David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by not only thanking the distinguished Chair on the Committee on Rules for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, I would like to associate myself with the first three sentences of her presentation. It was in the opening remarks that the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules presented that she talked about the pain that the American people are feeling as we go through one of the most serious economic downturns in our Nation's history. It is a very, very difficult time. And on that, Democrats and Republicans are in total agreement and it is absolutely imperative that we take action in this institution and that we take action that will provide the best jump start for our economy that we possibly can. The Republican Conference, Madam Speaker, was very privileged to welcome the President of the United States yesterday afternoon. We had lunch downstairs and a freewheeling discussion on the issue that we are here addressing at this moment. And that issue is how do we get this economy growing again. And we are in the midst of a raging debate on it. It is true that we are very concerned. And most Republicans have, since we saw this $825 billion package introduced, been opposed. But yesterday we did listen to President Obama. A number of questions were posed to the President in this freewheeling discussion. The thing that I came away with from that meeting yesterday was we need to focus on the merits of this issue that is before us and not on politics. Pointing the finger of blame is useless. What we need to do is figure out how we can come together and put into place the very best fiscal policy that we can to be sure that we grow our economy. I agree totally with President Obama. We need to set politics aside and focus on the merits. And I think that he left us with a good feeling about his commitment to do just that. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what we have seen with the development of this package, the way it was handled in the House Rules Committee, and the way that we are considering this measure on the floor, it appears that there is very little focus on the merits and that most of the attention is focused on politics. I will say that when we focus on merits, it seems to me that the wisest thing for us to do is not to listen to the words of a partisan Republican or the words of a partisan Democrat or even the words of a bipartisan Republican or bipartisan Democrat. What I believe we need to do, Madam Speaker, is to look at the message that has come to us from the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Now, the Congressional Budget Office had a preliminary study which the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations dismissed. And I understand that. He made some very compelling arguments before the Rules Committee the day before yesterday on that. And frankly, I couldn't dispute them. But they did come forward yesterday with a very, very exhaustive study in which they say, and I quote, Madam Speaker, ``CBO expects that Federal agencies along with States and other recipients of the funding would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs.'' It goes on, Madam Speaker, to talk about the challenges of dealing with the regulatory structure that is in place. And we looked at the issue of budget authority versus outlays. And I would focus my colleagues' attention on the third-to-the-last graph on the Congressional Budget Office study in which it makes it very clear that $2.3 billion, $2.3 billion, of this package will, in fact, not be expended until after 2019. That is 2-0-1-9. That is not 2009, not 2010, not 2011. That is more than 10 years from now. So, Madam Speaker, if we are, in fact, coming together in a bipartisan way to figure out how we can jump-start our economy immediately, this is obviously not the answer. This is a copy of H.R. 1 that has just been given to me. It is 627 pages long. And that totals $1.18 billion for every single page in this bill, H.R. 1. What we need to focus on, Madam Speaker, is the issue of getting the economy growing with what most economists believe and what history has shown to be stimulative: Tax relief. Growth-oriented tax relief. Now this morning I picked up the US News and World Report issue that has a ``Capital Commerce'' column from James Pethokoukis who quoted a wide range of economists making 10 points that very, very seriously raise concerns. And I would like to point to just one of them. Christina Romer, who is the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama, said that tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly significant negative impact on output. The more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects. Now, Madam Speaker, it's obvious that the kinds of tax cuts that we are talking about are those that generate economic growth, relief on job creators, making sure that we have marginal rate reduction that will benefit 100 percent of American taxpayers. These are the kinds of things that we are offering in our Republican substitute. And I hope very much that our colleagues will support it. This package that is before us is badly flawed, as we are going to hear throughout this debate and as was pointed out yesterday. And I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This rule is very unfair. There were 206 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Eleven have been made in order of 206 amendments. A majority of those amendments were offered by Democrats. So obviously there is a desire to make major modifications in this legislation. And for that reason, this rule is badly flawed. I'm going to urge my colleagues to reject it. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Speaker again how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, on the 9th of January, then President-elect Obama made it very clear. He said, There is no disagreement. That we need action by our government; a recovery plan that will jump-start our economy. And there is total agreement on that. Total agreement on that. We all know, both sides of the aisle, that in our districts, whether it's Georgia, New York, California, our constituents are hurting. We are all feeling the pain of this economic downturn. The question is: What action will we take? Are we going to put into place a bill that is 627 pages long, $1.18 billion for every single page of that bill, with spending that will go beyond the next 10 years as we seek to immediate immediately jump-start our economy, or are we going to do what so many economists from both sides of the aisle have indicated we need to do-- put into place strong growth-oriented tax cuts that can provide the fast-acting jump-start that we all seek. That is the choice that we have here. Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this rule, this rule does not allow the kind of debate the Democrats and Republicans deserve: 206 amendments offered to the Rules Committee, most of them amendments from Democrats. Ninety-four of those 206 came from Republicans. Yet, only 11 were made in order. That is why this rule is unfair, and it's unfair to the American people. We need to have a growth-oriented package, and we are going to come forward with that, but we also need to have a number of these other creative, thoughtful proposals that so many of our colleagues have offered come before us. This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will exceed $1.1 trillion if you take into consideration the interest payments. That is going to impose a tremendous burden on future generations, and it is not going to provide the jump-start that President Obama has talked about. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying legislation. But when we do have our opportunity to provide a balanced, growth-oriented package, I hope the Democrats and Republicans can come together to provide that immediate jump-start that we need. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to another member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, our new colleague from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our new colleague from Peoria, Illinois, the home of Caterpillar, Mr. Schock.

Mr. DREIER. We have got a limited time. I have already yielded my friend an additional minute. Maybe Ms. Slaughter might yield the gentleman a minute so that he could respond.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 15 seconds to simply say to my colleague that yesterday we had a great discussion about Clayton County. I appreciate the fact that he has several shovel-ready projects. I still point to the fact that the CBO analysis points out that getting those dollars immediately is, in fact, not going to happen in fact as fast as the gentleman from Clayton County and I would like to see happen. At this point I would like to yield, Madam Speaker, 1\1/2\ minutes to our very hardworking friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Egan, Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and to respond to his questions by saying again I would commend to him and his colleagues today's U.S. News and World Report that has just come out with an analysis from Democratic- and Republican-leaning economists, all of whom point to the fact that increasing spending dramatically, as this measure would do, in fact, will undermine the potential for what it is we're trying to do and tax cuts are the answer to get the economy growing. With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to our very good friend, my junior colleague from Indianapolis, Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. DREIER. I think at this juncture we have a couple of speakers remaining. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to a hardworking member of our Economic Stimulus Working Group, the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to my good friend from California, our new father from California, to simply say that if one looks at many analyses that have been provided, it is very apparent that juxtaposing growth-oriented tax cuts to spending, those growth-oriented tax cuts can provide the immediate jump-start that is necessary for the economy, and that's why I think we should come together in support of our package. With that, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very, very good friend from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to our distinguished former Republican whip, my friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds to continue his very important argument about the issue that Ms. Foxx raised.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I tell my friend from California that her dream has come true, this bill, according to CBO, is $1.1 trillion. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Westminster, South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I'd simply like to inquire of him again about this procedure through which this committee went. It's my understanding that these amendments were all adopted in a bipartisan way, with a unanimous vote in support of these amendments that were later just dropped from the bill that was introduced. And then, we have this statement from the Speaker's press office, a fact sheet stating, In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 57 amendments were dropped, and 43 by Republicans, 6 of which were adopted and incorporated into the bill. Is that correct?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. With all due respect, for the Chair of the Committee on Rules to stand up and say we had an hour discussion on this last night, and everybody knows what happened. Madam Speaker, I don't think the author of the amendment, Mr. Stearns, was there when last night in the Rules Committee discussed this and this came forward. I just don't see that as any kind of answer. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding and want to say it has been a great privilege to work with him and Mr. Cantor and others as part of this very important stimulus working group. I would like to share an analysis of a plan that is virtually identical to the one that is before us right now. This is the analysis: ``Large-scale construction projects of any type require years of planning and preparation. Even those that are on the shelf generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy. ``Some of the candidates for public works, such as grant-funded initiatives to develop alternative energy sources, are totally impractical for countercyclical policy, regardless of whatever other merits they may have.'' Mr. Chairman, those are the words of our good friend, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, the new director of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag. We have heard many, many people in this administration and who have served in past administrations, give an analysis that spending is not the answer. We need to get this economy growing. When I heard my friend from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) say that the well-to-do are going to be the beneficiaries and everyone else is shortchanged, I am reminded of a particular item that we have in this job creation growth alternative that is designed to ensure that people can keep their homes and have a vested interest in it. We have a $7,500 credit that is designed to encourage people not to treat their homes as rental units where we have seen in the past zero percent down and virtually no interest rate. What we need to do is we need to have an incentive for those down payments to be made. Support this alternative.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chair, because the Committee on Education and Labor did not mark up its portions of H.R. 1, I am including in the record, at their request, their views on the portions of the bill that should have been marked up by the Education and Labor Committee. Had the Committee marked up the bill, these would have been included in the Committee report. I hope that in the future, we can do a better job of adhering to regular order so that it will not be necessary to take these steps. Minority Views on H.R. 1 Committee on Education and Labor Republicans Although it is described by the Democratic majority as an ``economic stimulus package,'' this massive spending vehicle contains some of the most sweeping changes to the role of the federal government in elementary/secondary and postsecondary education policy in decades. And despite the far-reaching nature of the proposed policy shifts and spending expansions, these changes have not been approved or even reviewed by the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor, the congressional committee with sole jurisdiction over these matters. Instead, less than a week after it was publicly released, Democrats are poised to approve a bill loaded with wasteful government spending; a bill that will not have the intended effect of creating jobs and stimulating our shaky economy; and a bill that makes broad, unprecedented education policy changes with little to no congressional guidance. Committee Republicans believe that Congress should pass a real economic stimulus package that will provide middle-class families, job seekers, small business owners, and the self- employed with reforms that will create jobs and put the economy back on track. Instead of giving billions of dollars to federal and state government bureaucrats to spend on pet programs created and supported by the Congressional leadership and the new Administration, we need to put more money in the hands of American families and businesses and empower them to help in our nation's economic recovery. Will the Proposed Education Spending Measures Create Jobs and Stimulate the Economy, or Simply Saddle Our Children with Unmanageable Debt? The Democrats' spending package could provide more than $145 billion in new spending for elementary/secondary and postsecondary education. This staggering funding level is more than double the Department of Education's current discretionary budget for all of its programs and activities. In light of the fact that this bill is being considered outside of the normal authorization and appropriations processes, it is vitally important that we ask tough questions and demand satisfactory answers before committing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to funding new and expanded programs. In each case, we must ask-- ``Will every dollar allocated truly stimulate the economy?'' ``Will the funding in the education portion of this bill actually create jobs?'' ``How many private sector jobs will the bill create?'' ``How long will these jobs last?'' ``Is the funding sustainable once the initial infusion is gone?'' ``Or will this simply create an unrealistic demand for federal dollars and expectations that will continue to drive our deficit into the trillions of dollars in the future?'' ``Is the funding in the economic stimulus bill truly `emergency' spending, or could it wait and be considered through the normal legislative process?'' Unfortunately, when one looks at the package proposed unilaterally by congressional Democrats and attempts to answer these questions, the only logical conclusion is that the spending in this bill will not provide the job creation or other benefits needed to support our economy in the short- term. Nor will it provide the necessary levels of immediate relief to struggling American families and businesses. The vast majority of spending being proposed would simply bloat the federal bureaucracy and expand the federal government's role in education in previously unseen directions. Perhaps the Washington Post said it best in an editorial that appeared just days before this massive spending plan is scheduled for a vote in the U.S. House. It said, ``Helping hire, equip and pay police, a $4 billion item under the bill, might be a good idea, but writing checks to individual households for the same amount would do more to stimulate the economy. Ditto for $16 billion in Pell Grants for college students, $2.1 billion for Head Start and $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. All of those ideas may have merit, but why do they belong in an emergency measure aimed to kick-start the economy? . . . ``[G]iven their cost, and the inherent difficulty of forecasting their impact, Congress should vet them through the normal legislative process, weigh them against other priorities and pay for them.'' And although some of the money in the bill is intended for worthy goals that enjoy bipartisan support, such as those that will increase student awards in the Pell Grant program, the funding increase is slated to vanish after two years. For students entering college this year, with this temporary aid increase, we must ask: How will they make up the difference when the additional federal money is no longer there in two years? Either all low-income students will see their Pell Grants slashed by $500 or more, or Congress will need to find at least $16 billion each and every year going forward just to maintain this funding level. This scenario will not only play out on college campuses, but in states, school districts, public schools, Head Start centers, and local workforce centers all across the country that are slated to receive billions in temporary taxpayer dollars. It is fiscally irresponsible and unfair to students and the American taxpayer to hold out the promise of additional money only to pull it back, or to set up a situation in which federal spending--and along with it, the deficit--has nowhere to go but up to relieve the tremendous pressure to continue programs at exorbitantly high levels once the stimulus is no longer in effect. Unprecedented Expansion of Federal Government's Role in School Construction with No Congressional Oversight Over the past decade, the condition of local public school facilities has become an important component of the education debate in communities throughout the nation. In both cities and suburbs, students, parents, teachers, and many public officials argue that school buildings are overcrowded, unsafe, and obsolete. As a result, the amount being spent on school construction, modernization, and renovation has become a significant issue in many states and local school districts. While strongly supportive of public education, historically, the federal government has had an extremely limited, almost non-existent role in financing school infrastructure projects and facility improvement programs, which have been a state and local responsibility. The federal government has chosen to maintain this limited role in school construction while focusing on adequately funding programs that increase student achievement, primarily through the Title I program for low-income students, and on helping states provide a free, appropriate public education to those students with special needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It has also chosen to focus limited federal resources on providing lasting and permanent increases to the Pell Grant program that directly benefits low-income students pursuing a college education. Ignoring more than 40 years of deliberate effort by Congress to limit its focus to these national priorities since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, IDEA, and the Higher Education Act, the Democrats responsible for drafting this spending package have chosen to create an unprecedented $20 billion federal school construction program. The program would weaken efforts at the state level to fund school construction, dramatically increase the cost of building elementary and secondary schools and public colleges and universities, and dramatically expand the size and scope of the federal government. With the unmet need for school construction and renovation at the elementary and secondary level estimated at $112 billion, and with states and local school districts spending an average of $20.7 billion annually on school construction, it's a valid question to wonder how a new federal school construction program administered by the U.S. Department of Education (which received roughly $22 billion last year for all programs under the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education) could do a better job at building schools than state and local officials. One of the most troubling aspects of the massive new federal school construction program authorized in this so- called economic stimulus bill is that it will be subject to the requirements of the Depression-era Davis-Bacon Act, which requires construction projects to be paid using flawed ``prevailing wages'' and favors union wage workers. It is estimated that this requirement raises the costs of school construction by as much as one-third in some parts of the country, especially in those local communities that have lower costs and are not subject to the flawed prevailing wage structure. The federal government should maintain its longstanding focus on assisting states and local school districts to improve student academic achievement and providing low-income students with Pell Grants so that they can go to college. It should not undertake a $20 billion school construction experiment. Denying Students with Disabilities the Ability to Receive a High Quality Education at Public or Private Schools The proposed economic stimulus package prohibits states and school districts from using funds under the State Stabilization Fund from assisting students that attend private elementary or secondary schools. This provision directly contradicts the rights guaranteed to students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under IDEA, parents of children with disabilities have the right to place their children in an education environment that best meets the needs of the particular student-- regardless of whether it is a public or private school. Under the statute, states and school districts can also place children with a disability in a private school in order to meet the law's requirement that a disabled child be provided a free and appropriate public education. In both cases, IDEA requires that children in private schools receive special education and related services in order to enhance their education. The economic stimulus package, which would prohibit states and school districts from using funding under the bill to educate students with disabilities in private school settings, jeopardizes the fundamental and basic tenet of IDEA, which is to ensure that all students with disabilities, regardless of where they attend school, are entitled to the same high quality elementary and secondary education as their peers. The provision is a major reversal in the federal government's effort to ensure that services are provided to students with disabilities and one that should be removed from the package. New Federal Education Policy Mandates Jeopardize Money to States that Want Federal Assistance The Democrats' economic stimulus package also includes $79 billion for a new ``state stabilization fund'' to assist states in coping with their recent budget problems. Of the total funding, at least 61 percent must be spent in support of elementary/secondary and postsecondary education. In order for a state to receive assistance under this new program, it must: maintain state support for elementary/secondary education and postsecondary education at the level that it had in fiscal year 2006; address inequities in the distribution of teachers between high- and low-poverty schools; establish a statewide longitudinal data system; enhance reading and math assessments; and ensure that all students with disabilities and those who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) are included in state assessments and are offered proper accommodations to enable their participation in state assessments. According to current data on just three of the five requirements outlined above, many states will be unable to qualify for the additional money under the state stabilization fund. Certainly, none will qualify in the near- term. Hence, we have to determine that the state stabilization fund is not likely to lead to any job creation or stimulate the economy in any meaningful way. conclusion Under the guise of economic stimulus, this spending package makes unprecedented changes in the direction of federal education policy without observing the regular legislative process. Even more troubling, it is doubtful that the funding will actually create jobs or stimulate the economy. It is far more likely that the high levels of spending in the bill will only stimulate expectations for future spending to levels that are unrealistic and unsustainable. Our children will be saddled with debt, our states and schools will be left holding the bag when the funding disappears, and our economy may be left worse off than it is now. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon. Peter Hoekstra. Mark E. Souder. Joe Wilson. John Kline. Rob Bishop of Utah. Brett Guthrie. David P. Roe.