Committee Statements

There are a variety of concerns that I and other Republicans have with this bill. 

I’d like to sum these up with a few phrases: It costs too much. It borrows too much. It controls too much. And it’s an area that, as federal legislators, we should not be intruding upon.

First, there’s concern about the cost. Last year, this committee marked up a very similar bill which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost $20 billion over the next five years.

If passed, this bill could divert funding from the Title I program for disadvantaged students.

It also could take money away from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.

When the federal government set up the IDEA program in 1975, it told states that it would pick up 40 percent of the cost of educating these students. But despite enormous progress, especially over the past decade, we still aren’t meeting that commitment.

Members on this side of the aisle think we should meet our existing commitments such as IDEA, and a brand new federal school construction program does nothing to accomplish that goal.

Now, let’s take a look at another problem with this bill: It borrows too much.

The $20 billion price tag may not seem like much in these days of multi-billion dollar bailouts and trillion dollar federal budgets.

But it does add up.

Right now, the federal government is estimated to run a nearly $2 trillion deficit this year alone. The national debt stands at around $11 trillion – and growing, thanks to bills like this one.

We need to get the federal budget under control.

If we don’t, the children we’re trying to help today will be paying off our debts and deficits for the rest of their lives – instead of paying for their own dreams and destinies.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill controls too much in an area the federal government doesn’t have any business meddling in.

Yes, the federal government can play a limited, but helpful, role in education.

But this bill is not limited or helpful.

It would nationalize and regulate the building and maintenance of schools across the nation, from small towns and rural outposts to large cities and urban centers.

Like other federal construction projects, this new program carries with it the burden of Depression-era wage mandates. The Department of Labor’s own Inspector General has found these wage requirements to be flawed, shortchanging either taxpayers, workers, or both. And it’s not just the cost. Davis-Bacon creates red tape and regulatory hurdles that make it hard for smaller contractors – many owned by minorities or women – to win federal contracts.

But the federal mandates don’t end there.

This bill even dictates the kind of flooring schools can use. I ask the American people…is this really something the federal government should be doing?

Building and renovating schools would add to a growing list of areas the federal government now handles such as the banking industry, the auto industry, and the credit industry.

There are also plans for even more federal involvement in health care and – if the Obama Administration gets its wish – the college loan industry as well.

Just by itself, this bill would give the federal government more power than ever before. But when it stands with other recent bills and laws, it creates a clear – and bleak – picture of the future: A government of Washington, by Washington, and for Washington.

We debated the question of whether the federal government ought to build schools when we debated the stimulus package earlier this year. And both parties, in both chambers, agreed that the answer was “no,” we should not create such a program.

Of course, federal programs are made for loopholes, and the stimulus was no exception. We recently learned that states are planning to treat State Fiscal Stabilization Fund dollars – about $54 billion worth – as Impact Aid funding. In other words, unrestricted dollars that they can spend on anything they like, including new school construction.

I think this is wrong. But it’s happening, and it begs the question – why do we need to create another new program to do what the states are already able to do, if they so choose, under a stimulus enacted just a few short months ago?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill.

I know that you and your fellow Democrats are sincere in your efforts to improve the schools. I do recognize there is a need for school construction and renovation. But involving the federal government creates more problems than it solves.  

 

# # #