I want to briefly respond and point out to the gentleman, as we have already said on this floor this evening, only 7 of the 50 States have said that they will participate in these tests, which begs the question, if these tests are so essential to the education of our children and to gauging and assessing the progress of our children, if these tests are so essential in that regard, it would seem that more States would already be on board.
Discussing state participation in educational testing during a House debate.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
I am very comfortable with language that would say that a court order, Federal court order would take precedence over State and local law with respect to bilingual education or State local policy. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support an…
I believe affirmative action is outdated. Affirmative action, contrary to what several speakers have suggested, is no longer a black and white issue, certainly not in California, the largest, most diverse State in our Union. Because the…
I do not see how we can support a policy that... facilitates, furthers illegal drug use and actually... puts us as lawmakers... in the position of... engaging in enabling behavior. And, furthermore, it sends the worst possible message that…
So the amendment in its current form is intended to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to prevent the City and County of San Francisco government... from being able to use Federal taxpayer funding... to require that private…
Other voices in this conversation
