PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 116-101.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 20, 2019
Esther Martinez Native American Languages Programs Reauthorization Act
This bill revises a grant program administered by the Administration for Native Americans at the Department of Health and Human Services to preserve Native American languages. The minimum number of enrollees in educational programs funded by grants is reduced from 10 to 5 enrollees in Native American language nests, which provide instruction through the use of a Native American language for children under the age of 7 and their parents. For survival schools, which are programs striving for fluency in a Native American language and proficiency in other academic fields, the minimum number of enrollees is reduced from 15 to 10. The bill increases the maximum duration of grants.
The program is reauthorized through FY2024.
People & committees
Sen. Udall, Tom [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 116-101.
Became Public Law No: 116-101.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H9378)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H9378)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 256.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9378-9380)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S4652-4664; text: CR S4660)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S4652-4664; text: CR S4660)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 42.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Hoeven without amendment. With written report No. 116-11.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Hoeven without amendment. With written report No. 116-11.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.256 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.256 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.256 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.256 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.