I tell my friend from Tennessee that there is no question if they did not require a plan, if Castle-Roemer did not require a plan, I would not support it. If they did not meet what the GAO said they needed to meet, I would not support it. And when the gentleman says if they do not produce, kick them out, that is what the legislation says. They have 2 years to show, and they better show. They better produce. And then at the end of 5 years, this secretary down here says, they are out. So everything that the gentleman wanted in the bill is in the bill, and that is why I can support the bill. This bill does what I think we have been talking about for years. It begins to take dollars, decisions and freedom out of this House and moves it back to houses in our districts. It restores freedom. To me, this bill, flexibility, means more freedom, and I believe that the true accountability comes to teachers and parents and local communities.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing support for the Castle-Roemer education bill and its provisions.
Share
More from William F. Goodling
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, two budgets submitted by the White House in a row had a decrease in funding for special education, 2 years in a row.
New York City would get an extra $190 million if we were fully funding the 40 percent, and Los Angeles would get another $90 million. When we talk about class size reduction, when we talk about school maintenance, think what they could do…
First of all, the church cannot be a fiscal agent. They cannot, in our legislation, be a fiscal agent.
my only regret, as I leave this institution, is that the first 20 years I sat there in the minority trying to make everybody understand that the thing that is driving local school districts up the wall more than anything else is the fact…





