparagraph (B), the

[[Page H10390]]

provider who is best able to meet the needs of the child.
``(c) Definition. For the purposes of this section the term
``parent'' or ``parents'' includes a legal guardian or legal
guardians of the child.

``SEC. 15106. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section
15109(b)(1), the Secretary shall conduct a national
assessment of the programs under this title. In developing
the criteria for the assessment, the Secretary shall receive
recommendations from the peer review panel convened under
section 15103(f).
``(b) Submission to Peer Review Panel.--The Secretary shall
submit the findings from the assessment under subsection (a)
to the peer review panel convened under section 15103(f).

``SEC. 15107. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.

``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section
15109(b)(2), the National Institute for Literacy shall
disseminate information on reliable, replicable research on
reading and information on subgrantee projects under section
15104 or 15105 that have proven effective. At a minimum, the
institute shall disseminate such information to all
recipients of Federal financial assistance under titles I and
VII of this Act, the Head Start Act, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and the Adult Education Act.
``(b) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the
National Institute for Literacy--
``(1) shall use, to the extent practicable, information
networks developed and maintained through other public and
private persons, including the Secretary, the National Center
for Family Literacy, and the Readline Program;
``(2) shall work in conjunction with any panel convened by
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
and the Secretary and any panel convened by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement to assess the current
status of research-based knowledge on reading development,
including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching
children to read, with respect to determining the criteria by
which the National Institute for Literacy judges reliable,
replicable research and the design of strategies to
disseminate such information; and
``(3) shall assist any reading and literacy partnership
selected to receive a grant under section 15103, and that
requests such assistance--
``(A) in determining whether applications for subgrants
submitted to the partnership meet the requirements of this
title relating to reliable, replicable research on reading;
and
``(B) in the development of subgrant application forms.

``SEC. 15108. STATE EVALUATIONS.

``(a) In General.--Each reading and literacy partnership
that receives a grant under this title shall reserve not more
than 2 percent of such grant funds for the purpose of
evaluating the success of the partnership's subgrantees in
meeting the purposes of this title. At a minimum, the
evaluation shall measure the extent to which students who are
the intended beneficiaries of the subgrants made by the
partnership have improved their reading.
``(b) Contract.--A reading and literacy partnership shall
carry out the evaluation under this section by entering into
a contract with an eligible research institution under which
the institution will perform the evaluation.
``(c) Submission.--A reading and literacy partnership shall
submit the findings from the evaluation under this section to
the Secretary and the peer review panel convened under
section 15103(f). The Secretary and the peer review panel
shall submit a summary of the findings from the evaluations
under this subsection to the appropriate committees of the
Congress, including the Education and the Workforce Committee
of the House of Representatives.

``SEC. 15109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; RESERVATIONS
FROM APPROPRIATIONS; SUNSET.

``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this title $260,000,000 for fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
``(b) Reservations.--From amount appropriated under
subsection (a), the Secretary--
``(1) shall reserve 1.5 percent of the amount appropriated
under subsection (a) for each fiscal year to carry out
section 15106(a);
``(2) shall reserve $5,075,000 to carry out sections
15103(f)(2) and 15107, of which $5,000,000 shall be reserved
for section 15107; and
``(3) shall reserve $10,000,000 to carry out section
1202(c).
``(c) Sunset.--Notwithstanding section 422(a) of the
General Education Provisions Act, this title is repealed,
effective September 30, 2000, and is not subject to extension
under such section.''.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. RESERVATION FOR GRANTS.

Section 1202(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(c)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Reservation for Grants.--
``(1) Grants authorized.--From funds reserved under section
15109(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, to States to enable such States to plan
and implement, statewide family literacy initiatives to
coordinate and integrate existing Federal, State, and local
literacy resources consistent with the purposes of this part.
Such coordination and integration shall include funds
available under the Adult Education Act, Head Start, this
part, part A of this title, and part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act.
``(2) Consortia.--
``(A) Establishment.--To receive a grant under this
subsection, a State shall establish a consortium of State-
level programs under the following laws:
``(i) This title.
``(ii) The Head Start Act.
``(iii) The Adult Education Act.
``(iv) All other State-funded preschool programs and
programs providing literacy services to adults.
``(B) Plan.--To receive a grant under this subsection, the
consortium established by a State shall create a plan to use
a portion of the State's resources, derived from the programs
referred to in subparagraph (A), to strengthen and expand
family literacy services in such State.
``(C) Coordination with title xv.--The consortium shall
coordinate its activities with the activities of the reading
and literacy partnership for the State established under
section 15103, if the State receives a grant under such
section.
``(3) Reading instruction.--Statewide family literacy
initiatives implemented under this subsection shall base
reading instruction on reliable, replicable research on
reading (as such terms are defined in section 15102).
``(4) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide,
directly or through a grant or contract with an organization
with experience in the development and operation of
successful family literacy services, technical assistance to
States receiving a grant under this subsection.
``(5) Matching requirement.--The Secretary shall not make a
grant to a State under this subsection unless the State
agrees that, with respect to the costs to be incurred by the
eligible consortium in carrying out the activities for which
the grant was awarded, the State will make available non-
Federal contributions in an amount equal to not less than the
Federal funds provided under the grant.''.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

Section 1202(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6362(e)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) 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.''.

SEC. 203. EVALUATION.

Section 1209 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6369) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) to provide States and eligible entities receiving a
subgrant under this part, directly or through a grant or
contract with an organization with experience in the
development and operation of successful family literacy
services, technical assistance to ensure local evaluations
undertaken under section 1205(10) provide accurate
information on the effectiveness of programs assisted under
this part.''.

SEC. 204. INDICATORS OF PROGRAM QUALITY.

(a) In General.--The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 1210 as section 1212; and
(2) by inserting after section 1209 the following:

``SEC. 1210. INDICATORS OF PROGRAM QUALITY.

``Each State receiving funds under this part shall develop,
based on the best available research and evaluation data,
indicators of program quality for programs assisted under
this part. Such indicators shall be used to monitor,
evaluate, and improve such programs within the State. Such
indicators shall include the following:
``(1) With respect to eligible participants in a program
who are adults--
``(A) achievement in the areas of reading, writing, English
language acquisition, problem solving, and numeracy;
``(B) receipt of a high school diploma or a general
equivalency diploma;
``(C) entry into a postsecondary school, job retraining
program, or employment or career advancement, including the
military; and
``(D) such other indicators as the State may develop.
``(2) With respect to eligible participants in a program
who are children--
``(A) improvement in ability to read on grade level or
reading readiness;

[[Page H10391]]

``(B) school attendance;
``(C) grade retention and promotion; and
``(D) such other indicators as the State may develop.''.
(b) State Level Activities.--Section 1203(a) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6363(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) carrying out section 1210.''.
(c) Award of Subgrants.--Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section
1208(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6368) are amended to read as follows:
``(3) Continuing eligibility.--In awarding subgrant funds
to continue a program under this part for the second, third,
or fourth year, the State educational agency shall evaluate
the program based on the indicators of program quality
developed by the State under section 1210. Such evaluation
shall take place after the conclusion of the startup period,
if any.
``(4) Insufficient progress.--The State educational agency
may refuse to award subgrant funds if such agency finds that
the eligible entity has not sufficiently improved the
performance of the program, as evaluated based on the
indicators of program quality developed by the State under
section 1210, after--
``(A) providing technical assistance to the eligible
entity; and
``(B) affording the eligible entity notice and an
opportunity for a hearing.''.

SEC. 205. RESEARCH.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended by section 204 of this Act, is further amended by
inserting after section 1210 the following:

``SEC. 1211. RESEARCH.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out, through
grant or contract, research into the components of successful
family literacy services, to use--
``(1) to improve the quality of existing programs assisted
under this part or other family literacy programs carried out
under this Act or the Adult Education Act; and
``(2) to develop models for new programs to be carried out
under this Act or the Adult Education Act.
``(b) Dissemination.--The National Institute for Literacy
shall disseminate, pursuant to section 15107, the results of
the research described in subsection (a) to States and
recipients of subgrants under this part.''.
TITLE III--FUNDS FOR FEDERAL WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS

SEC. 301. USE OF WORK-STUDY FUNDS FOR TUTORING AND LITERACY.

Section 443 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
2753) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A)
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) in academic year 1998 and succeeding academic years,
an institution shall use at least 2 percent of the total
amount of funds granted to such institution under this
section for such academic year in accordance with subsection
(d); and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Tutoring and Literacy Activities.--
``(1) Use of funds.--In any academic year to which
subsection (b)(2)(B) applies, an institution shall use the
amount required to be used in accordance with this subsection
to compensate (including compensation for time spent in
directly related training and travel) students--
``(A) employed as a reading tutor for children who are in
preschool through elementary school; or
``(B) employed in family literacy projects.
``(2) Priority for schools.--An institution shall--
``(A) give priority, in using such funds, to the employment
of students in the provision of tutoring services in schools
that--
``(i) are identified for school improvement under section
1116(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965; or
``(ii) are selected by a local educational agency under
section 15104(a)(2) of such Act; and
``(B) ensure that any student compensated with such funds
who is employed in a school selected under section
15104(a)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 is trained in the instructional practices based on
reliable, replicable research on reading used by the school
pursuant to such section 15104.
``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the compensation
of work study students compensated under this subsection may
exceed 75 percent.
``(4) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of
this subsection if the Secretary determines that enforcing
such requirements would cause a hardship for students at the
institution.
``(5) Return of funds.--Any institution that does not use
the amount required under this subsection, and that does not
request and receive a waiver from the Secretary under
paragraph (4), shall return to the Secretary, at such time as
the Secretary may require for reallocation under paragraph
(6), any balance of such amount that is not used as so
required.
``(6) Reallocation.--The Secretary shall reallot any
amounts returned pursuant to paragraph (5) among institutions
that used at least 4 percent of the total amount of funds
granted to such institution under this section to compensate
students employed in tutoring and literacy activities in the
preceding academic year. Such funds shall be reallotted among
such institutions on the same basis as excess eligible
amounts are allocated to institutions pursuant to section
442(c). Funds received by institutions pursuant to this
paragraph shall be used in the same manner as amounts
required to be used in accordance with this subsection.''.
TITLE IV--REPEALS

SEC. 401. REPEAL OF CERTAIN UNFUNDED EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

(a) Adult Education Act.--The following provisions are
repealed:
(1) Business, industry, labor, and education partnerships
for workplace literacy.--Section 371 of the Adult Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1211).
(2) English literacy grants.--Section 372 of the Adult
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1211a).
(3) Education programs for commercial drivers.--Section 373
of the Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1211b).
(4) Adult literacy volunteer training.--Section 382 of the
Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1213a).
(b) Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act.--The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Business-labor-education partnership for training.--
Part D of title III of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2391 et seq.).
(2) Supplementary state grants for facilities and equipment
and other program improvement activities.--Part F of title
III of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2395 et seq.).
(3) Community education employment centers and vocational
education lighthouse schools.--Part G of title III of the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 2396 et seq.).
(4) Demonstration programs.--Part B of title IV of the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 2411 et seq.).
(5) Certain bilingual programs.--Subsections (b) and (c) of
section 441 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2441).
(c) Community School Partnerships.--The Community School
Partnership Act (contained in part B of title V of the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 1070 note)
is repealed.
(d) Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and
Improvement Act of 1994.--Section 941(j) of the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of
1994 (20 U.S.C. 6041(j)) is repealed.
(e) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--The
following provisions are repealed:
(1) Innovative elementary school transition projects.--
Section 1503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6493).
(2) School dropout assistance.--Part C of title V of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7261 et seq.).
(3) Impact aid program.--Section 8006 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7706) is repealed.
(4) Special programs and projects to improve educational
opportunities for indian children.--Subpart 2 of part A of
title IX of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7831 et seq.).
(5) Special programs relating to adult education for
indians.--Subpart 3 of part A of title IX of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7851 et seq.).
(6) Federal administration.--Subpart 5 of part A of title
IX of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7871 et seq.).
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 9162(c) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7882(c)).
(8) De lugo territorial education improvement program.--
Part H of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8221 et seq.).
(9) Extended time for learning and longer school year.--
Part L of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8351).
(10) Territorial assistance.--Part M of title X of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8371).
(f) Family and Community Endeavor Schools.--The Family and
Community Endeavor Schools Act (42 U.S.C. 13792) is repealed.
(g) Goals 2000: Educate America Act.--Subsections (b) and
(d)(1) of section 601 of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act
(20 U.S.C. 5951) are repealed.
(h) Higher Education Act of 1965.--The following provisions
are repealed:
(1) State and local programs for teacher excellence.--Part
A of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1102 et seq.).
(2) National teacher academies.--Part B of title V of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1103 et seq.).
(3) Class size demonstration grant.--Subpart 3 of part D of
title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1109
et seq.).

[[Page H10392]]

(4) Middle school teaching demonstration programs.--Subpart
4 of part D of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1110 et seq.).
(5) Small state teaching initiative.--Subpart 3 of part F
of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1115).
(6) Early childhood education training.--Subpart 5 of part
F of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1117 et seq.).
(7) Grants to states for workplace and community transition
training for incarcerated youth offenders.--Part E of title X
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1135g).
(i) Higher Education Amendments of 1992.--Part E of title
XV of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 1070
note) is repealed.
(j) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--The following provisions
are repealed:
(1) Career advancement training consortia.--Subsection (e)
of section 302 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 771a(e)).
(2) Vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with
disabilities.--Section 303 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 772).
(3) Loan guarantees for community rehabilitation
programs.--Section 304 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 773).
(4) Comprehensive rehabilitation centers.--Section 305 of
such Act (29 U.S.C. 775).
(5) Special demonstration programs.--Subsections (b) and
(e) of section 311 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 777a(b) and (e)).
(6) Reader services for individuals who are blind.--Section
314 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 777d).
(7) Interpreter services for individuals who are deaf.--
Section 315 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 777e).
(8) Community service employment pilot programs for
individuals with disabilities.--Section 611 of such Act (29
U.S.C. 795).
(9) Business opportunities for individuals with
disabilities.--Part D of title VI of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 795r).
(10) Certain demonstration activities.--
(A) Transportation services grants.--Subsection (a) of
section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(a)).
(B) Projects to achieve high quality placements.--
Subsection (b) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
797a(b)).
(C) Early intervention demonstration projects.--Subsection
(c) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(c)).
(D) Transition demonstration projects.--Subsection (d) of
section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(d)).
(E) Barriers to successful rehabilitation outcomes for
minorities.--Subsection (e) of section 802 of such Act (29
U.S.C. 797a(e)).
(F) Studies, special projects, and demonstration projects
to study management and service delivery.--Subsection (f) of
section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(f)).
(G) National commission on rehabilitation services.--
Subsection (h) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
797a(h)).
(H) Model personal assistance services systems.--Subsection
(i) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 797a(i)).
(I) Demonstration projects to upgrade worker skills.--
Subsection (j) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
797a(j)).
(J) Model systems regarding severe disabilities.--
Subsection (k) of section 802 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
797a(k)).
(11) Certain training activities.--
(A) Distance learning through telecommunications.--
Subsection (a) of section 803 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
797b(a)).
(B) Training regarding impartial hearing officers.--
Subsection (d) of section 803 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
797b(d)).
(C) Recruitment and retention of urban personnel.--
Subsection (e) of section 803 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
797b(e)).
(k) Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.--Subtitle
A of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.) is repealed.
(l) Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals With
Disabilities Act of 1988.--Subtitle B of title II of the
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals With
Disabilities Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2241 et seq.) is
repealed.
(m) National Literacy Act of 1991.--Section 304 of the
National Literacy Act of 1991 (20 U.S.C. 1213c note) is
repealed.
(n) Authorization of Appropriations for Indian Education.--
Section 9162(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7882(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Subpart 4.--For the purpose of carrying out subpart 4
of this part, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Education such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal year 1995 and each of the four succeeding fiscal
years.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Martinez] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. GOODING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, the
Reading Excellence Act. The issue of literacy has been one of my main
interests since I came to this body. Over the years I have had an
opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner with many members of the
committee to develop legislation directed at improving the literacy of
our Nation's citizens no matter what their age. While the Even Start
program, the Family Literacy Program, is high on my literacy list of
achievements, I would also include changes to the Adult Education Act
and the National Literacy Act.
Today we have an opportunity to support a refinement and an
improvement of all existing literacy programs, the Reading Excellence
Act, which will help ensure that individuals of all ages have literacy
skills they need to lead productive lives. Over the years what has been
missing from our efforts has been a focus of preventing reading
difficulties from developing in the first place. The bill addresses
this problem.
As Members know, there was a budget agreement. The budget agreement
said that the President will have a literacy bill. It is our
responsibility then as an authorizing committee, we did not participate
in the budget agreement, but it is our responsibility then to make sure
that whatever that literacy bill is, it is a well thought out literacy
bill and a bill that will work. And so having that in mind, I looked at
the President's bill and then I decided on what areas we should really
concentrate on if we are going to improve literacy in this country.

{time} 1600

The general outline then became, one, make sure that the teachers
have the help they need to effectively teach reading based on reliable,
replicable research, including phonics.
Now I want to make sure that what everyone should understand, we are
not dictating any one way of teaching reading. Anybody that does that
is asking for trouble. If they are going to teach whole language and
nothing else, I will guarantee my colleagues it will be a disaster. If
they are going to teach look-see, which they tried in the 1960's, that
is really going to be a disaster. But what we are saying is that they
should use reading readiness, reading based on reliable, replicable
research, including phonics.
The second idea then would be reading readiness of the child. No
first grade child should fail. It is the adult that fails, not the
child. No first grade child should ever be socially promoted. That is a
disaster for a child. So it is the adult that failed, not the child, so
we have to find a way to deal with that issue, and what we do then is
say that if a child is not ready for first grade, do not push them into
first grade; that the kindergarten teacher certainly knows whether they
are or are not reading-ready. If they are not, then give them the kind
of effort that they need to make sure that they are reading-ready in
the first place.
Second, we know that the parents are the first and most important
teacher, and if they are not capable, they do not have the literacy
skills themselves, then we should make sure that they do.
Third, we say that reading readiness of the child beyond first grade
will be dealt with mentors and with help from outside, helping the
teacher, not bringing in expensive people doing their own thing, but
having people from the college work program spend more of their time
helping in the community rather than emptying trash cans.
Next we say that title I schools are the most in need since we have a
very little bit amount of money. Those title I schools that need the
help the most would be the people who would be able to get these
grants.
So we talk about reading readiness of the child, we talk about
preparation of the teacher, we talk about tutorial assistance, we talk
about college work-study help, and we talk about those schools most in
need.
Now what I want to point out is that it is not a new program. We are
trying to improve the existing literacy programs that are out there.
Second, I want to again make sure my colleagues understand what we are
saying is it is the budget agreement that made the decision that there
would be a literacy program, and our committee is trying to make sure
it is the best.
Having given that outline, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Riggs], with the help of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez] and others went to

[[Page H10393]]

work and filled in this outline to make sure that we would have
something that could be accepted by all, and I believe we have come up
with that initiative.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Let me start out by saying that during the early part of this
session, the President's America Reads legislation was introduced by
the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], myself and
many other of our Democratic colleagues. That initiative focused on the
use of community-based volunteer efforts that would provide additional
assistance to children after school, on weekends and during the summer,
with the goal of ensuring that all children can read independently by
the end of the third grade. I want to commend the President for his
leadership in not only putting forth this legislation, but for
realizing the need to involve community-based organizations and
volunteers in the goal of increased literacy for children.
Mr. Speaker, due to the budget agreement which was struck between
President Clinton and congressional leaders, Republicans and Democratic
Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the
administration have engaged in many months of negotiations with the
collective aim of producing a bipartisan literacy initiative that
combines the ideas of the President and our committee colleagues. In
these many months we have produced what I believe is a very balanced
and truly bipartisan agreement which is before us today.
Through the coupling of the President's ideas and those of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], we have produced a bill that will positively
impact the efforts of our country's educators in teaching children to
read. This legislation, through both efforts to improve professional
development of teachers in reading and the utilization of community-
based organizations in the mobilization of volunteer tutors, will
enable us to ensure that children will read independently by the end of
the third grade. This is truly a goal which all of us can support.
This bill provides the much needed assistance for teachers to receive
professional development in teaching children to read more effectively,
and it will ensure that professional development is based on reliable,
replicable research; in other words, proven methods of reading
instruction.
During our committee's hearings on childhood literacy, we heard a
large amount of testimony that what the teachers who teach reading want
the most is professional development giving them effective strategies
in instructing children to read. This bill will enable school districts
to begin to fulfill that need.
In addition, this bill includes the priority of the President stated
in his America Reads legislation to provide additional help to children
learning to read through volunteer tutoring before and after school, on
weekends and during the summer.
Huge success stories have happened across the country in communities
which are already using the America Reads volunteer structure to ensure
literate children, and this bill allows these successes to continue and
grow in number. This will mean that more children who are struggling
with one of the most basic and necessary components of our society will
get the extra help outside the classroom that they so desperately need.
This legislation also includes provisions allowing for tutorial
assistance grants. As Members know, this section of the bill has
generated a significant amount of controversy and has been the object
of numerous negotiation sessions between the Members over the last few
weeks, including right up to the minute that this bill was presented on
the floor. These negotiations have added what I believe is the key
missing component of accountability, both educational and financial
results. This is accomplished through the insistence that local
educational agencies which provide tutorial education assistance grants
must enter into contracts with tutorial assistance providers. This
contracting authority includes specific goals, outcomes and timetables
for student achievement, which gives local education agencies the tools
to ensure that this program will help those children most in need. So I
believe that this section of the bill is vastly improved and now a
positive addition to the overall program.
I strongly believe that the legislation before us today will truly
help children to read independently by the end of the third grade and
grasp the essential literacy components necessary for employment in our
technologically advanced society. I also believe that Members of both
parties should feel confident that this legislation balances the two
very important needs in assuring childhood literacy, strong
professional development for reading teachers and additional tutoring
assistance before and after school, on weekends and during the summer.
I urge all Members to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the subcommittee chairman who helped put the
meat on the skeleton that I provided.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding this time to me, and the first thing I want to do is recommend
to my colleagues that this is important legislation deserving of their
support. I have had several of my Republican colleagues ask me if this
is legislation that I intend to support, and the answer to that is an
emphatic yes. And if I can just back up for a moment and sort of walk
my colleagues through the process, my colleagues will recall that the
bipartisan agreement to balance the budget sets aside $260 million for
a new Federal literacy initiative. I suspect that most people,
obviously, in this Chamber supported that agreement, voted for it on an
overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. We then set about crafting the details
of that initiative fleshing it out, if my colleagues will, and had a
spirited, bipartisan give and take as to the proper approach in
spending that money.
The President wanted his America Reads initiative, which would have
led to a tremendous expansion of AmeriCorps, the National Service Corps
Corp., and on our side of the aisle we insisted that a majority of the
money be used for teacher training and to provide parents and guardians
of children who have reading difficulties, who are consistently reading
below grade level and behind their peers, with tutorial assistance
grants. Our legislation would invest this Federal taxpayer money in
family literacy as well, trying to help illiterate or semiliterate
parents obtain literacy skills so that they can work with their
children, because, after all, that parent is that child's first and
best teacher.
We also use the money for college work program tutors. These are
young people who are at institutions of higher learning, and in the
process of obtaining a higher education, a college education, are
getting assistance through the college work/study program, and we think
that these young people are in an ideal position to fulfill their
obligations under the college work/study program by helping young
people learn to read better. So we want a lot of the college students
participating in the college work/study program to serve as reading
tutors and mentors to young people.
We also put a lot of the money into basic grants to States to improve
teacher training, helping the, if my colleagues will, the teachers
learn to teach better. We heard repeatedly during the course of our
hearings both here in Washington, at the two literacy summits that I
conducted in my congressional district, from veteran, experienced
classroom teachers the need to improve their teaching skills. We had
teachers, colleagues, tell us in the course of the hearings that they
had never received the proper instruction in teaching reading, if my
colleagues can imagine, and I know that speaks volumes about
traditional teacher education at colleges and universities.

We would like to address that problem. Perhaps we can address it in a
bigger way when we get around to the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act. But at least here in this bill we have made a start by
providing grants to States and local school districts in those school
districts that have the

[[Page H10394]]

most glaring need. It is documented by the fact they have the most
title I students, they have the most so-called school improvement
sites, and it is at those schools and with those students that we want
to help teachers, classroom teachers, reading specialists, obtain the
best training based on reliable, replicable research in order do a
better job teaching our young people.
And lastly, as I said, we also provide money for parents and legal
guardians to obtain tutorial assistance for their children in those
instances where a child needs more intensive, one-on-one type of
reading instruction from a tutor that they are not able to obtain
during the course of a school day, and we say that those grants can be
used by parents and guardians to obtain tutoring services from a list
of approved and recommended tutors by the local school districts.
So I think what we have crafted here is a good, balanced bill, one
that fulfills the obligation that we have on the authorizing committee
to come up with the details of the authorizing legislation to spend the
$260 million set-aside for the budget agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, the Reading Excellence
Act.
As a parent and former school board member, I have been alarmed over
recent statistics on the number of children experiencing reading
difficulties.
I am particularly saddened because I know that poor reading skills
are a sign of impending academic difficulties of a much broader nature
which can diminish the ability of such children to grow into
productive, contributing members of society.
We know, for instance, that 50 percent of our current adult
population read at the bottom two of five levels of literacy. Not
surprisingly, 43 percent of those in the lowest literacy level live in
poverty; 17 percent are receiving food stamps, and 70 percent are
unemployed or underemployed. In addition, more than two-thirds of unwed
parents, school dropouts, and those arrested have below average
literacy levels. We need to act now to prevent the same type of
statistics for future generations.
Over the August recess, I had the opportunity to hold two literacy
summits in my congressional district. These summits were attended by
individuals with a wide range of involvement in literacy activities--
from those individuals working with preschool children, to teachers in
elementary school, to family literacy providers, to programs working
with adults.
What I found was a general agreement among summit participants that
there is a need to improve the teaching of reading in our country and
to provide teachers with current research on how children learn to
read.
Today, millions of children are on the path toward a life of
illiteracy and underachievement. This legislation provides hope for
these children by giving them the opportunity to obtain the reading
skills necessary to lead productive lives.
H.R. 2614 responds to the concerns raised by my constituents and
other individuals who testified before our committee or who contacted
us to discuss this topic. It not only focuses on providing training to
teachers based on the most reliable, replicable research on reading, it
calls for the dissemination of such information to all teachers in
Federal programs with a strong focus on improving the reading skills of
children. This will ensure these teachers, as well as those directly
assisted under this act will have the tools necessary to effectively
teach reading to some of the Nation's most disadvantaged school
children.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will act as a companion to
our recently enacted reform of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act by seeking to ensure that children who are identified as
not being disabled but still being unable to read will receive
assistance to become literate.
Among these children are those who have historically been placed in
special education under the Individuals with Disability Education Act.
Prior to this year's amendments to IDEA, many children with reading
problems were identified as learning disabled when their real problem
was simply not being taught to read.
Being spared special education will save those children years of
misguided assistance, but it will not solve the problem that led to the
special education referral in the first place, that is, not being able
to read. The Reading Excellence Act will ensure that these children,
and others, are provided the reading instruction necessary to become
literate.
This legislation also focuses on expanding the number of family
literacy programs and providing assistance to children so they can be
their child's first and most important teacher. I commend the chairman
for all of his work on the issue of family literacy. I believe this
approach to be one of the more effective approaches to helping to break
the cycle of illiteracy in many families.
Another important aspect of this legislation is a provision which
will expand quality tutoring assistance for economically disadvantaged
children. We have worked with our Democrat colleagues to strengthen
accountability under these grants and make other clarifying changes
outlined by Chairman Goodling. Specifically, this act would allow local
educational agencies to compete for funds to provide tutorial
assistance grants [TAG's]. These grants would be targeted to parents
with children who have significant reading difficulties and attend a
school which is within an empowerment zone or enterprise community.
Using these funds, parents could choose, from among a list of qualified
providers, a tutor who they feel is best suited to help their children
learn to read.
To ensure that tutors are able to provide high quality services, the
act requires the local education agency to compile and maintain a list
of qualified tutors. To be placed on this list, tutors must have a
proven track record in reading readiness, early childhood literacy and
reading instruction for children in grades K-3 and must commit to
providing instruction based upon reliable teaching methods--such as
phonics-based instruction--that have produced results supported by
replicable research.
Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to make a significant difference
in the future of many children who currently are unable to read. I urge
my colleagues to seize upon this opportunity and support the Reading
Excellence Act.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, salute the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] for their hard work and commitment to this bipartisan bill. I
also want to recognize our ranking member, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez], and Mr. Miller for strongly negotiating
through the process our commitment to different new provisions to
strengthen, I think, an existing program. So I think both sides here
have worked together to craft a very, very strong bill.
Yesterday we worked in a bipartisan way to pass new ideas with a
charter school bill for public choice and public education. Today we
are working in a bipartisan way to strengthen the existing literacy
program.
I rise in strong support of this bill, both for policy reasons and
for some very, very substantive reasons which are included in this
bill. First of all, in the policy reasons, again, we are not recreating
the wheel, we are not coming up with a brand new program here, we are
trying to find ways to improve the existing program and work with
parents and teachers and volunteers and professionals to solve one of
the most vexing and heartbreaking problems in America today:
illiteracy.

{time} 1615

It hurts businesses, costing them billions of dollars when they do
not get the right kinds of employees coming out of our high schools
that can read. It hurts parents who cannot read appropriately to their
children. It certainly hurts children's self-esteem when they fall
behind.
This bill comes up with new ideas to fix an existing problem and to
improve an existing program.
What are these ideas? First of all, we focus on young children, in
the kindergarten and the first grade. Next year, in the Head Start
Program, we hope to move it even further, closer to 2 and 3 and 4 years
old and earlier in their education.
Second, we stress family literacy, encouraging the parent to work as
the child's first teacher and encouraging parents to develop literacy
skills.
Third, we require States to have a professional development program
for teachers. Teachers have to learn new ways. When the first way they
are teaching the child doesn't work, they have to be able to teach in
alternative ways.
Fourth, we encourage community-based programs, reading programs, and
we require commitment from colleges that participate in the college
work-study program to work as volunteers.
This is a comprehensive way to address literacy. We are doing it in a
bipartisan way. We are fixing an old program with new ideas. I strongly
encourage Members on both the Republican side and the Democratic side
to vote for and pass this bipartisan program.

[[Page H10395]]

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey [Ms. Roukema], a very active member of our committee in this
area, a former teacher, and very helpful in putting the legislation
together.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the chairman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member
for this wonderful contribution on an issue that is so essential for
all Americans. This is a bill that deserves enthusiastic support.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is another issue that bothers the
American people as much as the question of education and how it affects
their families. This represents real progress with this legislation.
Studies have shown, I might as well repeat this, it has been stated,
but studies have shown that 40 percent of the Nation's fourth graders
are below basic reading skills. That is something that has to be
improved.
I know there are those here that want to give volunteer help through
AmeriCorps. That is not the issue here today, because there is not a
principal or educator in this country who would turn away volunteers.
But they would also say that the most important essential need is that
we train, have real reading training for teachers in the classroom.
That is what this bill does. It gives that assistance to the classroom
teacher and gives that training.
Mr. Speaker, I think the bill, of course, also helps lower-income
parents and gives them the opportunity to gain remedial assistance,
which of course we also know is important.
I would like to say, especially to my conservative friends, fellow
fiscal conservative friends, I might say, because I am one of those
too, I want us to know that 95 percent of the funding authorized in
this legislation is driven right down into the classroom. It is not
eaten up in bureaucratic overhead and administration. I think that is
important for all of us to know.
Finally, I will conclude with my own commitment, as a teacher, a
mother, in saying that without reading, there is no learning, and
without learning, there is no education; without education, our Nation
cannot compete in this increasingly competitive global economy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and all the members of the
committee for this very fine contribution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Reading Excellence Act
and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, for his
strong leadership in this area.
Among the many laudable sections of the budget and tax cut package
this Congress approved in July was an additional $260 million to
enhance literacy. Heaven knows we need it.
Recent studies have shown that 40 percent of the Nation's fourth
graders possess below-basic reading skills. Now thee are many societal
and educational reasons for this--but time will not allow a complete
discussion here.
Quite frankly, I have been a bit puzzled by the President's approach
to this new literacy program. He proposed to spend the $260 million to
send an army of barely trained paid volunteers from Americorps in to
low-income schools to serve as reading tutors.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a principal in this country who would turn
away new volunteers at his or her school.
That's what this bill does: gives the assistance to those in the best
position to make a difference--the classroom teacher.
The legislation Mr. Goodling and our Education Committee approved
emphasizes helping teachers to teach reading. This bill is grounded in
the basics, and ensures that reliable and replicable research on
reading techniques, such as phonics, actually reaches the classroom.
Our bill also will give lower-income parents the opportunity to gain
remedial assistance for their children from trained and approved
reading tutors.
To do all this, the bill creates a new system, which allows for
reading and literacy partnerships--a State entity--to compete for
literacy grants to use toward innovative reading programs.
Now let me close with a few words for my fellow fiscal conservatives.
I want you to know that 95-percent of the funding authorized by this
legislation is driven right into the classroom. It is not eaten up in
bureaucratic overhead and administration.
It would add that this legislation also repeals 67 unfunded Federal
Department of Education programs.
As a member of the Education Committee since coming to Congress, I
have said that we need to undertake a clear-eyed evaluation of every
educational program on the books, determine what works and fully-fund
them and get rid of the rest. This legislation moves us in that
direction.
Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher, mother of three and grandmother of
five there is no more fundamental reform we can adopt to give the next
generation a successful future.
Without reading, there is no learning. Without learning, there is no
education. Without education, our Nation cannot compete in an
increasingly competitive global economy.
We must do this for our children and our children's children. I thank
the chairman and urge support for this legislation.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Martinez, California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez] for yielding to me, from Martinez, and I
thank him for his work on this legislation, and I want to thank our
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Riggs] and, again, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]
for all of the effort to bring this legislation to the floor and to
make it a true bipartisan effort.
There have been very intensive negotiations around this legislation.
I think those negotiations have been intense because, as the gentleman
from New Jersey just said, we believe this is one of the most important
subjects that we confront as members of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, and that is our ability to improve the outcomes for our
young children in school to learn to read so that they can read to
learn for the rest of their lives.
As so many have already said here today, we are not doing a very good
job in that effort. I think this legislation starts to turn us around
in that. In terms of the emphasis that it places on the professional
development of teachers, it is clear that we have got to have
competent, capable teachers in that classroom, spending time with those
children to help them learn to read.
It is clear that we have got to get the parents of these children
involved in reading to their children and encouraging their children
and rewarding their children for reading competency. It is also very
clear that we have got to call upon additional volunteers to come to
our schools and to spend time with the children.
I notice today in Roll Call magazine some of our colleagues in the
U.S. Senate spending time on Capitol Hill. Senator Durbin from Illinois
was pictured at Brent School, reading to a young man, trying to
encourage that young man to improve his reading proficiency so he could
have a successful education.
Mr. Speaker, I spent an awful lot of time with young adolescents in
my local high schools where I teach a couple of classes for young
children and young students in the continuation high school and also in
a honors class at another high school. Every Monday morning, we talk
about some of these issues. And I cannot tell you the sadness the young
people express and how cheated they feel that they cannot read to grade
level and how angry they are about social promotions and being told
that they are doing fine, they are getting C's, and they will be OK,
and now to realize as they are 10th and 11th graders, that they really
cannot read.
It has got to stop. We have got to make this a determinant of your
ability to proceed in education. We have got to bring the resources.
This bill does that. It allows us to go out and to contract with
tutors, to bring additional emphasis and resources on those children
that are having difficulty.
Hopefully, schools will get better at identifying those children and
the problems they have, and we can start to eliminate the great number
of children who are falling behind their reading proficiency at grade
level. We will be able to identify those problems and get those
children up to grade level so they can have a successful education.
Unless we do that, Mr. Speaker, we simply are not going to improve
the American education experience for millions of children that we need
as competent children, as capable children, and as graduates of an
education system that allows them to take their place in American
society.

[[Page H10396]]

I would hope that the House would overwhelmingly pass this bipartisan
legislation to improve America's reading education.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], a valuable member of the committee.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and
commend him and the leaders on both sides of the committee for the hard
work they have done on this very important issue.
I do not think there is any issue facing America that is more
important to our future than to somehow improve our educational system
to where every Johnny and Susie when they leave school are good
readers.
I will have to be honest, I was not excited when I saw the budget
agreement that called for another new reading literacy program, but I
am pleased with the work that has been done with existing programs and
in streamlining this one to get the money to our schools.
But I will say this: I do not think we will solve the literacy
problem in this country just with Federal initiatives. We need a
commitment from our school boards and our superintendents and
principals that no child will leave their school without good reading
skills, and, without that commitment, no State or Federal money will
solve this problem. We need that commitment at the local level.
But I come to the floor today to support the Reading Excellence Act.
This act brings only successful components of education together, the
school, the teacher, the parents, and, most importantly, the child.
This focuses on providing teachers and tutors with better tools. The
Reading Excellence Act provides parents with the ability to better
their child's opportunity to make the grade in reading. Through the
tutorial assistance grants, Johnny and Susie's parents will be able to
pick from a list of programs in order to find the right program for the
needs of their children. I think that is one of the most important
parts of this bill. When we stop and think about it, where did we learn
to read? It was a combination of school and home and family members.
Another important aspect of this bill is where children are having
difficulties as a result of a family environment. This act provides
literacy assistance to the child's parents, allowing them to become
their child's first and foremost teacher. It directs the funds to the
local level, where only true educational reform happens. This measure
strengthens our teachers and their teaching methods.
Finally, we ensure that parents remain the key element in the
education equation, providing them with literacy assistance, allowing
them, the parents, the decision process for their child, ensuring that
parents become the premier teachers.
With this bill we only provide tools, but we still need the
commitment of the school superintendents and directors back home that
no child will leave their school without good literacy skills.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens], a long time proponent of reading from his library
background.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Martinez], and the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Chairman Goodling], and all the others who have
negotiated this piece of legislation.
There were some serious differences, and for a moment I thought maybe
the children of America would be denied this small effort because of
those differences, and I do not think it is good to do that and wait
another year while the inaccuracy of the teaching of reading goes
forward.
I was shocked to learn that most of the teachers in our schools have
never been trained to teach reading. There was an article on the New
York Times editorial page which said the overwhelming majority of
teachers have never been taught to teach reading and there is a need to
have some kind of instruction on how to do that. It will improve the
job.
So the children who will benefit from this need it now. We cannot
hesitate and wait. We should go on and do all we can. So this is one
more small effort to improve education in America.
It is just that, a small effort. This is like dipping from the lake
of inadequacy with a teacup. This is a small program. It is $200
million. It may sound like a lot of money out there, but a nuclear
submarine costs more than $2 billion.
If we are really going to deal with the problem of teaching reading,
we ought to try to make an impact on the schools of education with some
kind of Federal program in the future. I do not know whether it costs
as much as a nuclear submarine or not, probably not, but it would
require a bigger effort than this one.
This is a good effort. It is a good pilot program, and it ought to go
forward. It brings in a lot of different elements, all of which I think
ought to be brought in. Common sense dictates that you should use what
you have at hand, and this is a good common sense effort.
But in order to really deal with the problem, I hope that these pilot
programs and these good common sense efforts are only a prelude to this
Congress going ahead in the future to deal with the overwhelming
problem of inadequate and substandard education in America.
The war against substandard education cannot be fought by some rifle
corps going out. That helps. This is a little operation where we are
sending out a few platoons to deal with the problem. We need a real war
on substandard education.
A real war means you deal with basic problems, like school
construction. School construction is a basic problem out there. We need
$120 billion to deal with the infrastructure of schools all across
America. Even if you do not get nearly that much, we ought to do better
than we have done so far.
To say we are going to teach reading better and make efforts to teach
reading or to improve technological instruction or provide more
technology in the schools, when the kids are still up against the
problem where the boilers are breaking down in the schools and they
have to go to school and bundle up in order to stay warm, and that does
not just happen in Washington, D.C., there are a number of schools all
across America that have problems in terms of heat.
So we should see this as a wonderful prelude, as an indication that
the Congress cares. But we are just beginning to deal with the bigger
problem. We are just beginning to fight the war. These are little
patrols that we are sending out to reconnoiter, to scout out the
problem. The problem is much bigger, and beyond this program on
reading, which is about $200 million, $210 million, we need to have a
comprehensive approach to education, stimulated and guided by the
Congress of the United States, despite the fact that the primary
responsibility for education is at the local level.

{time} 1430

Mr. Speaker, we can provide the leadership, we can provide the
stimulation. We will never be responsible for education. That is a
matter for the States, but we can go beyond the 8 percent of education
expenditures and move on to a more important role in leading the fight
to really wage a war against substandard education in America. This is
the beginning, but let us get ready to fight a bigger war next year.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Paul], another important member of our committee.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my
opposition to the Reading Excellence Act, which creates yet another
unconstitutional, ineffective, $260 million new Federal education
program.
I do not challenge the motivation of those who today bring this bill
to the floor. The supporters of this bill claim that by passing the
Reading Excellence Act, the Federal Government will, quote, enable
every child to learn to read, end of quote.

[[Page H10397]]

Now, this is certainly a noble goal, but before Congress creates yet
another Federal program, perhaps we should consider that over the past
60 years Congress has created a plethora of social programs, each one
promising to bring to an end all the social ills. These programs have
not only failed to create the promised utopia, but in many cases
worsened the very problems they were created to solve.
Nowhere is the Federal Government's failure to improve the lives of
the American people through the welfare state more dramatically
illustrated than in education. In 1963, when Federal spending on
education was less than $900,000, the average Scholastic Achievement
Test score was approximately 980. Thirty years later, when Federal
education spending ballooned to $19 billion, the average score fell to
902.
Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of Education
Progress Survey, only 37 percent of America's 12th graders were
actually able to read at a 12th grade level. Despite this history of
failed Federal programs, Congress is once again planning to solve a
social problem it helped create through an increase in Federal power.
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the reason we are considering this
bill is because the budget agreement, which was supposed to end the era
of big government, calls for the creation of a Federal literacy
program. Obviously, the budget does not end big government, but
preserves and expands unconstitutional State interference in areas
where the Federal Government has neither legitimacy nor competence.
Rather than returning money and authority to the States and
the people, commensurate with the 10th amendment, this bill
creates another complex bureaucratic process, laden with
rules, regulations, and State mandates. Under this bill,
States receiving a literacy grant must establish a reading
and literacy partnership, the markup of which is dictated by
the Federal Government. The partnership must then apply for a
grant to the Secretary of Education, explaining how they
would comply with all of the bill's mandates. The grants are
then approved by a Peer Review Panel, a group of experts
chosen by the National Institute for Literacy and other
federally funded organizations. States receiving grants under
this program would then have to distribute those grants to
Local Education Agencies [LEA's] who submit a plan to the
States' reading and literacy partnership. Among the
information that States would be required to submit is a
description of how subgrants made by the partnership would
achieve the goals of the act, a description of how the
partnership would evaluate subgrantees, and a description of
how states will guarantee that a portion of the funds will be
used to provide tutorial assistance grants.
Those receiving Federal literacy funds may only use them
for federally defined purposes. Thus, this legislation
creates another bureaucratized program rooted in pseudo-
federalism, whereby States have the right to spend money on
federally defined goals and within the limitations set by
Congress--provided, of course, they jump through all the
congressionally constructed Federal hoops.
Recipients of Federal literacy funds must base their
programs on reliable, replicable research, defined as
research meeting scientific standards of peer-review. While
none question the value of research into various educational
methodologies it is doubtful that the best way to teach
reading can be totally determined through laboratory
experiments. Learning to read is a complex process, involving
many variable, not the least of which are the skills and
abilities of the individual child. Many effective techniques
may not be readily supported by reliable, replicable
research. Therefore, this program may end up preventing the
use of many effective means of reading instruction. The
requirement that recipients of Federal funds use only those
reading techniques based on reliable, replicable research,
which in practice means those methods approved by the
federally funded experts on the Peer Review Panel, ensures
that a limited number of reading methodologies will, in
essence, be stamped with Federal approval.
Furthermore, this bill mandates that schools participating
in the Federal literacy programs must make available to
parents assurance of teacher qualifications. It is probably a
good idea that local schools make this information available
to parents, but it not the role of the Federal Government to
dictate local schools implement everything we in Congress
think is a good idea. In addition, this provision seems to
have been motivated by a desire to start Congress down the
road to establishing a national system to certify teachers.
Due to the unfortunate influence of the Federal Government,
the teaching methodologies funded under this program will
become the methodologies used in every classroom in the
Nation. Thus, this bill represents another step toward
imposing a national curriculum. Supporters of this bill will
respond that the Federal Government is merely encouraging the
use of sound instructional techniques. Setting aside the
question of whether or not techniques based on reliable,
replicable research can really lead one to discover the best
means of educating children, the Constitution prohibits the
Federal Government from any interference in the methodologies
by which children are educated. This constitutional
prohibition on Federal interference in education contains no
exception for techniques based on reliable, replicable,
research.
Mr. Speaker, another indication that this bill will move
America toward a national curriculum is that the bill creates
a Federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with
Federal standards the goal of education.
Furthermore, the Reading Excellence Act requires each
grantee to evaluate the success of their programs. Of course,
the most effective way to evaluate the success of the various
literacy projects reviewing Federal funds is to administer a
uniform test to the students participating in those programs.
Thus, despite the overwhelming congressional rejection of
national testing just last month, Congress is now considering
authorizing the creation of a de facto national reading exam.
Another reason to oppose this bill is that it increases
Federal support for a so-called family literacy services. One
of the hallmark of totalitarianism is State-control of child
rearing. Despite the language that participation in these
programs is voluntary, these programs enable government-
funded social workers to subtly coerce parents to cede
control of their child to the State.
Mr. Speaker, the Reading Excellence Act represents another
unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of States, local
communities, and parents to educate children free from
Federal interference. It also takes several large steps down
the dangerous road toward a national curriculum. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues to reject this bill, and instead support
measures such as educational tax credit that will empower
parents to provide effective literacy instruction for their
children.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle], another important member of the committee, who
helped turn things around in Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank all of those who worked on this
legislation.
I am pleased to see almost near harmony with respect to support of
this. I cannot imagine anything as important as teaching young people,
and even older people for that matter, how to read. It is significant,
be it the simple act of being able to read traffic signs or being able
just to get around, to reading manuals, to higher education, or the
simple pleasures of being able to read a book and to escape to some
fantasy as a result of that reading is one of the tremendous
necessities and pleasures in the life of anybody in this world, and we
want our American citizens to be able to do it.
The President, I think, was on the right track to recognize the power
and importance of literacy when he announced his literacy initiative,
but I think his focus was a little bit misguided in terms of having
volunteers, who are certainly a very important component in
ascertaining a level of reading in children, but we have to go beyond
that, I believe. My office indeed has been involved as volunteers in
the Everybody Wins program, where staff go to Tyler Elementary right up
the street here and read with their children to whom they are assigned
once a week, and it makes a huge difference as far as the kids are
concerned.
But the problem is more fundamental than trying to get children to
like reading. It rests in the fact that many children simply cannot
translate the written word into the spoken word. They lack basic
decoding and literacy skills. Scarce Federal dollars should be focused
on the most basic solution to the literacy problem.
For a problem like this, I think teacher training is imperative.
Reading teachers need to learn the best methods for teaching reading
based on reliable, replicable research. By giving children the basic
building blocks of literacy, learning how to sound out the written
word, they will be well on their way to becoming literate adults, and
that is exactly what this legislation does, as has been described
today.
Under this bill, States, through reading and literacy programs, will
compete for literacy grants to use for innovative, in-service reading
programs for classroom teachers and related reading activities based on
the best research available, and I cannot think of anything which is
better to do.
Instilling in our young people the ability to read is absolute. This
legislation helps do that, and I am again very

[[Page H10398]]

thankful for all of those who put it together and hope that we all can
support it.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], who worked hard in the State legislature to
improve education.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise and am pleased to rise in support
of the Reading Excellence Act. While we are all concerned about new
Federal programs, the budget agreement set aside $260 million for a new
literacy program. What we could have had is another feel-good,
unproven, sounds-good program, the kind of program that has failed our
children so badly.
Mr. Speaker, 44 percent of the U.S. students in elementary school do
not read at a basic level. Thirty-two percent of college graduates also
have failed to reach this basic level. This may be the most important
bill that we pass regarding our children and their success in school,
because what it does, finally and most importantly, is focus on the
proven ways of teaching children how to read.
We know today that the latest scientific research shows that 60 to 70
percent of all children read any way you teach them, but the other
children need a very systemic, phonics-based approach to reading if
they are ever going to read and be good readers.
We furthermore know that science has shown us that children that do
not read by the end of third grade will always have a bigger struggle
in reaching that basic level. Their opportunity to be good readers is
much more difficult if they do not learn to read by the end of third
grade.
Reading opens doors and failure to read slams those doors shut. So
what we need is to make sure that we use the kind of scientifically
proven method to teach our children, one that has not been in our
schools so often in the past. This phonics-based approach is what
teachers will learn as a result of this funding. We will also give
parents the opportunity to provide tutorial service for their children,
their choice based on the most recommended types of tutoring and
reading approach.
It also endorses family literacy, so we are giving our children an
opportunity to go to schools that teach the right kind of reading and
parents who can help those children in the same way. I support this
bill.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
say that everybody has said repeatedly that reading is so important to
our way of life, even the basics for reading to fill out an application
for employment, or reading instructions for toys that we put together
for our children. Yet I have seen in my lifetime so many people that
have even graduated from high school that have been functionally
illiterate. Anything that we can do to improve the ability for children
to read at an early age and to go on to higher education and better
themselves by learning to read and read well is something that we have
done that is worthwhile.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we be careful when we
say that we wish schools the way they were when we were kids. But we
have to understand, schools must be much better than they were when we
were children. Why? Because we are in the 21st century.
When I went to a two-room, eighth grade elementary school, most
children did not go beyond eighth grade. They went on to work. Many
were not very literate. They did not have to be. It was easy to get a
job, it was easy to support a family. They did not have to be as
literate as they must be today.
So what we have tried to do with this legislation is take the mandate
from the budget agreement and see whether we could create something
that would give teachers the opportunity to be the best reading
teachers there are; to give parents an opportunity to be the child's
first and most important teacher; to make sure children do not fail or
get socially promoted in first grade.
Mr. Speaker, this is a small program to improve the existing program.
We are not out there trying to create some magnificent program that
will end all illiteracy in this country. We are trying to make all of
our programs better programs so that every child has an opportunity for
quality education. They must have it if we are going to succeed in a
very competitive 21st century. We cannot have 40 percent of our
children unable to read properly.
Reading readiness, reading skills. At one time one was literate if
one could read at a sixth grade level. Now one is functionally
illiterate if one cannot read and comprehend at the twelfth grade
level. The only thing I want from the old schools is discipline.
Everything else I want to be better.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, the Reading Excellence
Act, which would authorize the Education Department to make grants to
State reading and literacy partnerships.
Under the bill a State's reading and literacy partnership would
consist of the Governor and chief State school officer, the chairmen
and ranking members of each State legislative committee with
jurisdiction over education, and a representative of a school district
with at least one school in a title I school improvement program.
While the bill will allow State partnerships they must include in
their applications an assurance that they would give subgrants only to
those school districts that have family literacy programs based on Even
Start, implement programs to assist kindergarten students who are not
ready to make the transition to first grade, use supervised individuals
to provide additional support before and after school and during the
summer, and have a professional development program for the teaching of
reading. Most important, the bill would require applications to
describe how the state would send 95% of its funds to the local level.
The bill requires that State partnerships make subgrants on a
competitive basis to school districts that have more than one school in
a title I school improvement program.
This bill will be good for the children of Houston and good for the
State of Texas because it will help to focus resources on the critical
area of literacy and reading.
Reading is the most fundamental of skills that all children must
master in order to do well in all subjects. I am a strong supporter of
education, and feel that this measure will offer greater incentives to
States and school districts to strengthen and develop reading programs.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coble). All time has expired.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] that the House suspend the rules and pass
the bill, H.R. 2614, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________