- TXT
-
PDF (1MB)
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
116th Congress } { Rept. 116-684
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
REBUILD AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 2019
_______
December 21, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Scott of Virginia, from the Committee on Education and Labor,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 865]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 865) to provide for the long-term improvement of
public school facilities, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 24
Committee Action................................................. 25
Committee Views.................................................. 30
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 43
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 49
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 49
Unfunded Mandate Statement....................................... 49
Earmark Statement................................................ 49
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 49
Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives.................... 60
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 60
Hearings......................................................... 60
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 60
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate....................... 60
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 68
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 68
Minority Views................................................... 81
The amendments are as follows:
Strike section 1 and all that follows through the end of
title I and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Rebuild
America's Schools Act of 2019''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is
as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--GRANTS FOR THE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Sec. 101. Purpose and reservation.
Sec. 102. Allocation to States.
Sec. 103. Need-based grants to qualified local educational agencies.
Sec. 104. Annual report on grant program.
Sec. 105. Authorization of Appropriations.
TITLE II--SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
Sec. 201. Restoration of certain qualified tax credit bonds.
Sec. 202. School infrastructure bonds.
Sec. 203. Annual report on bond program.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Allowable uses of funds.
Sec. 302. Prohibited uses.
Sec. 303. Requirements for hazard-resistance and energy and water
conservation.
Sec. 304. Green Practices.
Sec. 305. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured products.
Sec. 306. Comptroller general report.
Sec. 307. Study and report physical condition of public schools.
Sec. 308. Development of data standards.
Sec. 309. Information clearinghouse.
Sec. 310. Prohibition on use of funds for facilities of for-profit
charter schools.
Sec. 311. Prohibition on use of funds for certain charter schools.
Sec. 312. Sense of congress on Opportunity Zones.
TITLE IV--IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION
Sec. 401. Temporary increase in funding for impact aid construction.
TITLE V--ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY
PYRRHOTITE
Sec. 501. Allocations to States.
Sec. 502. Grants to local educational agencies.
Sec. 503. Definitions.
Sec. 504. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the
Committee on Education and Labor of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions of the Senate.
(2) Bureau-funded school.--The term ``Bureau-funded
school'' has the meaning given that term in section
1141 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C.
2021).
(3) Covered funds.--The term ``covered funds'' means
funds received--
(A) under title I of this Act;
(B) from a school infrastructure bond; or
(C) from a qualified zone academy bond (as
such term is defined in section 54E of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as restored by
section 201)).
(4) ESEA terms.--The terms ``elementary school'',
``outlying area'', and ``secondary school'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 8101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7801).
(5) Local educational agency.--The term ``local
educational agency'' has the meaning given that term in
section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801) except that such term does
not include a Bureau-funded school.
(6) Public school facilities.--The term ``public
school facilities'' means the facilities of a public
elementary school or a public secondary school.
(7) Qualified local educational agency.--The term
``qualified local educational agency'' means a local
educational agency that receives funds under part A of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
(8) School infrastructure bond.--The term ``school
infrastructure bond'' has the meaning given such term
in section 54BB of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(as added by section 202).
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of Education.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.
(11) Zero energy school.--The term ``zero energy
school'' means a public elementary school or public
secondary school that--
(A) generates renewable energy on-site; and
(B) on an annual basis, exports an amount of
such renewable energy that equals or exceeds
the total amount of renewable energy that is
delivered to the school from outside sources.
TITLE I--GRANTS FOR THE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL
FACILITIES
SEC. 101. PURPOSE AND RESERVATION.
(a) Purpose.--Funds made available under this title shall be
for the purpose of supporting long-term improvements to public
school facilities in accordance with this Act.
(b) Reservation for Outlying Areas and Bureau-Funded
Schools.--
(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2020
through 2029, the Secretary shall reserve, from the
amount appropriated to carry out this title--
(A) one-half of 1 percent, to make
allocations to the outlying areas in accordance
with paragraph (3); and
(B) one-half of 1 percent, for payments to
the Secretary of the Interior to provide
assistance to Bureau-funded schools.
(2) Use of reserved funds.--
(A) In general.--Funds reserved under
paragraph (1) shall be used in accordance with
sections 301 through 305.
(B) Special rules for bureau-funded
schools.--
(i) Applicability.--Sections 301
through 305 shall apply to a Bureau-
funded school that receives assistance
under paragraph (1)(B) in the same
manner that such sections apply to a
qualified local educational agency that
receives covered funds. The facilities
of a Bureau-funded school shall be
treated as public school facilities for
purposes of the application of such
sections.
(ii) Treatment of tribally operated
schools.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall provide assistance to Bureau-
funded schools under paragraph (1)(B)
without regard to whether such schools
are operated by the Bureau of Indian
Education or by an Indian Tribe. In the
case of a Bureau-funded school that is
a contract or grant school (as that
term is defined in section 1141 of the
Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C.
2021)) operated by an Indian Tribe, the
Secretary of the Interior shall provide
assistance under such paragraph to the
Indian Tribe concerned.
(3) Allocation to outlying areas.--From the amount
reserved under paragraph (1)(A) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall allocate to each outlying area an
amount in proportion to the amount received by the
outlying area under part A of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et
seq.) for the previous fiscal year relative to the
total such amount received by all outlying areas for
such previous fiscal year.
SEC. 102. ALLOCATION TO STATES.
(a) Allocation to States.--
(1) State-by-state allocation.--Of the amount
appropriated to carry out this title for each fiscal
year and not reserved under section 101(b), each State
that has a plan approved by the Secretary under
subsection (b) shall be allocated an amount in
proportion to the amount received by all local
educational agencies in the State under part A of title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the previous fiscal year
relative to the total such amount received by all local
educational agencies in every State that has a plan
approved by the Secretary under subsection (b).
(2) State reservation.--A State may reserve not more
than 1 percent of its allocation under paragraph (1) to
carry out its responsibilities under this Act, which--
(A) shall include--
(i) providing technical assistance to
local educational agencies, including
by--
(I) identifying which State
agencies have programs,
resources, and expertise
relevant to the activities
supported by the allocation
under this section; and
(II) coordinating the
provision of technical
assistance across such
agencies;
(ii) in accordance with the guidance
issued by the Secretary under section
308, developing an online, publicly
searchable database that contains an
inventory of the infrastructure of all
public school facilities in the State
(including the facilities of Bureau-
funded schools, as appropriate),
including, with respect to each such
facility, an identification of--
(I) the information described
in subclauses (I) through (VII)
of clause (vi);
(II) the age (including an
identification of the date of
any retrofits or recent
renovations) of--
(aa) the facility;
(bb) its roof;
(cc) its lighting
system;
(dd) its windows;
(ee) its ceilings;
(ff) its plumbing;
and
(gg) its heating,
ventilation, and air
conditioning system;
(III) fire safety inspection
results;
(IV) the proximity of the
facilities to toxic sites or
the vulnerability of the
facilities to natural
disasters, including the extent
to which facilities that are
vulnerable to seismic natural
disasters are seismically
retrofitted; and
(V) any previous inspections
showing the presence of toxic
substances;
(iii) updating the database developed
under clause (ii) not less frequently
than once every 2 years;
(iv) ensuring that the information in
the database developed under clause
(ii)--
(I) is posted on a publicly
accessible State website; and
(II) is regularly distributed
to local educational agencies
and Tribal governments in the
State;
(v) issuing and reviewing regulations
to ensure the health and safety of
students and staff during construction
or renovation projects; and
(vi) issuing or reviewing regulations
to ensure safe, healthy, and high-
performing school buildings, including
regulations governing--
(I) indoor environmental
quality and ventilation,
including exposure to carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, lead-
based paint, and other
combustion by-products such as
oxides of nitrogen;
(II) mold, mildew, and
moisture control;
(III) the safety of drinking
water at the tap and water used
for meal preparation, including
regulations that--
(aa) address the
presence of lead and
other contaminants in
such water; and
(bb) require the
regular testing of the
potability of water at
the tap;
(IV) energy and water
efficiency;
(V) excessive classroom noise
due to activities allowable
under section 301;
(VI) the levels of
maintenance work, operational
spending, and capital
investment needed to maintain
the quality of public school
facilities; and
(VII) the construction or
renovation of such facilities,
including applicable building
codes; and
(vii) creating a plan to reduce or
eliminate exposure to toxic substances,
including mercury, radon, PCBs, lead,
vapor intrusions, and asbestos; and
(B) may include the development of a plan to
increase the number of zero energy schools in
the State.
(b) State Plan.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive an
allocation under this section, a State shall submit to
the Secretary a plan that--
(A) describes how the State will use the
allocation to make long-term improvements to
public school facilities;
(B) explains how the State will carry out
each of its responsibilities under subsection
(a)(2);
(C) explains how the State will make the
determinations under subsections (b) and (c) of
section 103;
(D) identifies how long, and at what levels,
the State will maintain fiscal effort for the
activities supported by the allocation after
the State no longer receives the allocation;
and
(E) includes such other information as the
Secretary may require.
(2) Approval and disapproval.--The Secretary shall
have the authority to approve or disapprove a State
plan submitted under paragraph (1).
(c) Conditions.--As a condition of receiving an allocation
under this section, a State shall agree to the following:
(1) Matching requirement.--The State shall
contribute, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal
to 10 percent of the amount of the allocation received
under this section to carry out the activities
supported by the allocation.
(2) Maintenance of effort.--The State shall provide
an assurance to the Secretary that the combined fiscal
effort or the aggregate expenditures of the State with
respect to the activities supported by the allocation
under this section for fiscal years beginning with the
fiscal year for which the allocation is received will
be not less than 90 percent of the 5 year average for
total capital outlay of the combined fiscal effort or
aggregate expenditures by the State for the purposes
for which the allocation is received.
(3) Supplement not supplant.--The State shall use an
allocation under this section only to supplement the
level of Federal, State, and local public funds that
would, in absence of such allocation, be made available
for the activities supported by the allocation, and not
to supplant such funds.
SEC. 103. NEED-BASED GRANTS TO QUALIFIED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.
(a) Grants to Local Educational Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), from the
amounts allocated to a State under section 102(a) and
contributed by the State under section 102(c)(1), the
State shall award grants to qualified local educational
agencies, on a competitive basis, to carry out the
activities described in section 301(a).
(2) Allowance for digital learning.--A State may use
up to 10 percent of the amount described in paragraph
(1) to make grants to qualified local educational
agencies carry out activities to improve digital
learning in accordance with section 301(b).
(b) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section a qualified local educational
agency--
(A) shall be among the local educational
agencies in the State with the highest numbers
or percentages of students counted under
section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c));
(B) shall agree to prioritize the improvement
of the facilities of public schools that serve
the highest percentages of students who are
eligible for a free or reduced price lunch
under the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) (which, in
the case of a high school, may be calculated
using comparable data from the schools that
feed into the high school), as compared to
other public schools in the jurisdiction of the
agency; and
(C) may be among the local educational
agencies in the State--
(i) with the greatest need to improve
public school facilities, as determined
by the State, which may include
consideration of threats posed by the
proximity of the facilities to toxic
sites or brownfield sites or the
vulnerability of the facilities to
natural disasters; and
(ii) with the most limited capacity
to raise funds for the long-term
improvement of public school
facilities, as determined by an
assessment of--
(I) the current and historic
ability of the agency to raise
funds for construction,
renovation, modernization, and
major repair projects for
schools;
(II) whether the agency has
been able to issue bonds or
receive other funds to support
school construction projects;
and
(III) the bond rating of the
agency.
(2) Geographic distribution.--The State shall ensure
that grants under this section are awarded to qualified
local educational agencies that represent the
geographic diversity of the State.
(3) Statewide thresholds.--The State shall establish
reasonable thresholds for determining whether a local
educational agency is among agencies in the State with
the highest numbers or percentages of students counted
under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)) as required
under paragraph (1)(A).
(c) Priority of Grants.--In awarding grants under this
section, the State--
(1) shall give priority to qualified local
educational agencies that--
(A) demonstrate the greatest need for such a
grant, as determined by a comparison of the
factors described in subsection (b)(1) and
other indicators of need in the public school
facilities of such local educational agencies,
including--
(i) the median age of facilities;
(ii) the extent to which student
enrollment exceeds physical and
instructional capacity;
(iii) the condition of major building
systems such as heating, ventilation,
air conditioning, electrical, water,
and sewer systems;
(iv) the condition of roofs, windows,
and doors; and
(v) other critical health and safety
conditions; and
(B) will use the grant to improve the
facilities of--
(i) elementary schools or middle
schools that have an enrollment of
students who are eligible for a free or
reduced price lunch under the Richard
B. Russell National School Lunch Act
(42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) that
constitutes not less than 40 percent of
the total student enrollment at such
schools; or
(ii) high schools that have an
enrollment of students who are eligible
for a free or reduced price lunch under
such Act that constitutes not less than
30 percent of the total student
enrollment at such schools (which may
be calculated using comparable data
from the schools that feed into the
high school); and
(C) operate public school facilities that
pose a severe health and safety threat to
students and staff, which may include a threat
posed by the proximity of the facilities to
toxic sites or the vulnerability of the
facilities to natural disasters; and
(2) may give priority to qualified local educational
agencies that--
(A) will use the grant to improve access to
high-speed broadband sufficient to support
digital learning accordance with section
301(b);
(B) serve elementary schools or secondary
schools, including rural schools, that lack
such access; and
(C) meet one or more of the requirements set
forth in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of
paragraph (1).
(d) Application.--To be considered for a grant under this
section, a qualified local educational agency shall submit an
application to the State at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the State may require. Such
application shall include, at minimum--
(1) the information necessary for the State to make
the determinations under subsections (b) and (c);
(2) a description of the projects that the agency
plans to carry out with the grant;
(3) an explanation of how such projects will reduce
risks to the health and safety of staff and students at
schools served by the agency; and
(4) in the case of a local educational agency that
proposes to fund a repair, renovation, or construction
project for a public charter school, the extent to
which--
(A) the public charter school lacks access to
funding for school repair, renovation, and
construction through the financing methods
available to other public schools or local
educational agencies in the State; and
(B) the charter school operator owns or has
care and control of the facility that is to be
repaired, renovated, or constructed.
(e) Facilities Master Plan.--
(1) Plan required.--Not later than 180 days after
receiving a grant under this section, a qualified local
educational agency shall submit to the State a
comprehensive 10-year facilities master plan.
(2) Elements.--The facilities master plan required
under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to all
public school facilities of the qualified local
educational agency, a description of--
(A) the extent to which public school
facilities meet students' educational needs and
support the agency's educational mission and
vision;
(B) the physical condition of the public
school facilities;
(C) the current health, safety, and
environmental conditions of the public school
facilities, including--
(i) indoor air quality;
(ii) the presence of toxic
substances;
(iii) the safety of drinking water at
the tap and water used for meal
preparation, including the level of
lead and other contaminants in such
water;
(iv) energy and water efficiency;
(v) excessive classroom noise; and
(vi) other health, safety, and
environmental conditions that would
impact the health, safety, and learning
ability of students;
(D) how the local educational agency will
address any conditions identified under
subparagraph (C);
(E) the impact of current and future student
enrollment levels (as of the date of
application) on the design of current and
future public school facilities, as well as the
financial implications of such enrollment
levels;
(F) the dollar amount and percentage of funds
the local educational agency will dedicate to
capital construction projects for public school
facilities, including--
(i) any funds in the budget of the
agency that will be dedicated to such
projects; and
(ii) any funds not in the budget of
the agency that will be dedicated to
such projects, including any funds
available to the agency as the result
of a bond issue; and
(G) the dollar amount and percentage of funds
the local educational agency will dedicate to
the maintenance and operation of public school
facilities, including--
(i) any funds in the budget of the
agency that will be dedicated to the
maintenance and operation of such
facilities; and
(ii) any funds not in the budget of
the agency that will be dedicated to
the maintenance and operation of such
facilities.
(3) Consultation.--In developing the facilities
master plan required under paragraph (1)--
(A) a qualified local educational agency
shall consult with teachers, principals and
other school leaders, custodial and maintenance
staff, emergency first responders, school
facilities directors, students and families,
community residents, and Indian Tribes; and
(B) in addition to the consultation required
under subparagraph (A), a Bureau-funded school
shall consult with the Bureau of Indian
Education.
(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--A qualified local educational
agency shall use a grant received under this section only to
supplement the level of Federal, State, and local public funds
that would, in the absence of such grant, be made available for
the activities supported by the grant, and not to supplant such
funds.
SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT ON GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than September 30 of each fiscal
year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on the projects carried out with funds made
available under this title.
(b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall include,
with respect to the fiscal year preceding the year in which the
report is submitted, the following:
(1) An identification of each local educational
agency that received a grant under this title.
(2) With respect to each such agency, a description
of--
(A) the demographic composition of the
student population served by the agency,
disaggregated by--
(i) race;
(ii) the number and percentage of
students counted under section 1124(c)
of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6333(c)); and
(iii) the number and percentage of
students who are eligible for a free or
reduced price lunch under the Richard
B. Russell National School Lunch Act
(42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(B) the population density of the geographic
area served by the agency;
(C) the projects for which the agency used
the grant received under this title, described
using measurements of school facility quality
from the most recent available version of the
Common Education Data Standards published by
the National Center for Education Statistics;
(D) the demonstrable or expected benefits of
the projects; and
(E) the estimated number of jobs created by
the projects.
(3) The total dollar amount of all grants received by
local educational agencies under this title.
(c) LEA Information Collection.--A local educational agency
that receives a grant under this title shall--
(1) annually compile the information described in
subsection (b)(2);
(2) make the information available to the public,
including by posting the information on a publicly
accessible agency website; and
(3) submit the information to the State.
(d) State Information Distribution.--A State that receives
information from a local educational agency under subsection
(c) shall--
(1) compile the information and report it annually to
the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the
Secretary may require;
(2) make the information available to the public,
including by posting the information on a publicly
accessible State website; and
(3) regularly distribute the information to local
educational agencies and Tribal governments in the
State.
SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $7,000,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2029 to carry out this title.
Strike titles III and IV and insert the following:
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 302, a local
educational agency that receives covered funds may use such
funds to--
(1) develop the facilities master plan required under
section 103(e);
(2) construct, modernize, renovate, or retrofit
public school facilities, which may include seismic
retrofitting for schools vulnerable to seismic natural
disasters;
(3) carry out major repairs of public school
facilities;
(4) install furniture or fixtures with at least a 10-
year life in public school facilities;
(5) construct new public school facilities;
(6) acquire and prepare sites on which new public
school facilities will be constructed;
(7) extend the life of basic systems and components
of public school facilities;
(8) ensure current or anticipated enrollment does not
exceed the physical and instructional capacity of
public school facilities;
(9) ensure the building envelopes and interiors of
public school facilities protect occupants from natural
elements and human threats, and are structurally sound
and secure;
(10) compose building design plans that strengthen
the safety and security on school premises by utilizing
design elements, principles, and technology that--
(A) guarantee layers of security throughout
the school premises; and
(B) uphold the aesthetics of the school
premises as a learning and teaching
environment;
(11) improve energy and water efficiency to lower the
costs of energy and water consumption in public school
facilities;
(12) improve indoor air quality in public school
facilities;
(13) reduce or eliminate the presence of--
(A) toxic substances, including mercury,
radon, PCBs, lead, and asbestos;
(B) mold and mildew; or
(C) rodents and pests;
(14) ensure the safety of drinking water at the tap
and water used for meal preparation in public school
facilities, which may include testing of the potability
of water at the tap for the presence of lead and other
contaminants;
(15) bring public school facilities into compliance
with applicable fire, health, and safety codes;
(16) make public school facilities accessible to
people with disabilities through compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794);
(17) provide instructional program space improvements
for programs relating to early learning (including
early learning programs operated by partners of the
agency), special education, science, technology, career
and technical education, physical education, music, the
arts, and literacy (including library programs);
(18) increase the use of public school facilities for
the purpose of community-based partnerships that
provide students with academic, health, and social
services;
(19) ensure the health of students and staff during
the construction or modernization of public school
facilities; or
(20) reduce or eliminate excessive classroom noise
due to activities allowable under this section.
(b) Allowance for Digital Learning.--A local educational
agency may use funds received under section 103(a)(2) or
proceeds from a school infrastructure bond limitation allocated
under section 54BB(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as
added by section 202) to leverage existing public programs or
public-private partnerships to expand access to high-speed
broadband sufficient for digital learning.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITED USES.
A local educational agency that receives covered funds may
not use such funds for--
(1) payment of routine and predictable maintenance
costs and minor repairs;
(2) any facility that is primarily used for athletic
contests or exhibitions or other events for which
admission is charged to the general public;
(3) vehicles; or
(4) central offices, operation centers, or other
facilities that are not primarily used to educate
students.
SEC. 303. REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARD-RESISTANCE AND ENERGY AND WATER
CONSERVATION.
A local educational agency that receives covered funds shall
ensure that any new construction, modernization, or renovation
project carried out with such funds meets or exceeds the
requirements of the following:
(1) Requirements for such projects set forth in the
most recent published edition of a nationally
recognized, consensus-based model building code.
(2) Requirements for such projects set forth in the
most recent published edition of a nationally
recognized, consensus-based model energy conservation
code.
(3) Performance criteria under the WaterSense
program, established under section 324B of the of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294b),
applicable to such projects within a nationally
recognized, consensus-based model code.
SEC. 304. GREEN PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--In a given fiscal year, a local educational
agency that uses covered funds for a new construction project
or renovation project shall use not less than the applicable
percentage (as described in subsection (b)) of the funds used
for such project for construction or renovation that is
certified, verified, or consistent with the applicable
provisions of--
(1) the United States Green Building Council
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green
building rating standard (commonly known as the ``LEED
Green Building Rating System'');
(2) the Living Building Challenge developed by the
International Living Future Institute;
(3) a green building rating program developed by the
Collaborative for High-Performance Schools (commonly
known as ``CHPS'') that is CHPS-verified;
(4) the International Green Construction Code; or
(5) a program that--
(A) has standards that are equivalent to or
more stringent than the standards of a program
described in paragraphs (1) through (3);
(B) is adopted by the State or another
jurisdiction with authority over the agency;
and
(C) includes a verifiable method to
demonstrate compliance with such program.
(b) Applicable Percentage.--The applicable percentage
described in this subsection is--
(1) for fiscal year 2020, 60 percent;
(2) for fiscal year 2021, 70 percent;
(3) for fiscal year 2022; 80 percent;
(4) for fiscal year 2023, 90 percent; and
(5) for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2029, 100
percent.
SEC. 305. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS.
(a) In General.--A local educational agency that receives
covered funds shall ensure that any iron, steel, and
manufactured products used in projects carried out with such
funds are produced in the United States.
(b) Waiver Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may waive the
requirement of subsection (a) if the Secretary
determines that--
(A) applying subsection (a) would be
inconsistent with the public interest;
(B) iron, steel, and manufactured products
produced in the United States are not produced
in a sufficient and reasonably available amount
or are not of a satisfactory quality; or
(C) using iron, steel, and manufactured
products produced in the United States will
increase the cost of the overall project by
more than 25 percent.
(2) Publication.--Before issuing a waiver under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register a detailed written explanation of the
waiver determination.
(c) Consistency With International Agreements.--This section
shall be applied in a manner consistent with the obligations of
the United States under international agreements.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Produced in the united states.--The term
``produced in the United States'' means the following:
(A) When used with respect to a manufactured
product, the product was manufactured in the
United States and the cost of the components of
such product that were mined, produced, or
manufactured in the United States exceeds 60
percent of the total cost of all components of
the product.
(B) When used with respect to iron or steel
products, or an individual component of a
manufactured product, all manufacturing
processes for such iron or steel products or
components, from the initial melting stage
through the application of coatings, occurred
in the United States, except that the term does
not include--
(i) steel or iron material or
products manufactured abroad from semi-
finished steel or iron from the United
States; and
(ii) steel or iron material or
products manufactured in the United
States from semi-finished steel or iron
of foreign origin.
(2) Manufactured product.--The term ``manufactured
product'' means any construction material or end
product (as such terms are defined in part 25.003 of
the Federal Acquisition Regulation) that is not an iron
or steel product, including--
(A) electrical components; and
(B) non-ferrous building materials,
including, aluminum and polyvinylchloride
(PVC), glass, fiber optics, plastic, wood,
masonry, rubber, manufactured stone, any other
non-ferrous metals, and any unmanufactured
construction material.
SEC. 306. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees
a report on the projects carried out with covered funds.
(b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall include
an assessment of--
(1) State activities, including--
(A) the types of public school facilities
data collected by each State, if any;
(B) technical assistance with respect to
public school facilities provided by each
State, if any;
(C) future plans of each State with respect
to public school facilities;
(D) criteria used by each State to determine
high-need students and facilities for purposes
of the projects carried out with covered funds;
and
(E) whether the State issued new regulations
to ensure the health and safety of students and
staff during construction or renovation
projects or to ensure safe, healthy, and high-
performing school buildings;
(2) the types of projects carried out with covered
funds, including--
(A) the square footage of the improvements
made with covered funds;
(B) the total cost of each such project; and
(C) the cost described in subparagraph (B),
disaggregated by, with respect to such project,
the cost of planning, design, construction,
site purchase, and improvements;
(3) the geographic distribution of the projects;
(4) the demographic composition of the student
population served by the projects, disaggregated by--
(A) race;
(B) the number and percentage of students
counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 USC
6333(c)); and
(C) the number and percentage of students who
are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch
under the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 USC 1751 et seq.);
(5) an assessment of the impact of the projects on
the health and safety of school staff and students; and
(6) how the Secretary or States could make covered
funds more accessible--
(A) to schools with the highest numbers and
percentages of students counted under section
1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
(B) to schools with fiscal challenges in
raising capital for school infrastructure
projects.
(c) Updates.--The Comptroller General shall update and
resubmit the report to the appropriate congressional
committees--
(1) on a date that is between 5 and 6 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) on a date that is between 10 and 11 years after
such date of enactment.
SEC. 307. STUDY AND REPORT PHYSICAL CONDITION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
(a) Study and Report.--Not less frequently than once in each
5-year period beginning after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the
Institute of Education Sciences, shall--
(1) carry out a comprehensive study of the physical
conditions of all public schools in the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
and
(2) submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees that includes the results of the study.
(b) Elements.--Each study and report under subsection (a)
shall include--
(1) an assessment of--
(A) the effect of school facility conditions
on student and staff health and safety;
(B) the effect of school facility conditions
on student academic outcomes;
(C) the condition of school facilities, set
forth separately by geographic region;
(D) the condition of school facilities for
economically disadvantaged students as well as
students from major racial and ethnic
subgroups;
(E) the accessibility of school facilities
for students and staff with disabilities;
(F) the prevalence of school facilities at
which student enrollment exceeds the physical
and instructional capacity of the facility and
the effect of such excess enrollment on
instructional quality and delivery of school
wraparound services;
(G) the condition of school facilities
affected by natural disasters;
(H) the effect that projects carried out with
covered funds have on the communities in which
such projects are conducted, including the
vitality, jobs, population, and economy of such
communities; and
(I) the ability of building envelopes and
interiors of public school facilities to
protect occupants from natural elements and
human threats;
(2) an explanation of any differences observed with
respect to the factors described in subparagraphs (A)
through (H) of paragraph (1); and
(3) a cost estimate for bringing school facilities to
a state of good repair, as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 308. DEVELOPMENT OF DATA STANDARDS.
(a) Data Standards.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation
with the officials described in subsection (b), shall--
(1) identify the data that States should collect and
include in the databases developed under section
102(a)(2)(A)(ii);
(2) develop standards for the measurement of such
data; and
(3) issue guidance to States concerning the
collection and measurement of such data.
(b) Officials.--The officials described in this subsection
are--
(1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(2) the Secretary of Energy;
(3) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention; and
(4) the Director of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health.
SEC. 309. INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
clearinghouse to disseminate information on Federal programs
and financing mechanisms that may be used to assist schools in
initiating, developing, and financing--
(1) energy efficiency projects;
(2) distributed generation projects; and
(3) energy retrofitting projects.
(b) Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary
shall--
(1) consult with the officials described in section
308(b) to develop a list of Federal programs and
financing mechanisms to be included in the
clearinghouse; and
(2) coordinate with such officials to develop a
collaborative education and outreach effort to
streamline communications and promote the Federal
programs and financing mechanisms included in the
clearinghouse, which may include the development and
maintenance of a single online resource that includes
contact information for relevant technical assistance
that may be used by States, outlying areas, local
educational agencies, and Bureau-funded schools
effectively access and use such Federal programs and
financing mechanisms.
SEC. 310. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR FACILITIES OF FOR-PROFIT
CHARTER SCHOOLS.
No covered funds may be used for the facilities of a public
charter school that is operated by a for-profit entity.
SEC. 311. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN CHARTER SCHOOLS.
No covered funds may be used for the facilities of a public
charter school if--
(1) the school leases the facilities from an
individual or private sector entity; and
(2) such individual, or an individual with a direct
or indirect financial interest in such entity, has a
management or governance role in such school.
SEC. 312. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OPPORTUNITY ZONES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Opportunity Zones were championed by prominent
leaders of both parties as an innovative way to tackle
longstanding challenges.
(2) As of December 2018, 8,763 low-income communities
had been designated as Opportunity Zones, representing
all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Pue1io Rico,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
(3) Schools are integral parts of communities, and a
key part of communities' economic and work force
development efforts could be modernizing school
facilities.
(b) Sense of Congress.--lt is the sense of the Congress that
opportunity zones, when combined with public infrastructure
investment, can provide an innovative approach to capital
financing that has the potential to unleash creativity and help
local communities rebuild schools, rebuild economics, and get
people back to work.
TITLE IV--IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 401. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION.
Section 7014(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7714(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Construction.--For the purpose of carrying out section
7007, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024.''.
TITLE V--ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY
PYRRHOTITE
SEC. 501. ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.
(a) In General.--Beginning not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry
out a program under which the Secretary makes allocations to
States to pay the Federal share of the costs of making grants
to local educational agencies under section 502.
(b) Website.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish, on a
publicly accessible website of the Department of Education,
instructions describing how a State may receive an allocation
under this section.
SEC. 502. GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--From the amounts allocated to a State under
section 501(a) and contributed by the State under subsection
(e)(2), the State shall award grants to local educational
agencies--
(1) to pay the future costs of repairing concrete
school foundations damaged by the presence of
pyrrhotite; or
(2) to reimburse such agencies for costs incurred by
the agencies in making such repairs in the five-year
period preceding the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Local Educational Agency Eligiblity.--
(1) Eligiblity for grants for future repairs.--To be
eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a)(1), a
local educational agency shall--
(A) with respect to each school for which the
agency seeks to use grant funds, demonstrate to
the State that--
(i) the school is a pyrrhotite-
affected school; and
(ii) any laboratory tests, core
tests, and visual inspections of the
school's foundation used to determine
that the school is a pyrrhotite-
affected school were conducted--
(I) by a professional
engineer licensed in the State
in which the school is located;
and
(II) in accordance with
applicable State standards or
standards approved by any
independent, non-profit, or
private entity authorized by
the State to oversee
construction, testing, or
financial relief efforts for
damaged building foundations;
and
(B) provide an assurance that--
(i) the local educational agency will
use the grant only for the allowable
uses described in subsection (f)(1);
and
(ii) all work funded with the grant
will be conducted by a qualified
contractor or architect licensed in the
State.
(2) Eligiblity for reimbursement grants.--To be
eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a)(2), a
local educational agency shall demonstrate that it met
the requirements of paragraph (1) at the time it
carried out the project for which the agency seeks
reimbursement.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--A local educational agency that
seeks a grant under this section shall submit to the
State an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the State may require,
which upon approval by the State under subsection
(d)(1)(A), the State shall submit to the Secretary for
approval under subsection (d)(1)(B).
(2) Contents.--At minimum, each application shall
include--
(A) information and documentation sufficient
to enable the State to determine if the local
educational agency meets the eligibility
criteria under subsection (b);
(B) in the case of an agency seeking a grant
under subsection (a)(1), an estimate of the
costs of carrying out the activities described
in subsection (f);
(C) in the case of an agency seeking a grant
under subsection (a)(2)--
(i) an itemized explanation of--
(I) the costs incurred by the
agency in carrying out any
activities described subsection
(f);
(II) any amounts contributed
from other Federal, State,
local, or private sources for
such activities; and
(ii) the amount for which the local
educational agency seeks reimbursement;
and
(D) the percentage of any costs described in
subparagraph (B) or (C) that are covered by an
insurance policy.
(d) Approval and Disbursement.--
(1) Approval.--
(A) State.--The State shall approve the
application of each local educational agency
for submission to the Secretary that--
(i) submits a complete and correct
application under subsection (c); and
(ii) meets the criteria for
eligibility under subsection (b).
(B) Secretary.--Not later than 60 days after
receiving an application of a local educational
agency submitted by a State under subsection
(c)(1), the Secretary shall--
(i) approve such application, in a
case in which the Secretary determines
that such application meets the
requirements of subparagraph (A); or
(ii) deny such application, in the
case of an application that does not
meet such requirements.
(2) Disbursement.--
(A) Allocation.--The Secretary shall disburse
an allocation to a State not later than 60 days
after the date on which the Secretary approves
an application under paragraph (1)(B).
(B) Grant.--The State shall disburse grant
funds to a local educational agency not later
than 60 days after the date on which the State
receives an allocation under subparagraph (A).
(e) Federal and State Share.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of each grant
under this section shall be an amount that is not more
than 50 percent of the total cost of the project for
which the grant is awarded.
(2) State share.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
the State share of each grant under this
section shall be an amount that is not less
than 40 percent of the total cost of the
project for which the grant is awarded, which
the State shall contribute from non-Federal
sources.
(B) Special rule for reimbursement grants.--
In the case of a reimbursement grant made to a
local educational agency under subsection
(a)(2) a State shall be treated as meeting the
requirement of subparagraph (A) if the State
demonstrates that it contributed, from non-
Federal sources, not less than 40 percent of
the total cost of the project for which the
reimbursement grant is awarded.
(f) Uses of Funds.--
(1) Allowable uses of funds.--A local educational
agency that receives a grant under this section shall
use such grant only for costs associated with--
(A) the repair or replacement of the concrete
foundation or other affected areas of a
pyrrhotite-affected school in the jurisdiction
of such agency to the extent necessary--
(i) to restore the structural
integrity of the school to the safety
and health standards established by the
professional licensed engineer or
architect associated with the project;
and
(ii) to restore the school to the
condition it was in before the school's
foundation was damaged due to the
presence of pyrrhotite; and
(B) engineering reports, architectural
design, core tests, and other activities
directly related to the repair or replacement
project.
(2) Prohibited uses of funds.--A local educational
agency that receives a grant under this section may not
use the grant for any costs associated with--
(A) work done to outbuildings, sheds, or
barns, swimming pools (whether in-ground or
above-ground), playgrounds or ballfields, or
any ponds or water features;
(B) the purchase of items not directly
associated with the repair or replacement of
the school building or its systems, including
items such as desks, chairs, electronics,
sports equipment, or other school supplies; or
(C) any other activities not described in
paragraph (1).
(g) Limitation.--A local educational agency may not, for the
same project, receive a grant under both--
(1) this section; and
(2) title I.
SEC. 503. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Pyrrhotite-affected school.--The term
``pyrrhotite-affected school'' means an elementary
school or a secondary school that meets the following
criteria:
(A) The school has a concrete foundation.
(B) Pyrrhotite is present in the school's
concrete foundation, as demonstrated by a
petrographic or other type of laboratory core
analysis or core inspection.
(C) A visual inspection of the school's
concrete foundation indicates that the presence
of pyrrhotite is causing the foundation to
deteriorate at an unsafe rate.
(D) A qualified engineer determined that the
deterioration of the school's foundation, due
to the presence of pyrrhotite--
(i) caused the school to become
structurally unsound; or
(ii) will result in the school
becoming structurally unsound within
the next five years.
(2) Qualified contractor.--The term ``qualified
contractor'' means a contractor who is qualified under
State law, or approved by any State agency or other
State-sanctioned independent or nonprofit entity, to
repair or replace residential or commercial building
foundations that are deteriorating due to the presence
of pyrrhotite.
SEC. 504. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2020 and
each fiscal year thereafter.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 865, the Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019
supports the efforts of states and local educational agencies
(LEAs) to achieve equity in school facilities and digital
infrastructure, assists states in their role in creating safe
and healthy schools, and improves regulation of, and data
collection on the condition of public school facilities and the
impact of such conditions on health and safety.
The Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019, as amended,
would authorize a $100 billion federal investment in public
school construction and modernization, creating more than 1.9
million good-paying jobs\1\ over 10 years by addressing
critical physical and digital infrastructure needs in
communities nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Josh Bivens & Hunter Blair, Economic Policy Institute A public
investment agenda that delivers the goods for American workers needs to
be long-lived, broad, and subject to democratic oversight. 8 (2016)
available at https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/117041.pdf. (calculating
that each $1 billion spent on construction creates 17,785 jobs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I of the bill would authorize a grant program that
targets federal support to high-poverty LEAs with public school
facilities that pose health and safety risks to students and
staff. It allocates to each state the same proportion of funds
that the state receives under title I, part A of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA Title I) and provides
reservations of funds for the outlying areas and the Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE). States must distribute 99 percent of
such allocation to high-poverty LEAs based on their relative
need to improve school facilities, while ensuring the
distribution of subgrants is also geographically equitable
within the state. LEAs receiving a subgrant are required to
submit to their state a comprehensive 10-year facilities master
plan. States must provide a 10 percent match and promulgate
regulations to ensure healthy, safe, and high-performing school
buildings both during and after construction. The bill also
directs participating states to develop a comprehensive
database on the condition of public school facilities, a data
set that does not currently exist and will provide
comprehensive, non-partisan insight on the state of America's
public schools.
Title II proposes $30 billion in tax-free bond authority to
states, again allocated in proportion to state ESEA Title I
program funds. As title II is not within the jurisdiction of
the Committee, it is not discussed at length in this report.
Title III enumerates allowable uses of the grant and bond
funds, prohibiting the funds from being spent on minor repairs,
predictable or routine maintenance, vehicles, or athletic
facilities for which admission is charged to the public.
Provisions in title III encourage the use of green practices in
construction, and, with a few exceptions, require construction
projects to use American iron, steel, and manufactured
products. The bill directs the Institute of Educational
Sciences (IES) to carry out a national study on public school
facilities and the impact of such facilities on students and
staff. It also directs the Comptroller General to conduct a
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit on the condition
of public school facilities and to produce recommendations to
maximize the ability of under-resourced LEAs to access funds
authorized under the bill.
Title IV of the bill authorizes five years of increased
funding for Impact Aid school construction. Finally, title V
authorizes federal grants to support states impacted by the
presence of pyrrhotite, a ferrous mineral found in the concrete
of certain regions of the United States causing significant
damage to facilities, including public schools. Under the
program, states could apply for grants in support of
construction to restore the condition of any public school
facility with a foundation compromised due to the presence of
pyrrhotite. Funds under title V could also be used by states to
reimburse LEAs for past construction on crumbling school
foundations due to pyrrhotite impact. Grants distributed under
title V require a state match of 40 percent of the project's
total cost and are prohibited from covering more than 50
percent of the project's total cost.
A diverse array of stakeholders have called upon Congress
to pass the Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019 to address
our nation's crumbling education infrastructure. Such
stakeholders include educators, parents, school administrators,
laborers, experts in child development, health and safety
experts, civil rights advocates, and more.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\As of the filing of this report, supporters of H.R. 865 include:
Tilt-Up Concrete Association, The School Superintendents Association,
American Concrete Pavement Association, American Concrete Pipe
Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American
Concrete Pumping Association, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Association of Educational Service Agencies, Association
of Latino Administrators and Superintendents, Association of School
Business Officials International, Blue Green Alliance, Build America's
School Infrastructure Coalition, Californians for School Facilities,
Coalition for Healthier Schools, Concrete Foundations Association,
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, International Union of Operating
Engineers, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, National
Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of
Federally Impacted Schools, National Association of School Nurses,
National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Concrete
Masonry Association, National Precast Concrete Association, National
PTA, National Ready Mixed Concrete, National Rural Education
Association, National Urban League, North American Concrete Alliance,
Organizations Concerned About Rural Education, Parents for School
Safety, Portland Cement Association, Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute, Public Advocacy for Kids, Rebuild America's Schools
Coalition, Rural School and Community Trust, Teach Plus, The Brick
Industry Association, U.S. Green Building Council, International
Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Action
110TH CONGRESS
On July 12, 2007, Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY), with original
co-sponsors Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), and Chairman George Miller
(D-CA), introduced H.R. 3021, the 21st Century High-Performing
Public School Facilities Act, a bill to direct the Secretary of
Education to make grants and low-interest loans to LEAs for the
construction, modernization, or repair of public kindergarten,
elementary, and secondary educational facilities, and for other
purposes.
On February 13, 2008, the Committee held a hearing in
Washington, D.C. entitled ``Modern Public School Facilities:
Investing in the Future.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
highlight the poor quality of public school buildings
throughout the United States, particularly in low-income areas,
and the need for federal investment in public school buildings.
Testifying before the full Committee on the first panel were:
Representatives Chandler, Michael N. Castle (R-DE), Bob
Etheridge (D-NC), David Loebsack (D-IA), Charles Boustany (R-
LA), Darlene Hooley (D-OR), Steve King (R-IA) and Rush Holt (D-
NJ). On the second panel, the Committee heard testimony from:
Kathleen J. Moore, Director, School Facilities Planning
Division, California Department of Education (Sacramento,
California); Judi Caddick, Teacher, Memorial Junior High
School, Illinois Education Association (Lansing, Illinois);
Mary Cullinane, Director, Innovation and Business Development
Team, Microsoft Corporation (New York, New York); Dr. Paula
Vincent, Superintendent, Clear Creek Amana School District
(Oxford, Iowa); Paul Vallas, Superintendent, Louisiana Recovery
School District (New Orleans, Louisiana); Jim Waters, Director,
Policy and Communications, Bluegrass Institute for Public
Policy Solutions (Bowling Green, Kentucky); and Neal McCluskey,
Associate Director, Center for Educational Freedom, CATO
Institute (Washington, D.C.).
On April 30, 2008, the Committee considered H.R. 3021 in a
legislative session, and reported the bill favorably, as
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 28-19.
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3021 on June 4, 2008,
by a bipartisan vote of 250-164. The bill was messaged to the
Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions. The Senate took no further
action on the bill.
Related Legislative Action
On September 26, 2008, by a bipartisan vote of 265-158, the
House passed H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment
Relief Act of 2008, introduced by Representative David Obey (D-
WI), Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 7110
appropriated $3 billion for public school modernization,
renovation and repair, modeled after the provisions in title I
of H.R. 3021. The Senate took no further action on the bill.
111TH CONGRESS
On January 28, 2009, the House passed H.R. 1, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), introduced by Chairman
Obey. H.R. 1 appropriated $14 billion for public school
modernization, renovation and repair, modeled after provisions
in title I of H.R. 3021 (110th Congress). On February 12, 2009,
the House passed the Conference Report to H.R. 1. While the
Conference Report did not include dedicated funds for public
school modernization, renovation and repair, title XIV of the
Conference Report authorized the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund, $48.6 billion for states and LEAs, which included public
school modernization, renovation and repair (including
modernization, renovation and repair that complies with a
recognized green building standard) as authorized uses. The
Conference Report also maintained provisions in H.R. 1 that
authorized a multi-billion dollar qualified school construction
bond authority for school construction and modernization. ARRA
was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009.
On April 30, 2009, Representative Chandler, Chairman
Miller, and fifteen other members of the Committee\3\
introduced H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing
Public School Facilities Act. This bill, which was
substantively similar to H.R. 3021 (110th Congress), directed
the Secretary of Education to make grants and low-interest
loans to LEAs for the modernization, renovation, or repair of
public early learning, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary
educational facilities, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Reps. Kildee, Loebsack (D-IA), John Tierney (D-MA), Joe Courtney
(D-CT), Phil Hare (D-IL), Holt, Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Raul Grijalva (D-
AZ), Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), David Wu (D-OR), Paul
Tonko (D-NY), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Kilili
Sablan (D-MP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 6, 2009, the Committee considered H.R. 2187 in a
legislative session, and reported the bill favorably, as
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 31-14.
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2187 on May 14, 2009,
by a bipartisan vote of 275-155. The bill was messaged to the
Senate and referred to the Senate committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Senate took no further
action on the bill.
115TH CONGRESS
On May 17, 2017, the 63rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme
Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka,\4\ Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Rep. Donald
Norcross (D-NJ) along with 57 other House colleagues (including
nine Committee members\5\), introduced H.R. 2475, the Rebuild
America's Schools Act of 2017. The bill was referred to the
Committee, and Ranking Member Scott requested a legislative
hearing on the state of public school facilities in a letter to
Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\347 U.S. 483 (1954).
\5\Reps. Sablan, Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR),
Alma Adams (D-NC), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Lisa
Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Mark Takano (D-CA), and Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 2018, Ranking Member Scott and House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member
Peter DeFazio (D-OR) led 153 House colleagues in sending a
letter to President Trump urging him to make federal investment
in school construction a focal point of any federal
infrastructure package considered for passage.
On October 23, 2018, Ranking Member Scott again wrote to
Chairwoman Foxx urging her to hold a hearing on H.R. 2475
before the end of the 115th Congress. No hearing was held.
116TH CONGRESS
On January 30, 2019, Chairman Scott along with Rep.
Norcross and 151 other original co-sponsors (including all
Democratic members of the Committee), introduced H.R. 865, the
Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019. The bill's authorization
of a $100 billion investment in public school facilities in the
form of grants and bonds would leverage an additional $7
billion in state funding for an overall investment of $107
billion that would generate 1.9 million good-paying jobs over
10 years.
On February 12, 2019, the Committee held a hearing in
Washington, D.C., entitled ``Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling
Schools: How Underfunding Public Education Shortchanges
America's Students.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
highlight the poor quality of public school infrastructure
across the country, especially in low-income communities, and
to inform Committee members on how recent cuts to public
education, in combination with historic underfunding of public
education, have resulted in LEAs that do not have the resources
to provide a quality education to all students. Such
underfunding contributes to an average gap of $46 billion
between what the U.S. spends on K-12 facilities every year and
what should be spent according to building industry and best-
practice standards.\6\ Testifying before the Committee were Dr.
Sharon Contreras, Superintendent, Guilford County Schools,
North Carolina; Anna King, Board Member, National PTA, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma; Randi Weingarten, President, American
Federation of Teachers, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Ben Scafidi,
Professor of Economics and Director, Education Economics
Center, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\U.S. Green Building Council, 21st Century Schools Fund, &
National Council on School Facilities, the State of Our Schools:
America's K-12 Facilities Report 26 (2016) available at https://
www.usgbc.org/articles/groundbreaking-schools-report-shows-systemic-
inequity-statebystate-analysis-investment-amer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 26, 2019 the Committee considered H.R. 865 in
legislative session, and reported the bill favorably, as
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 26-20.
The Committee considered and adopted the following amendments
to H.R. 865:
Chairman Scott offered a manager's amendment,
adopted by voice vote, which made several improvements to H.R.
865, including:
Adding a new definition of a ``zero
energy school'' to highlight schools that both use and
produce their own sources of renewable energy;
Clarifying language on the allocation of
funds;
Adding requirements for the inclusion of
existing toxin tests in the state database of public
school facilities required in the bill;
Adding to the list of approved statewide
activities the promulgation or review of regulations
related to the exposure to lead-based paint and other
combustion by-products to ensure the health and safety
of students; the promulgation or review of building
codes for public schools construction; and the
development of a plan to increase the number of zero
energy schools in the state;
Amending state maintenance of effort
requirements in the bill to be based on an average of
the previous five fiscal years;
Requiring that the state establish
thresholds for determining LEA eligibility for funds
authorized under title I of the bill;
Adding comparison factors states must
consider in giving priority for subgrants to LEAs based
on the greatest need, including age of facilities,
overcrowding conditions, the condition of major
building systems (e.g., HVAC, electrical, water, and
sewer systems), the condition of roofs, windows, and
doors, and other critical health and safety conditions
on school property;
Allowing a state to consider a school's
proximity to a ``brownfield site'', an area where
expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated
by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant, when prioritizing
schools near toxic areas;
Clarifying that BIE should consult with
BIE-funded schools in developing facilities master
plans; and
Requiring that data measurements on
projects included in the annual grant report by the
Secretary of Education be aligned to the latest
measurements in the Common Education Data Standards by
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) offered an amendment
to clarify that improving school security through building
design plans is an allowable use of funds. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote.
Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) offered an amendment to
add the study of school security to the Institute of Education
Sciences (IES) report required in the bill. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to
prohibit for-profit charter schools from accessing funds
authorized under the Act. The amendment was adopted by a
recorded vote of 26-20.
Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) offered an amendment to
prohibit self-dealing charter schools from accessing the funds
authorized under the Act. The amendment was adopted by a voice
vote.
Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA) offered an amendment
expressing the sense of Congress that Opportunity Zones are an
alternative source to support school infrastructure financing.
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) offered an amendment to Mr. Meuser's
amendment expressing the sense of Congress that Opportunity
Zones can help rebuild communities when combined with public
infrastructure investment. The Stevens amendment to the Meuser
amendment was adopted by a recorded vote of 42-1. The Meuser
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
The Committee also considered the following amendments:
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) offered an amendment
proposing that no funds authorized under the Act be made
available in any fiscal year unless part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was fully funded for
that same year. The amendment was ruled non-germane to H.R.
865, and a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair was tabled
by a recorded vote of 23-19.
Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) offered an amendment
proposing that nothing in the Act could be construed to
prohibit a State or LEA from receiving funds under the Act
based on a decision to permit teachers or other school
personnel to possess firearms on school grounds. The amendment
was ruled non-germane to H.R. 865, and a motion to appeal the
ruling of the chair was tabled by a recorded vote of 28-17.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) offered an amendment
requiring the reservation of funds for rural LEAs. The
amendment was defeated on a recorded vote of 20-26.
Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) offered an amendment to
delay authorization of funds until all other programs within
the jurisdiction of the Committee are authorized. The amendment
was withdrawn.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY) offered an amendment to
delay expenditure of funds authorized under the Act until an
independent auditor determined that state and local agencies
will incur no compliance costs related to the Act. The
amendment was defeated on a recorded vote of 20-26.
Rep. Banks offered an amendment to ban funds
authorized by the act from being used for lobbying activities.
The amendment was defeated on a voice vote.
Rep. Ron Wright (R-TX) offered an amendment to
condition a State's receipt of funds under the Act on an
assurance the State would not award a grant to any LEA that
does not have a policy prohibiting the hiring of registered sex
offenders. The amendment was ruled non-germane to H.R. 865, and
a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair was tabled by a
recorded vote of 24-14.
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) offered an amendment to
delay implementation until the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) certifies ``green requirements'' in the Act will not
result in cost incurred by school districts. The amendment was
defeated on a recorded vote of 20-26.
Ranking Member Foxx offered an amendment to rename
the bill the ``Trojan Horse Act''. The amendment was defeated
on a recorded vote of 20-26.
Committee Views
The federal government has played a pivotal role over the
last 75 years in making our nation's inherently inequitable
public education system more equitable. During this same
period, the federal government has periodically provided funds
to states and localities for school construction, both to
improve equity of educational opportunity and to promote
economic stimulus. H.R. 865, the Rebuild America's Schools Act
of 2019, is an opportunity to reaffirm the federal government's
position at the nexus of these two roles. If passed and funded,
the bill would provide resources to ensure that all public
school students have an opportunity to learn in a safe,
healthy, and high-quality school facility, while at the same
time creating almost two million jobs.
H.R. 865 Addresses Persistent Inequity in Public Education Facilities
Compulsory public education in America proliferated during
an era of de jure segregation. Plessy v. Ferguson\7\ sanctioned
the maintenance of ``separate but equal'' public facilities in
1896, a sanction applied in the following decades to the then-
emerging public school system. While the Supreme Court in Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka that rightfully concluded
racially segregated schools inherently cannot be equal,\8\ the
notion that Black and white public school facilities were ever
substantially equal was a legal fiction. A pre-Brown report
from the American Council on Education in 1941 describes the
state of a typical Black schoolhouse in Alabama:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\163 U.S. 537 (1896).
\8\Brown, 347 U.S. at 495.
It is in a dilapidated building, once whitewashed,
standing in a rocky field unfit for cultivation. Dust-
covered weeds spread a carpet all around, except for an
uneven, bare area on one side that looks like a ball
field. Behind the school is a small building with a
broken, sagging door. As we approach, a nervous,
middle-aged woman comes to the door of the school. She
greets us in a discouraged voice marked by a speech
impediment. Escorted inside, we observe that the broken
benches are crowded to three times their normal
capacity. Only a few battered books are in sight, and
we look in vain for maps or charts. We learn that four
grades are assembled here.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Peter Irons, Jim Crow's Children 34 (1st ed. 2002).
Ten years after Brown, many school districts across the
South had failed to fully integrate, leaving many students
stuck in the same inferior school buildings, and in some cases
no school buildings whatsoever.\10\ Recognizing a
constitutional duty to remedy inequality and inequity,
President Lyndon Johnson and Congress solidified the federal
role in public education as an arbiter of equity, first with
the Civil Rights Act of 1964,\11\ and subsequently with the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).\12\ The
Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government the legal
tools to realize the promise of Brown. The law gave the federal
government the power to enforce desegregation plans in local
school districts under threat of federal sanction, but also
authorized grants to support desegregation in communities that
took voluntary action.\13\ ESEA sought to close opportunity and
achievement gaps in public education through grants which
targeted resources and services to communities with high
concentrations of poverty. This poverty fueled low-quality
schools and school buildings due to inequitable public
education financing systems,\14\ many of which still persist.
Since most communities fund their public school systems via
property taxes,\15\ wealthier communities with higher property
tax bases invariably are able to provide more resources for
their educational facilities. Communities surrounding schools
continue to be largely homogenized by wealth, or the
significant lack thereof, due in large part to the impact of
local, state, and federal housing policies intended to
segregate white from nonwhite families. These policies continue
to deny nonwhites access to asset accumulation and upward
mobility, and have corresponding effects on the school
buildings in these communities as well.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\E.g., Charles Ogletree, All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on
the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education Ch. 8 (``In fact,
the southern segregated school system remained almost completely
segregated for a full decade after Brown. By 1964, only one-fiftieth of
all southern Black children attended integrated schools.'').
\11\Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000a et seq.(2012)).
\12\Pub. L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 6301(2012)).
\13\42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000c (2012).
\14\E.g., Jeff Raikes & Linda Darling-Hammond, Money Matters: Why
Our Education Funding systems Are Derailing the American Dream, LPI
BLOG (Feb. 18, 2019), https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/why-our-
education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream.
\15\Andrew Reschovsky, The Future of U.S. Public School Revenue
from the Property Tax 1 (Lincoln Inst. of Land Policy, 2017) available
at https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/future-us-
public-school-revenue-policy-brief_0.pdf.
\16\Angela Hanks, et al., Systematic Inequality: How America's
Structural Racism Helped Create the Black-White Wealth Gap, Ctr. for
Am. Progress (Feb. 21, 2018, 9:03 am), https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/
systematic-inequality/; see generally Richard Rothstein, The Color of
Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America
(2017) (describing the legacy of local, state, and federal policy in
creating segregated neighborhoods throughout the United States,
including the systemic destruction of integrated neighborhoods, and the
subsidization of suburbs which denied land sale to African-Americans
through restrictive covenants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply put, students in wealthy communities have better-
resourced school infrastructure, which in turn prepares them
better for long-term success. Students in poor communities
disproportionately attend under-resourced schools. Studies show
the highest poverty school districts in the country spend about
$1,000 (seven percent) less per student than the lowest poverty
school districts.\17\ Research also demonstrates that those
disparities are significant along racial lines. School
districts that serve mostly students of color receive about
$1,800 (13 percent) per pupil less than those serving mostly
white students.\18\ Students in these better-resourced schools
have a better chance at graduating from high school and
ultimately obtaining a college degree.\19\ This is particularly
troubling since students from low-income communities stand to
benefit the most from graduating from high school and college.
Students from families in the lowest quintile of income have a
90 percent chance of climbing the income ladder if they
graduate from college.\20\ To make it that far, they must first
have a strong K-12 foundation, and sadly the deck is stacked
against them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Ivy Morgan & Ary Amerikaner, An Analysis of School Funding
Equity Across the U.S. and Within Each State, Educ. Trust (Feb. 27,
2018), https://edtrust.org/resource/funding-gaps-2018/
\18\Id.
\19\Michael Mitchell et al., Unkept Promises: State Cuts to Higher
Education Threaten Access and Equity. Ctr. on Budg. & Pol'y Priorities
(Oct. 4, 2018), https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/
unkept-promises-state-cuts-to-higher-education-threaten-access-and.
\20\Pew Charitable Trusts, Pursuing the American Dream: Economic
Mobility Across Generations 25 (2012), available at https://
www.pewtrusts.org/ /media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/
economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States have proven unable to solve the problem of
educational equity by themselves. While state-level public
education financing formulas often send more funding to lower-
wealth communities than to high-wealth communities, this
distribution is not enough to close the resource gap between
localities in most states. And, in some states, state financing
formulas actually exacerbate the existing inequities.\21\ The
federal investment of ESEA sought to level the playing field
and provide the equal opportunity promised by the Fourteenth
Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensured that
discriminating with the new federal funds would be illegal.\22\
While the federal government has put substantial resources into
making classroom instruction funding more equitable, it has not
brought that same focus to ensuring that physical classrooms
and schools themselves are equitable for all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\U.S. Comm'n on C.R., Public Education Funding Inequity in an
Era of Increasing Concentration of Poverty and Resegregation 14 (2018),
available at https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-
Inequity.pdf.
\22\42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d (2012) (``No person in the United States
shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decades after the Brown decision and the enactment ESEA,
public school infrastructure spending remains a source of
education inequity. Low-wealth communities that have difficulty
providing adequate funding for school operations can neither
raise the funds necessary to keep pace with building
modernization needs nor adequately accommodate growing student
populations, relegating children to outdated and sometimes
hazardous public school facilities. The most recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report on this issue, released in
1996, determined that poor school facility conditions were most
concentrated in high-poverty schools that serve students of
color.\23\ A 2006 Building Education Success Together report
found that high-poverty school systems are unable to adequately
invest in school facilities.\24\ Districts that predominantly
serve white students spend nearly 50 percent more on capital
construction than those that predominantly serve students of
color, and wealthy districts spend nearly triple the amount
their high-poverty counterparts do.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO/HEHS-96-103, School
Facilities: America's Schools Report Differing Conditions 18 (1996).
\24\Building Educational Success Together, Growth and Disparity: A
Decade of U.S. Public School Construction 20-21(October 2006),
available at http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/publications/best-growth-
disparity-2006.pdf.
\25\Id. at 21-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While state spending has sometimes made a positive
difference when it comes inequity in school operations, that is
rarely the case when it comes to school construction. Half of
states contribute little to nothing toward the cost of capital
school construction: 12 states actually contribute nothing, and
13 states contribute between only one and nine percent of
costs.\26\ Federally-impacted schools, including schools on or
near military bases, reservation lands, and public housing
facilities face a dire infrastructure need as well, with even
fewer resources to rely on due to the lack of taxable property
to fund schools. According to a recent report, these schools
face a $13 billion backlog in school construction needs, $4
billion of which is considered a ``pressing need''.\27\
Congress has a responsibility to address this persistent
critical gap; every day of inaction maintains a system that not
only fails to provide quality education infrastructure for all
students, but also disproportionately impacts the quality of
education for students of color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Aline Althen, 2016 State of Our Schools: America's K-12
Facilities, Ctr for Green Schs. (Mar. 23, 2016), https://
centerforgreenschools.org/infographic-2016-state-our-schools-americas-
k-12-facilities.
\27\Letter from National Association of Federally Impacted Schools
to Rep. Bobby C. Scott and Sen. Jack Reed in support of the Rebuild
America's Schools Act, (Feb. 25, 2019) available at https://
edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
NAFIS%20Mark%20up%20Support%20Rebuild%20 Americas%20Schools%20Act.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To fight the persistent inequity in school facilities,
provisions of H.R. 865 ensure that funds authorized for school
construction, rehabilitation, and modernization are allocated
equitably. This begins by allocating funds authorized by title
I of the bill ($70 billion over 10 years) proportional to state
allocations under ESEA Title I. To ensure equitable
distribution of funds to LEAs within each state, the bill
requires that states subgrant to LEAs that are among those with
either the highest number or percentage of low-income students.
The Committee intends this provision to give the state the
power to make subgrants both to LEAs that serve large
populations of low-income students (often LEAs serving densely
populated urban areas) and districts that serve high
concentrations of low-income students (often LEAs serving less-
densely populated rural areas). The legislation's goal of
intrastate equity is also furthered by the requirement that a
participating state award subgrants to a geographically diverse
slate of LEAs.
Federal Government's Historic Role in School Construction
Over the last century, the federal government has either
directly or indirectly provided billions of dollars to states
and LEAs for new public school construction and the
rehabilitation and modernization of existing public schools.
The effects of these federal programs can last decades, even
when a period of investment in public school facilities is
relatively short-lived. A one-time investment in school
construction as envisioned by the Rebuild America's Schools Act
of 2019 has the potential to improve the trajectory of public
education outcomes in America for generations to come.
While it is outside the committee's jurisdiction, indirect
federal spending on public school infrastructure via the
federal tax code is too large to be ignored. Since 1913,
federal law has given favorable tax treatment to state and
local municipal bonds, bonds often used to fund public school
construction.\28\ By exempting interest paid on these bonds
from taxable income, the federal government has made these
bonds an attractive investment vehicle, incentivizing billions
of dollars in public school infrastructure investment, and
forgoing billions of dollars in federal tax revenue in the
process. As recently as 2009, the Congress acted to create new
bond authority specifically for school construction. The
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act created Qualified School
Construction Bonds (QSCBs). The federal government issued up to
$22 billion in bond authority to states over two years.\29\ In
effect, QSCBs operated as an interest-free loan to LEAs because
the federal government covered 100 percent of the interest paid
to the bondholder. While many communities took advantage of the
bonds, communities with the least ability to raise funds (the
highest poverty LEAs) were not able to use the bonds due to
their inability to raise the principal and repay the bond, even
though the interest would have been paid by the federal
government. In the history of federal spending on school
construction, indirect spending via the tax code has been the
tool most often used, and regrettably, the least equitable one.
Reliance on indirect investment in public school facilities via
the tax code has widened the opportunity gap between high-
poverty and wealthier school districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Cassandria Dortch, Cong. Research Serv. R41142, School
Construction and Renovation: A Review of Federal Programs 3 (2013).
\29\26 U.S.C. Sec. 54F (2012) (repealed 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 865 recognizes that making investment in public school
infrastructure more affordable through tax-friendly benefits
can help districts with the means to take advantage of such
tools both defray costs and budget for school construction more
effectively. Title II of the bill includes tax incentives
designed to result in $30 billion for public school
construction, modernization and rehabilitation. This title is
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and
was not considered by this Committee during legislative session
on H.R. 865.
Recognizing that it will take more than tax incentives to
fix our public school infrastructure gap, H.R. 865 authorizes
$70 billion in grant aid to states and LEAs. The scope of
investment envisioned in H.R. 865 harkens back to the last
large-scale effort to provide federal grant funding for public
school facilities: the New Deal.
The New Deal's comprehensive response to the Great
Depression included the funding of thousands of local public
works projects paid for with federal funds, including public
schools. In the first year of the New Deal, the Civil Works
Administration (CWA) rehabilitated or constructed 30,000
schools.\30\ While local labor was employed in the process, the
buildings were constructed directly by funds from the federal
government. The follow-up to the CWA, the Works Progress
Administration (WPA) lasted from 1935-43. During that time, the
WPA constructed more than 5,900 school buildings and over 2,100
additions to existing school buildings. The WPA also
constructed over 1,800 (and improved over 8,200) public school
playgrounds,\31\ and renovated or modernized over 31,000 public
school buildings.\32\ WPA school projects were funded through a
combination of federal grant and/or loan funds, usually coupled
with a local share. Many of the schools built with WPA funds
during the New Deal are still in use today as schools or
school-related facilities. There is no comprehensive list of
all the schools built with New Deal funds that are still open
and operating as schools, but the following facilities are
still open and operating in districts represented by members of
the Committee:\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Federal Works Agency, Final Report on the WPA Program, 1935-
1943 4 (1946).
\31\Id. at 50. H.R. 865 includes as allowable uses of grant funds
the construction, modernization, renovation and retrofitting of public
playgrounds and playground on public school facilities as an eligible
use of funds, noting the proven benefits of recreation both to student
health and academic success.
\32\Id. at 52.
\33\This list is not exhaustive. No official record currently
exists of schools built using New Deal funds that are still in use as
schools. The list does not include New Deal projects that were solely
renovations or improvements to existing buildings, like murals or
athletic fields. There are many New Deal school buildings that are
still in use but not for educational purposes; New Deal schools in
Committee member districts have been converted to local government
buildings, senior living facilities, and town halls. THE LIVING NEW
DEAL, http://livingnewdeal.org (last visited Oct. 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Hoover High School, San Diego, CA
Avondale Elementary School (now an
administration building), Avondale, AZ
Grossmont High School, El Cajon, CA
Lyme Consolidated School, Lyme, CT
McAlister Intermediate School, Suffield, CT
Near West Intergenerational School,
Cleveland, OH
Acalanes High School, Lafayette, CA
All City High School, Rochester, NY
Pen Argyl Area High School, Pen Argyl, PA
Burbank Elementary School, Modesto, CA
Enslen Elementary School, Modesto California
Wilson Elementary School, Modesto, CA
Meridian Elementary School, Kent, WA
Ranier School, Buckley, WA
Housatonic Valley Regional High School,
Falls Village, CT
Thomaston Center School, Thomaston, CT
Canton Intermediate School, Canton, CT
Shenandoah Middle School, Miami, FL
Coral Way School, Miami, FL
Fort Hill High School, Cumberland, MD
Tennessee High School, Bristol, TN
Farnsworth Middle School, Sheboygan, WI
Keene Central School, Keene Valley, NY
J.P. McCaskey High School, Lancaster, PA
Lawsonville Avenue Elementary School,
Reidsville, NC
Frances School Gymnasium, Marion, KY
Canyon Springs High School, Caldwell, ID
New York Elementary School, Lawrence, KS
Kooken School, Arlington, TX
Williams Middle School, Sturgis, SD
An $100 billion investment in public school facilities is
long overdue. While there have been attempts at the federal
level to provide direct investment in school infrastructure in
recent years, most have not been successful. Congress
authorized more than $200 million for public school
construction, modernization and repair in the 1994
reauthorization of ESEA, but never appropriated money to the
program.\34\ In 2001, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for
public school facility renovation and repairs and ensured
distribution to low-wealth, rural, and federally-connected
schools.\35\ In 2009, House Democrats tried unsuccessfully for
the inclusion of public school infrastructure grant funds in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While $14 billion
in grant funds for the repair, modernization, and renovation or
public schools were included in the House-passed bill (H.R. 1),
the provisions were stripped in Conference with the Senate.
Typically, ``infrastructure'' is limited to federal buildings,
roads, tunnels, bridges and water products. Under ESEA, the use
of funds for schools must be explicit since the law expressly
prohibits the use of funds on construction unless specifically
authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\Cassandria Dortch, Cong. Research Serv. R41142, School
Construction and Renovation: A Review of Federal Programs 3-4 (2013).
\35\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2009, as states have slowly recovered from the Great
Recession, the need for federal investment in public school
construction has only grown. Half of states spend less on
education now than they did before the Recession.\36\ As AFT
President Randi Weingarten noted in her testimony before the
Committee, during the 2018 midterm elections, voters in 77
school districts voted to pass referendums ``to enable school
districts to borrow money for capital projects or exceed their
state-mandated revenue limits to maintain or expand
programming'' signaling both the overall need and the limited
financial backing with which to accomplish that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\American Federation of Teachers, A Decade of Neglect, Public
Education Funding in the Aftermath of the Great Recession 2 (2018)
available at https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/decade-of-neglect-
2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unmet need for capital investments is not merely a
philosophical debate about federalism. As long as states
maintain these inequitable funding systems, wealthy, primarily
white neighborhoods will continue to fund high-quality schools,
and non-wealthy, primarily communities of color, will continue
to struggle to fund their schools to parity even with
additional help from state and federal funding. Proponents of
returning sole education funding responsibility to the states
cannot deny the fact that in more than half of states, the
least-wealthy school districts especially those that primarily
serve students of color, still receive less funding--about
$1,800 less per student.\37\Increasingly, citizens are holding
their state governments accountable; there are currently 12
states facing lawsuits for inadequate or inequitable education
funding.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Morgan & Amerikaner, supra note 17, at 4.
\38\Courtney Sanders, These 12 States Are Being Sued for not
Funding Schools Equitably, Educ. Post (May 16, 2018), https://
educationpost.org/these-12-states-are-being-sued-for-not-funding-
schools-equitably/. The states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inequitable school funding is not simply a question of
fairness on paper. It creates life-long consequences that bar
individual economic independence and dignity that every
American should know. In the face of overwhelming evidence that
wealthy schools produce results for their students and non-
wealthy schools do not, it is the Committee view that Congress
keep its promise to close the gap on quality and equality.
School funding makes a marked difference in the quality of
education a student receives--better course offerings, smaller
class size, more-qualified teachers, and environments conducive
for learning. As funding gaps persist, so do gaps in school
infrastructure quality. A federal response is necessary as this
problem has real world implications not only for equity in
education offerings but also for the health and safety of
students and teachers nationwide.
H.R. 865 Addresses Unsafe Learning and Working Conditions and Other
Deficits Caused by Inadequate School Infrastructure Funding
On any given school day, nearly one-sixth of Americans
spends time in one of our country's approximately 100,000
public K-12 school facilities.\39\ On average these facilities
are nearly 50 years old.\40\ While these statistics are
nationwide averages, we know that facilities in need of repair
are concentrated in high-poverty school districts.
Additionally, a growing body of research shows that high-
quality facilities help improve academic achievement, reduce
student and staff absences, and reduce suspensions.\41\ As the
setting for learning, public school facility conditions either
hinder or help student performance.\42\ Despite the positive
effects of adequate facilities, far too many children and
adults continue to learn and work in public schools that are
unsafe and unhealthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\Mary Filardo & Jeffrey Vincent, Adequate & Equitable U.S. PK-12
Infrastructure: Priority Actions for Systemic Reform, (PK-12 School
Infrastructure National Initiative, 2017), available at http://
www.centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/
infrastructure-priority-actions-report.pdf.
\40\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO/HEHS-95-61, School
Facilities: Condition of America's Schools (1995), available at https:/
/www.gao.gov/assets/230/220864.pdf.
\41\E.g., Ctr. for Eval. & Pol'y Anal., Penn State University, The
Importance of School Facilities In Improving Student Outcomes (June
2015) available at https://sites.psu.edu/ceepa/2015/06/07/the-
importance-of-school-facilities-in-improving-student-outcomes/; Mark
Schneider, Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?, Nat'l
Clearinghouse for Educ. Facilities (Nov. 2002), http://www.ncef.org/
pubs/outcomes.pdf.
\42\The Center for Green Schools, Green school buildings are better
for teachers and students, (July 1, 2018), https://
www.centerforgreenschools.org/green-schools-are-better-learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well-documented that our nation's public school
facilities pose significant health and safety threats to many
of the more than 50 million students and 6 million
teachers.\43\ Despite an expanding research base to improve
understanding of how health quality affects student learning,
not much has changed at the state level to ensure healthy
school buildings. The 1996 GAO report found that more than
15,000 public schools were circulating air unfit to
breathe.\44\ Low air circulation has been linked to missed
school days for respiratory infections and asthma exacerbation
and increased student visits to the nurse.\45\ Time has not
significantly improved such deplorable conditions. More than 20
years after the GAO audit, reports of poor air quality in
schools persist.\46\ According to a 2014 CDC report, less than
half of the country's schools have a program in place to
address indoor air quality.\47\ Research also shows a
correlation between test scores and air temperature,\48\ yet
due to financial constraints, many schools across the country
cannot afford to replace or even maintain heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) units. As recently as the 2018-19
school year, public schools in the United States have either
been forced to close or have had students and teachers
``bundled up'' to withstand winter weather indoors\49\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Lindsay Baker & Harvey Bernstein, The Importance of School
Buildings on Student Health and Performance (2012) available at http://
centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/
McGrawHill_ImpactOnHealth.pdf.
\44\See America's Schools Report Differing Conditions, supra note
22, at 43.
\45\Oluyemi Toyinbo, et al., Modeling Associations between
Principals' Reported Indoor Environmental Quality and Students' Self-
Reported Respiratory Health Outcomes Using GLMM and ZIP Models, 13
Int'l J. Envtl. Res. & Pub. Health 385 (April 2016) available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27043595.
\46\Courtney Vaughn and Nick Budnick, Portland teacher fights to
fix school's air quality, Portland Trib., June 27, 2019, available at
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/432100-340532-portland-teacher-
fights-to-fix-schools-air-quality.
\47\Elena Page, et al., Evaluation of Indoor Environmental Quality
and Health Concerns in a Public Elementary School, Health Hazard Eval
Prog., No. 2015-0025-3237, (HHS, CDC, NIOSH) (2015) available at
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0025-3237.pdf.
\48\Jisung Park, Temperature, Test Scores, and Human Capital
Production, (2017) available at http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/
jisungpark/files/temperature_test_scores_and_human_capital_
production_-_j_park_-_2-26-17.pdf.
\49\Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling Schools: How Underfunding
Public Education Shortchanges America's Students: Hearing Before H.
Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 116th Cong. (2019) (statement of Randi
Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers) (``Baltimore,
last winter, teachers called on the city to close schools because of
chronic heating problems as indoor temperatures plunged into the 30s,
and children tried to learn bundled in coats and hats.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1996 GAO report also found that 21 percent of schools
responding to their survey spent funds on removing lead in
either paint or water, and another 16 percent needed to spend
more on lead abatement to meet safety standards.\50\ Twenty-two
years later, a GAO report on lead in water specifically, found
that half of U.S. schools tested positive for lead in drinking
water.\51\ A recent study by the T. H. Chan School of Public
Health at Harvard University and the Nutrition Policy Institute
at the University of California found that only 25 states had a
school drinking water testing initiative between January 1,
2016 and February 28, 2018.\52\ Even in the states that did
test drinking water in schools, the researchers found that
there was no uniformity in how the testing was done, or what
actions schools took as a result of testing positive for lead.
This inadequacy and inconsistency across states leaves students
and staff vulnerable to serious health hazards, as we saw in
Flint, Michigan. The continuing presence of lead in any form in
public schools, nearly 50 years after Congress first recognized
its toxicity and outlawed its use in paint in public
housing,\53\ is endemic of the state of our school
infrastructure crisis.\54\ H.R. 865 would require states to
review and issue regulations to encourage safe construction
practices and healthy school facilities, thereby ensuring the
most effective use of the funding provided by the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\America's Schools Report Differing Conditions, supra note 22,
at 5-6.
\51\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-18-382, K-12 Education:
Lead Testing of School Drinking Water Would Benefit From Improved
Federal Guidance (2018) available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/
692979.pdf.
\52\Angie Cradock, et al., Early Adopters: State Approaches to
Testing School Drinking Water for Lead in the United States (Harvard
T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 2019) available at http://
npi.ucanr.edu/files/296549.pdf.
\53\Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 91-695,
84 Stat. 2078 (1971).
\54\Aside from presence in drinking water, U.S. schools still have
problems related to lead paint as in some schools it is still peeling
from school walls, severely poisoning students who ingest it. Wendy
Ruderman, et al., Philadelphia school kids will get added protections
from lead paint perils, Phila. Inq., Dec. 13, 2018 available at https:/
/www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/lead-paint-philadelphia-schools-
protections-toxic-city-20181213.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 865 also addresses specific dangerous conditions that
impact public schools, such as crumbling building foundations.
Pyrrhotite, a naturally-occurring mineral, can cause the rapid
deterioration of building foundations when it is found in the
concrete used to pour the foundation. New England generally,
and Northeast and Northcentral Connecticut in particular, are
experiencing hundreds, possibly thousands, of crumbling
foundations in homes and public buildings, including schools,
due to the use of concrete composed in part of quarried rock
containing pyrrhotite.\55\ Engineers discovered the problem in
2015 and contractors now test for the presence of pyrrhotite
before pouring concrete foundations. But all school buildings
in this region with concrete foundations built between 1983 and
2015 could experience foundation crumbling at some point over
the next 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\George Colli, Courtney Tours Crumbling School in Tolland, WTNH
News 8, Mar. 5, 2019, available at https://www.wtnh.com/news/news-8-
investigators/courtney-tours-crumbling-school-in-tolland/1829040015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an immediate precaution, public schools built during
that 1983-2015 period have been forced to close on days when
winds reach over 60 miles per hour. Many schools have taken the
precaution of moving students to temporary classroom sites
while LEAs consider or acquire the financial means to
rebuild.\56\ Repairs can cost a school community millions of
dollars and take up to two years for each affected school.
Title V of the bill would authorize a federal grant program to
states to reimburse pyrrhotite-affected school districts within
their state. The program would cover up to 50 percent of the
unexpected costs provided that the state in which affected
school is located contributes at least 40 percent of the share.
Only LEAs that fail to qualify for funds under either title I
or title II of the bill are eligible for funds authorized under
title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\Rob Polansky, et al., Town wide meeting held to discuss
crumbling foundation at Tolland school, WFSB Eyewitness News 3, Mar. 5,
2019, available at https://www.wfsb.com/news/town-wide-meeting-held-to-
discuss-crumbling-foundation-at-tolland/article_e5842d46-3f43-11e9-
ae92-bfd158ac6ff5.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are other issues caused by the lack of investment in
educational infrastructure addressed in H.R. 865. The Committee
recognizes the overcrowding problem schools face as student
populations grow. The bill, therefore allows grants to be used
to address that need, along with ensuring the building
exteriors and interiors are well-protected and secure. The
Committee also notes that air temperature is a prevalent issue
schools face, due to insufficient heating or cooling systems,
and H.R. 865 allows for major repairs or new investments in
these systems to regulate a healthy learning temperature.
Grants and bonds may also be used to improve energy and water
efficiency to lower costs and energy consumption and to build
modernizations that reduce reliance on fossil fuels and expand
the use of solar power, wind power, and other renewable energy
resources. H.R. 865 funds can be used to ensure safe drinking
water and to take other steps to generally ensure the health
and safety of students and staff during construction. States
and LEAs may also use funds to bring a school facility into
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. And, recognizing the
classroom of yesterday and the classroom of tomorrow are not
the same, grants and bonds under H.R. 865 may be used to build
appropriate instructional space according to school course
offerings and services. For example, funds can be used to build
collaborative workspaces such as makerspaces, which allow for
creative approaches to science, technology, and math (STEM)
disciplines, or to soundproof a school music room. Likewise,
any construction to expand or support facilities that house or
support school-provided services is also covered under the
bill.
H.R. 865 increases support for existing sources of federal funding of
school construction
Aside from indirect spending via the tax code, and direct
grant aid to states, the federal government currently provides
direct funding for public school construction in two other
areas: schools with distinct federal roles (Impact Aid) and
schools affected by natural disasters. H.R. 865 builds on both
of these existing programs
Federally impacted school districts, those with high
percentages of federally owned (and therefore untaxed) land
have long relied on federal aid to supplement both public
school operation and construction budgets. The Impact Aid
program, which provides funds for the operations of these
school districts, also includes a line item specifically for
school construction.\57\ While support for school construction
via Impact Aid has been a longstanding federal investment, the
amount authorized and appropriated is relatively low in the
face of the outsized need.\58\ H.R. 865 authorizes an
additional $500 million a year for Impact Aid school
construction over the next five fiscal years, an increase of
over 400 percent compared to the current authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7714(d)(2012).
\58\Nat'l Assn. of Federally Impacted Schs., Foundations for
Learning: the Facilities Needs of Federally Impacted Schools, 8 (2017),
available at https://www.nafisdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-
school-construction-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government also provides grant funding via the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to public entities
for school repair or new school construction in the wake of a
federally declared disaster. H.R. 865 does not directly address
recovery from disasters, but instead allows school districts to
use funds to prepare for natural disasters before they occur.
Climate change, due in part to human activity, has increased
the frequency and severity of natural disasters. Thirteen
federal agencies recently released a report that predicts the
effects of climate change will worsen and make protecting
American infrastructure more difficult if steps are not taken
to curb global warming.\59\ California has already lost public
schools to wildfires exacerbated by drought, schools on the
nation's coasts are constantly facing the threat of destruction
due to hurricanes, and schools in inland areas are impacted by
record-setting seasonal flooding.\60\ According to a CRS report
of federal disaster relief funds, the U.S. has spent
approximately $5.7 billion just between fiscal years 2005 and
2017 repairing public school facilities that have not withstood
major natural disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate
Assessment 34 (Vol. II, 2018), available at https://
nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf; see also
Brady Dennis & Chris Mooney, Major Trump administration climate report
says damage is `intensifying across the country', Wash. Post, Nov. 23,
2018, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/
2018/11/23/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-
intensifying-across-country/.
\60\David Washburn & Diana Lambert, Plans come into focus for
California schools ravaged by wildfires, Edsource, Nov. 28, 1018,
available at https://edsource.org/2018/plans-come-into-focus-for-
schools-ravaged-by-wildfires/605409; Nicole Acevedo, In Puerto Rico,
new school year begins after Hurricane Maria, big changes to education
system, NBCNews, Aug. 13, 2018, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/
storyline/puerto-rico-crisis/puerto-rico-new-school-year-begins-after-
hurricane-maria-big-n899866; Scott Olson, For the Midwest, Epic
Flooding is the Face of Climate Change, Wired, May 4, 2019, available
at https://www.wired.com/story/for-the-midwest-epic-flooding-is-the-
face-of-climate-change/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 865 attempts to fix two major drawbacks in the use of
FEMA funds for school construction. First, FEMA funds, by
design, can only be used to address recovery after a disaster
has occurred. In contrast, funds from H.R. 865 can be used to
mitigate threats posed by climate change and natural disasters
before they occur, allowing communities to proactively prepare
for coming disasters. Second, FEMA funds are provided only to
restore facilities to pre-disaster conditions. This restoration
is done without consideration of modernized building codes or
materials that could equip schools to withstand future
disasters better. For example, Super Typhoon Yutu, the
strongest storm to hit any American territory in over 80
years,\61\ destroyed public schools with tin roofs in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.\62\ In a time of
increasingly volatile global temperatures that, according to
the Trump Administration, will result in more frequent and more
powerful natural disasters,\63\ mandating that these destroyed
tin roofs be replaced with new tin roofs and not with more
resilient roofs is shortsighted. Under H.R. 865, grant funds
could be used for seismic retrofitting, protecting existing
buildings from the elements, and hazard resistance. And to
ensure that new construction with federal dollars does not
exacerbate climate change, all construction funded under H.R.
865 must conform to some extent with green building practices,
with a requirement that 100 percent of funds spent in the last
year of authorization be used in accordance with green building
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\Allyson Chiu et al., Extreme Category 5 typhoon, the worst U.S.
storm since 1935, leaves Northern Mariana Islands devastated, Wash.
Post, Oct. 25, 2018, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
energy-environment/2018/10/24/extreme-category-typhoon-yutu-makes-
devastating-landfall-northern-mariana-islands-us-commonwealth/.
\62\This is Not a Drill: Education-Related Response and Recovery in
the Wake of Natural Disasters: Hearing Before H. Subcomm. on Early
Childhood, Elem. & Sec. Educ. of the H. Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 116th
Cong. (2019) (statement of Glenn Muna, Commissioner, CNMI Public School
System) available at https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Muna%20Testimony %20060519.pdf.
\63\See sources cited supra note 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 865 Provides Funds To Remedy Inequitable Access to the Internet
Digital inequality is yet another symptom of inequitable
public school funding. More than thirty years after the advent
of the Internet, far too many public schools lack the high-
speed digital infrastructure necessary to support modern
teaching and learning, a critical resource inequity that
research suggests may be contributing to persistent achievement
gaps.\64\ Currently, 6.5 million students in 40 states lack the
minimum Federal Communications Commission's recommended
bandwidth for Internet-connected digital learning, according to
a 2017 Education Super Highway Report.\65\ Over 2,000 school
districts still lack access to fiber networks; 77% of those
districts are located in rural areas with fewer resources to
cover the cost of construction of a fiber network.\66\ To help
bridge the digital divide, H.R. 865 would allow LEAs to use
grant funding to expand access to high-speed broadband to
ensure digital learning necessary for the 21st century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\Angelina Kewalramani et al., Student Access to Digital Learning
Resources Outside of the Classroom XIV (NCES 2017-098: 2017) available
at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098/index.asp.
\65\Education Superhighway, 2017 State of the States Fulfilling Our
Promise to America's Students 9 (2017) available at http://
stateofthestates.educationsuperhighway.org/2017/.
\66\Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 865 Promotes Effective School Safety Design
The Committee recognizes all public school facilities must
be safe, secure, and welcoming for students and staff. H.R. 865
allows for funding to be used on creating building designs that
address security. The Committee believes the best way to
address a school building's physical security issues is as part
of a modernization and rehabilitation program. Secure and
intentional building design considers student health,
productivity, and sense of safety. Architects were able to
design a safer school campus for Sandy Hook Elementary School
in Newtown, Connecticut by using best design practices such as
creating more visibility and using a layered strategic approach
to mitigate threats.\67\ For example, the newly designed school
allows for more natural light, which has been shown to increase
productivity, not necessarily more physical barriers that make
students feel barricaded as they are learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\Tom Dobbins, Sandy Hook School Architect Testifies in Front of
Congress About School Safety, Arch Daily, (8:00 am, Aug. 25, 2018)
available at https://www.archdaily.com/900588/speaking-to-congress-jay-
brotman-outlines-how-the-profession-intends-to-improve-school-safety;
But see Grieg O'Brien, Architect Jay Brotman testifying Before White
house cabinet Secretaries on School Design Today, Architect, Aug. 16
2018, available at https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architect-
jay-brotman-testifying-before-white-house-cabinet-secretaries-on-
school-design-today_o. (Correctly reporting that the Mr. Brotman's
testimony was before the Federal Commission on School Safety and not
Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee notes that this redesign is not the same as
school hardening, a measure the Committee believes is not an
allowable use of grant funds under H.R. 865. The research
failed to conclude that hardening--such as in the form of fewer
windows, metal detectors, intrusive surveillance systems,
physical traits evident in prisons--actually makes schools
safer.\68\ On the contrary, studies show students feel less
safe because of the presence of such hardening, so its use is
not authorized here.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\Valerie Strauss, Study: There's no evidence that hardening
schools to make kids safer from gun violence actually works, Wash.
Post, Apr. 16, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
education/2019/04/16/study-theres-no-evidence-that-hardening-schools-
make-kids-safer-gun-violence-actually-works/.
\69\Bayliss Fiddiman, et al., Smart Investments for Safer Schools,
Ctr. for Am. Progress (9:02 am, Dec. 19, 2018), https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2018/12/19/
464445/smart-investments-safer-schools/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 865 Provides Transparency To Hold Government Accountable for State
of School Facilities
Local, state, and federal law created our nation's
universal system of free public education. Its goal is to
provide all children, regardless of family wealth or zip code,
quality schooling in a safe learning environment. Sadly, the
government at all levels has broken this promise to many
communities. Children are compelled to learn in decrepit
facilities that not only deny them equity of educational
opportunity but are also making them sick. As Ms. Weingarten
pointed out in her testimony, ``How do we send children to
school with black toxic mold on floors, classrooms without heat
or air conditioning, leaking ceilings and contaminated water?
[. . .] We send our children to schools in these conditions,
and we expect them to thrive.''\70\ Government must act boldly
to remedy this injustice and make good on its promise of a safe
and healthy public school for every child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\Underpaid Teachers, supra note 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee notes that H.R. 865 proposes a comprehensive
solution that brings all levels of government together to close
our education infrastructure gap. Under H.R. 865, the federal
government fulfills its role to ensure equity in education
through targeted support. The state is empowered to fulfill its
role as the primary custodian of public schools within its
borders. And the LEA is charged with to identifying and
addressing needs specific to local schools.
And to ensure this accountability continues after the
period of federal funding ends, the bill requires each state
that receives funds under title I of the bill to build and
maintain a comprehensive, publicly searchable school facilities
online database. Currently there is no comprehensive national
database on the condition of public school facilities. With
increased transparency in each state, stakeholders can
understand the extent of the problem from a wider lens and can
better hold their government accountable for gaps in resources.
State-level data collection and reporting will also allow
policymakers and practitioners across states to learn from one
another and share best practices. As a condition of the receipt
of funds, states must also review existing health and safety
regulations and issue updated regulations if necessary to
ensure safe construction practices and healthy school
environments.
Conclusion
H.R. 865 is a necessary and long-overdue step toward
closing the infrastructure gap in our nation's schools. The
Committee believes that if passed and fully funded, H.R. 865
will bring public education closer to achieving the equality
promised in Brown, and help ensure that every student,
regardless of his or her zip code or family wealth, can learn
in a high-quality, safe and healthy public school building.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This cites the short title of the Act as the ``Rebuild
America's Schools Act of 2019.''
Section 2. Definitions
This section provides definitions for the terms
``appropriate congressional committees,'' ``Bureau-funded
school,'' ``covered funds,'' ``elementary school,'' ``local
educational agency,'' ``outlying area,'' ``secondary school,''
``public school facilities,'' ``qualified local educational
agency,'' ``school infrastructure bond,'' ``Secretary'',
``State'', and ``zero energy school''.
TITLE I--GRANTS FOR THE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Section 101. Purpose and reservation
This section states the purpose of this Act, which is to
support ``long-term improvements to public school facilities.''
It also reserves 0.5 percent of total authorized funds for the
outlying areas proportionate to their share of funds under ESEA
Title I, and 0.5 percent of funds for schools funded by the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
Section 102. Allocation to states
This section outlines the allocation of funds to states as
well as state responsibilities under this Act. States shall be
allocated funds in proportion to the funds that all local
education agencies (LEAs) in the state receive under ESEA Title
I. In exchange, states must review and issue regulations to
ensure safe, healthy, and high-performing buildings and develop
an online, publicly searchable database that outlines the
condition of all public school facilities in the state. Other
state requirements include a 10 percent matching requirement, a
maintenance of effort assurance, and a supplement-not-supplant
assurance. This section also requires that states submit a plan
to the Secretary of Education for approval to carry out the
competitive grant program described in section 103.
Section 103. Need-based grants to qualified local education agencies
Section 103 provides for awarding funds by the state to
qualified LEAs on a competitive basis. A qualified LEA must be
receiving ESEA Title I funds. For a qualified LEA to be
eligible to receive a need-based grant from the state it must
meet at least one of multiple eligibility criteria.
All qualified LEAs in the state with the highest numbers of
students counted under section 1124(c) of ESEA must be
considered eligible for a need-based grant. All LEAs in the
state with the highest percentages of students counted under
section 1124(c) of ESEA must be considered eligible. In some
instances, a LEA may meet both student eligibility criteria
based on having both a high number and a high percentage of
ESEA Title I-counted students.
The state is expected to set both number and percentage
thresholds in determining grant eligibility from among all
qualified LEAs. The number and percentage thresholds are
intended to reasonably define the eligible subset of qualified
LEAs across the state demonstrating the highest number of ESEA
Title I-counted students and those agencies demonstrating the
highest percentage of ESEA Title I-counted students
respectively.
Additionally, once the state identifies the eligible LEAs
determined by the number and the percentage of ESEA Title I-
eligible students, it may extend eligibility for the need-based
grants to LEAs with the greatest need to improve school
facilities that may include consideration of proximity to toxic
sites, brownfield areas, or vulnerability to natural disasters.
And, the state may also extend eligibility to LEAs with the
most limited capacity to raise funds for facility improvements
based on assessing its current and historic ability to raise
facility funds, ability to issue bonds or to receive other
funds for school construction, and its bond rating.
Any LEA that is awarded need-based funds must prioritize
the use of the funds in schools with highest percentage of
students eligible for the free and reduced priced lunch
program.
The state will give priority in awarding funds to the
qualified LEAs determined to be eligible for need-based grants
that can demonstrate the greatest need for a grant by comparing
the relative concentrations of ESEA Title I-counted students
(both for numbers and for percentages), specific facility
improvement needs such as proximity to toxic hazards or natural
disaster vulnerability, as well as other indicators of need
including age of facilities, over enrollment, condition of
major building systems, condition of roofs, windows and doors,
and other critical health and safety conditions.
Priority for funding shall be given to eligible LEAs that
commit to using the grant to improve facilities in elementary
and middle schools with not less than 40 percent of students
eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program, in high
schools with not less than 30 percent school or feeder-school
eligibility, or in a school operating under a severe health or
safety threat. States may also give priority to eligible LEAs
that serve schools that lack access to high-speed broadband,
including from rural areas, to improve such access, if such
schools also meet one or more of the previously stated needs.
The state may reserve up to 10 percent of funds for grants
to qualified LEAs to improve digital learning by leveraging
other public funds or public-private partnerships to increase
broadband access. The state also must ensure that grants are
awarded to qualified LEAs that represent the geographic
diversity of the state.
Section 104. Annual report on grant program
The Secretary of Education must annually submit to Congress
a report that includes a description of the projects carried
out under the grant program as well as the demographic
information of students attending schools that used funds from
the grant program.
Section 105. Authorization of appropriations
$70 billion total is authorized for title I of this Act
from FY 2020 through FY 2029.
TITLE II--SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
Sec. 201. Restoration of certain qualified tax credit bonds
This section restores sections 54A, 54E, and 6431 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as if the repeals by the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act of 2017 had not taken effect. It amends section
54(E)(d)(3) of the Code to allow proceeds from Qualified Zone
Academy Bonds (QZABs) to be used for construction and
retrofitting of public school facilities. Section 201
permanently increases the national limitation for QZABs from
$400 million annually to $1.4 billion annually and removes the
private business contribution requirement for LEAs to
participate in the QZAB program.
Sec. 202. School Infrastructure Bonds
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by
adding ``Section 54BB. School Infrastructure Bonds.'' Section
202 designates a total national bond limitation of $30 billion
for qualified school infrastructure bonds (QSIBs), $10 billion
each for FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. States may distribute
up to 10 percent of the total bond limitation to enable LEAs to
leverage existing public programs or public-private
partnerships to expand access to high-speed broadband
sufficient for digital learning.
Section 202 also allocates bond authority to states based
on the proportion of funds that states receive under ESEA Title
I. It requires that the federal government provide a tax credit
of 100 percent of the interest on any QSIB--such credit may be
issued as a tax credit to the bondholder or as a direct payment
to the bond issuer. Section 202 reserves 0.5 percent of the
bond allocation for outlying areas, and 0.5 percent of the bond
allocation for schools funded by the BIE and requires states to
use the same criteria outlined in section 103 in distribution
of bond authority to LEAs, excluding provisions related to
fiscal capacity.
Section 203. Annual report on bond program
The Secretary of Education must annually submit to Congress
a report that includes the LEAs that participated in the bond
program as well as LEAs that were unable to participate due to
fiscal challenges.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 301. Allowable uses
This section outlines the allowable uses of funds for
titles I and II. Funds may be used to develop the facilities
master plan required under section 103(e) and generally to
construct, modernize, renovate, build new schools, and retrofit
public school facilities. Retrofitting may include seismic
retrofitting for schools vulnerable to seismic natural
disasters, as well as other retrofitting to bring facilities up
to code to withstand other natural disasters, or otherwise
bring facilities to compliance for fire, safety, and other
health codes.
LEAs may also use grants to install suitable furniture or
fixtures with at-least a ten-year life-span. This can include
installing size-appropriate fixtures if retrofitting a building
for younger children, updating, science lab infrastructure, and
construction and improvement of public playgrounds. Allowable
uses also include: improvements to building exteriors and
interiors to ensure they are well-protected and secure; major
repairs or new investments in HVAC systems; improvements to
energy and water efficiency to lower costs and energy
consumption including building modernizations that reduce
reliance on fossil fuels and expand the use of solar power,
wind power, and other renewable energy resources; improvements
to ensure safe drinking water, or to generally ensure the
health and safety of students and staff during construction;
efforts to bring a school into compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973; construction of appropriate instructional space
according to school course offerings and services; and any
construction to expand or support facilities that house or
support school-provided services.
Section 302. Prohibited uses
Funds under titles I and II may not be used on athletic
facilities or grounds that charge an admission fee, vehicles,
central offices, or other facilities not primarily used to
educate students. Funds also may not be used on routine
maintenance or minor repairs.
Section 303. Requirements for Hazard-Resistance and Energy and Water
Conservation.
Section 303 requires LEAs that receive funds for new
construction to meet or exceed the requirements of a nationally
recognized, consensus-based model building code, and the
performance criteria under the WaterSense program of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6294b.
Section 304. Green practices
Section 304 outlines the requirements for green practices
for projects funded under titles I and II.
Section 305. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured products
This section includes a ``Buy America'' provision for iron,
steel, and manufactured products.
Section 306. Comptroller General
This section requires the Comptroller General to submit to
Congress a report that must include the geographic distribution
of projects, the impact of projects on student and staff health
and safety, and how funds under these projects could be made
more accessible to high-poverty schools and those with fiscal
capacities.
Section 307. Study and report of physical conditions of public schools
This section requires that the Institute of Educational
Sciences (IES) carry out a national study that includes the
condition of public school facilities, the impact of such
facilities on students and staff, and a cost estimate for
bringing schools to good condition. Such a comprehensive report
would capture school facilities that represent the breadth of
schools in the country--urban, suburban, rural, from different
geographic regions, and high poverty and high wealth schools.
Section 308. Development of data standards
This section requires that the Secretary of Education, in
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Department of Energy (DOE),
and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), develop guidance on data to be collected by states
under section 102.
Section 309. Information clearinghouse
The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the
officials in section 307, must disseminate information to
schools on financing for green projects.
TITLE IV--IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION
Section 401. Temporary increase in funding for Impact Aid Construction
This title temporarily increases funding for the Impact Aid
Construction program under ESEA by $500 million over fiscal
years 2020 through 2024.
TITLE V--ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY
PYRRHOTITE
Section 501. Allocations to states
The Secretary of Education is directed to create a program,
within 180 days of the bill's enactment into law, that would
provide federal funding to states to distribute grants to LEAs
for the repair or replacement of crumbling foundations due to
pyrrhotite. It requires the Secretary to publish on the
Department of Education's website instructions on how a state
may receive funding for this program.
For schools with a pyrrhotite emergency that already
qualify for a grant under title I of this Act, such schools may
use their title I grant to address the emergency, and do not
need to apply for this separate program.
Section 502. Grants to local educational agencies
This section requires the Secretary to award funds to
states to either pay the future costs of repairing foundations
deteriorating due to pyrrhotite, or to reimburse LEAs for the
cost of repairs or replacement during the previous five-year
period prior to this provision becoming law. LEAs must
demonstrate that the school contains pyrrhotite in the
foundation through proper laboratory, core, or visual
inspections by a professional engineer licensed in the state.
LEAs must also have had any testing of the foundation done
through the proper channels outlined by the state or other
entity overseeing relief efforts for crumbling foundations. The
LEA must also only use the funding for the allowable uses
described in the bill and must have all work performed by a
contractor or architect licensed in the state. The LEA must
meet these same requirements for a reimbursement grant and must
provide information indicating that the project was carried out
with these parameters at the time it was completed.
LEAs must submit an application to the state that includes
at minimum, information pertaining to the LEA's eligibility
requirements, and an estimate of the cost of construction. If
the LEA is applying for reimbursement, their application must
include: proof of eligibility requirements, an itemized
explanation of the costs incurred for the project, amounts
already received from other federal, state, local, or private
sources, the amount of reimbursement funds requested, and the
percentage of funds covered by an insurance policy.
The state must approve any application from an LEA that is
complete with the criteria outlined above. The state will then
transmit an application to the Secretary. Within 60 days of
receiving the application from the state, the Secretary must
either approve or deny the application. If the Secretary
approves the application, the Secretary must disburse funds to
the state within 60 days of the application's approval. Once
the state has received the funds from the Secretary, the state
must disburse those funds to the LEA within 60 days.
To be eligible for federal funds, the state must provide at
least 40 percent of the project's total costs, in the case of
both reimbursement and grants made out in the future. In
addition, the federal government may not provide any more than
50 percent of the total cost of the project.
Funds may be used to repair or replace a concrete
foundation and other affected areas of a school to restore the
structural integrity of the school to the health and safety
standards outlined by the project's architect or engineer, and
to restore the school to the condition it was in prior to the
foundation's damage due to pyrrhotite. Funding may be used on
other activities directly related to the project such as
engineering reports, architectural design, and core tests.
LEAs receiving federal funds for a project may not use this
funding for any work done to outbuildings, sheds, barns,
swimming pools, playgrounds, ballfields, ponds, or water
features. Funds may not be used for the purchase of any items
not directly related to the repair or replacement of the
school's crumbling foundation. Prohibited items include desks,
chairs, electronics, sports equipment, or other school
supplies. Any other activities not explicitly described in the
``allowable uses'' section are also prohibited. LEAs may not
use funds under this title and title I for the same project.
Section 503. Definitions
This section defines the terms ``Pyrrhotite-affected
school'' and ``qualified contractor''.
Section 504. Authorization of appropriations
This section requires funds to be authorized to carry out
the program for fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year
afterwards.
Explanation of Amendments
The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, are explained in the descriptive portions of this
report.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
H.R. 865, as amended, does not apply to terms and
conditions of employment or to access to public services or
accommodations within the legislative branch.
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-4), the Committee
adopts as its own the estimate of federal mandates regarding
H.R. 865, as amended, prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office.
Earmark Statement
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 865 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as described in clauses 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule
XXI.
Roll Call Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 865:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the goals of H.R. 865 are to ensure
equity in school facilities and digital infrastructure, assist
states in their role in creating safe and healthy schools, and
improve regulation of and data collection on the condition of
public school facilities and the impact of such conditions on
health and safety.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee states that no
provision of H.R. 865 establishes or reauthorizes a program of
the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another
federal program, a program that was included in any report from
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Hearings
Pursuant to section 103(i) of H. Res. 6, the [hearing/
hearings] that the Committee held on February 12, 2019 entitled
``Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling Schools: How Underfunding
Public Education Shortchanges America's Students'' as the
legislative hearing that was used to develop or consider H.R.
865.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for
H.R. 865 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2019.
Hon. Bobby Scott,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 865, the Rebuild
America's Schools Act of 2019.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Leah
Koestner.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill would
Reauthorize certain qualified tax credit
bonds and create a new school infrastructure bond
program
Authorize the appropriation of $7 billion
for each year from 2020 through 2030 for need-based
grants to qualified local education agencies for school
construction and renovation
Require a study of and report on the
physical condition of all U.S. public schools
Authorize the appropriation of a total of
$562 million for the 2020-2025 period to fund Impact
Aid construction grants under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
Permanently authorize the appropriation of
such sums as may be necessary for grants to states to
repair school foundations affected by pyrrhotite
Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from
The school infrastructure bond program
New and increased authorizations of
appropriations for school improvement and construction
Areas of significant uncertainty include
Interest rates over the next decade
The scope and funding required for a
comprehensive study of the physical condition of all
public schools
The number of schools affected by pyrrhotite
Bill summary: H.R. 865 would reauthorize certain qualified
tax credit bonds and amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
create a new bond program to fund school construction and
renovations. The bill also would create a need-based grant
program for improvement and construction of public schools,
increase funding for Impact Aid construction grants, and create
a grant program to identify and repair buildings affected by
pyrrhotite (a mineral that can compromise building materials
such as concrete). In addition, H.R. 865 would direct the
Department of Education, through the Institute of Education
Sciences (IES), to conduct a comprehensive study of the
physical condition of all public schools in the United States.
Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of
H.R. 865 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall
within budget function 500 (education, training, employment,
and social services).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 865
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases in Direct Spending
Estimated Budget Authority...................................... 0 54 273 635 968 1,100 1,089 1,078 1,067 1,057 1,046 3,030 8,367
Estimated Outlays............................................... 0 54 273 635 968 1,100 1,089 1,078 1,067 1,057 1,046 3,030 8,367
Decreases in Revenues
Estimated Revenues..............................................
0 -2 -13 -39 -80 -122 -153 -174 -191 -207 -228 -255 -1,209
Net Increase in the Deficit From Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues
Effect on the Deficit........................................... 0 56 286 674 1,048 1,222 1,242 1,253 1,258 1,264 1,275 3,285 9,576
Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation Estimated Authorization
Estimated Authorization......................................... 0 7,129 7,130 7,150 7,151 7,152 7,153 7,054 7,056 7,056 7,058 35,712 71,089
Estimated Outlays............................................... 0 731 1,804 3,938 6,421 7,153 7,179 7,150 7,115 7,066 7,054 20,047 55,611
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that H.R. 865 would be
enacted near the end of fiscal year 2019 and that authorized
and estimated funds would be appropriated every year.
Direct Spending and Revenues
Title II of H.R. 865 would authorize a new tax credit bond
program for Qualified School Infrastructure Bonds (QSIBs).
Under that program, the Treasury would offer tax credits or
make direct payments to the holders of those bonds. The bill
would authorize up to $10 billion in QSIBs in each of 2020,
2021, and 2022. Title II also would reauthorize two tax credit
bond programs--Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs) and
Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs). For QZABs, the
bill would authorize up to $1.4 billion in 2020 and each year
thereafter but the bill would make no allocation for QSCBs. The
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that
enacting those provisions would increase direct spending by
$8.4 billion over the 2019-2029 period and reduce revenues by
$1.2 billion over the same period.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
H.R. 865 would authorize the appropriation of $35.5 billion
over the 2020-2024 period and CBO estimates that the bill would
authorize additional appropriations totaling about $0.2 billion
over the same period. Assuming the appropriation of the
authorized and estimated amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing the bill would cost $20.0 billion over the 2020-
2024 period (see Table 2).
TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 865a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants for Public School Facilities:
Authorization.............................. 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 35,000
Estimated Outlays.......................... 0 700 1,750 3,850 6,300 7,000 19,600
Impact Aid Construction:
Authorization.............................. 0 81 81 100 100 100 462
Estimated Outlays.......................... 0 8 20 47 78 104 257
Study and Report:
Estimated Authorization.................... 0 25 26 26 27 27 131
Estimated Outlays.......................... 0 20 25 26 26 27 124
Assistance for Schools Affected by Pyrrhotite:
Estimated Authorization.................... 0 23 23 24 24 25 119
Estimated Outlays.......................... 0 3 9 15 17 22 66
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization................ 0 7,129 7,130 7,150 7,151 7,152 35,712
Estimated Outlays...................... 0 732 1,805 3,938 6,421 7,152 20,047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a CBO estimates spending subject to appropriation would total $35.6 billion over the 2019-2029 period.
Grants for Public School Facilities. The bill would
authorize the appropriation of $7 billion for each year over
the 2020-2029 period for the long-term improvement of public
school facilities. Under the General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA), those authorizations would be extended automatically
for an additional year, through fiscal year 2030. Based on
historical spending patterns for similar programs, CBO
estimates that implementing this provision would cost $19.6
billion over the 2020-2024 period, an additional $35 billion
through 2029, and about $22 billion after 2029.
Impact Aid Construction. The federal Impact Aid Program
provides funds to school districts that serve children who live
on military installations and other federal lands that are
exempt from local property taxes. The bill would authorize the
appropriation of $100 million for construction under that
program for each year from 2020 through 2024. (Under GEPA, that
funding would be extended automatically through 2025.)
Currently, $19 million is authorized to be appropriated for
2020 and 2021 and the Congress appropriated $17 million for
those purposes for 2019. CBO expects the newly authorized funds
would spend more slowly at first than is ordinarily the case
for this program because the bill would authorize a substantial
increase over current funding amounts. CBO estimates that
implementing this provision would cost $257 million over the
2020-2024 period and an additional $306 million through 2029.
Study and Report. The bill would require IES to complete a
comprehensive study of the physical condition of all U.S.
public schools. CBO assumes that IES would conduct the study by
aggregating available information and augmenting that data with
survey results and with inspections of a sample set of schools.
CBO expects that IES would need to collect information from
about 10 percent of U.S. public schools over a five-year
period. In addition, CBO estimates that the institute would
need to hire five full-time employees, conduct site visits, and
hire contractors. On that basis, CBO estimates that
implementing those provisions would cost $124 million over the
2020-2024 period and an additional $144 million through 2029.
Assistance for Schools Affected by Pyrrhotite. H.R. 865
would permanently authorize the appropriation of whatever
amounts are necessary for grants to schools with concrete
foundations that contain pyrrhotite, which can cause building
foundations to crack and crumble. CBO is unaware of any
comprehensive data on schools affected by pyrrhotite; only one
school is currently known to be affected as far as CBO knows.
CBO estimates that approximately one school per year would
receive such a grant, and that, based on the estimated cost of
a similar repair, the federal share of the total cost would be
$23 million in 2020. CBO estimates that implementing this
provision would cost $66 million over the 2020-2024 period and
an additional $114 million through 2029.
Uncertainty
JCT's estimate of the provisions related to tax credit
bonds are closely tied to CBO's projections of interest rates
over the next decade. Those projections are inherently
uncertain. The estimate also depends on anticipated behavioral
responses including taxpayers' willingness to purchase the
bonds of state and local governments and those governments'
willingness to incur such debt.
CBO has identified two additional areas of significant
uncertainty regarding its estimates of spending subject to
appropriation in H.R. 865:
The bill's language regarding the
comprehensive survey of the physical condition of all
U.S. public schools is broad enough that CBO expects
the Department of Education could exercise considerable
judgment in designing and conducting the study of
school buildings. The cost would depend in part on how
the department structured the required study. CBO based
its estimate on information from discussions with
experts in this area.
The number of public schools that are
affected by pyrrhotite is quite uncertain and little
information to identify such schools is currently
available; testing is under way in only a few places.
If the number of affected schools is larger than
current data indicate, the cost may be greater and more
funds may be necessary.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays and revenues that are
subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3.--CBO's ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effect. 0 56 286 674 1,048 1,222 1,242 1,253 1,258 1,264 1,275 3,285 9,576
Memorandum:
Changes in Outlays......... 0 54 273 635 968 1,100 1,089 1,078 1,067 1,057 1,046 3,030 8,367
Changes in Revenues........ 0 -2 -13 -39 -80 -122 -153 -174 -191 -207 -228 -255 -1,209
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Increase in long-term deficits: JCT estimates that enacting
H.R. 865 would increase on-budget deficits by more than $5
billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods
beginning in 2030.
Mandates: None
Estimate prepared by: Spending Subject to Appropriation:
Leah Koestner; Direct Spending and Revenues: Staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation; Mandates: Zachary Byrum.
Estimate reviewed by: Sheila Dacey, Chief, Income Security
and Education Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
Committee Cost Estimate
Clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII requires an estimate and
a comparison of the costs that would be incurred in carrying
out H.R. 865. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides
that this requirement does not apply when the committee has
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, H.R. 865, as reported, are shown as follows:
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability
PART IV--CREDITS AGAINST TAX
Subpart I--Qualified Tax Credit Bonds
[Section 201 of H.R. 865 (as reported) restores sections 54A,
54E, and 6431 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The
following reflects a version of the provisions as so restored
prior to its repeal by Public Law 115-97 and is further amended
by the bill.]
SEC. 54A. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED TAX CREDIT BONDS.
(a) Allowance of Credit.--If a taxpayer holds a qualified tax
credit bond on one or more credit allowance dates of the bond
during any taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an
amount equal to the sum of the credits determined under
subsection (b) with respect to such dates.
(b) Amount of Credit.--
(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit
allowance date for a qualified tax credit bond is 25
percent of the annual credit determined with respect to
such bond.
(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified tax credit bond is the product
of--
(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of
paragraph (2), the applicable credit rate is the rate
which the Secretary estimates will permit the issuance
of qualified tax credit bonds with a specified maturity
or redemption date without discount and without
interest cost to the qualified issuer. The applicable
credit rate with respect to any qualified tax credit
bond shall be determined as of the first day on which
there is a binding, written contract for the sale or
exchange of the bond.
(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month
period ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of
the credit determined under this subsection with
respect to such credit allowance date shall be a
ratable portion of the credit otherwise determined
based on the portion of the 3-month period during which
the bond is outstanding. A similar rule shall apply
when the bond is redeemed or matures.
(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess
of--
(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as
defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed
by section 55, over
(B) the sum of the credits allowable under
this part (other than subparts C and J and this
subpart).
(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation
imposed by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such
excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year
and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a)
for such taxable year (determined before the
application of paragraph (1) for such succeeding
taxable year).
(d) Qualified Tax Credit Bond.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) Qualified tax credit bond.--The term ``qualified
tax credit bond'' means--
[(A) a qualified forestry conservation bond,
[(B) a new clean renewable energy bond,
[(C) a qualified energy conservation bond,]
(D) a qualified zone academy bond, or
(E) a qualified school construction bond,
which is part of an issue that meets
requirements of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5),
and (6).
(2) Special rules relating to expenditures.--
(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as
meeting the requirements of this paragraph if,
as of the date of issuance, the issuer
reasonably expects--
(i) 100 percent of the available
project proceeds to be spent for 1 or
more qualified purposes within the 3-
year period beginning on such date of
issuance, and
(ii) a binding commitment with a
third party to spend at least 10
percent of such available project
proceeds will be incurred within the 6-
month period beginning on such date of
issuance.
(B) Failure to spend required amount of bond
proceeds within 3 years.--
(i) In general.--To the extent that
less than 100 percent of the available
project proceeds of the issue are
expended by the close of the
expenditure period for 1 or more
qualified purposes, the issuer shall
redeem all of the nonqualified bonds
within 90 days after the end of such
period. For purposes of this paragraph,
the amount of the nonqualified bonds
required to be redeemed shall be
determined in the same manner as under
section 142.
(ii) Expenditure period.--For
purposes of this subpart, the term
``expenditure period'' means, with
respect to any issue, the 3-year period
beginning on the date of issuance. Such
term shall include any extension of
such period under clause (iii).
(iii) Extension of period.--Upon
submission of a request prior to the
expiration of the expenditure period
(determined without regard to any
extension under this clause), the
Secretary may extend such period if the
issuer establishes that the failure to
expend the proceeds within the original
expenditure period is due to reasonable
cause and the expenditures for
qualified purposes will continue to
proceed with due diligence.
(C) Qualified purpose.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``qualified purpose''
means--
(i) in the case of a qualified
forestry conservation bond, a purpose
specified in section 54B(e),
(ii) in the case of a new clean
renewable energy bond, a purpose
specified in section 54C(a)(1),
(iii) in the case of a qualified
energy conservation bond, a purpose
specified in section 54D(a)(1),
(iv) in the case of a qualified zone
academy bond, a purpose specified in
section 54E(a)(1), and
(v) in the case of a qualified school
construction bond, a purpose specified
in section 54F(a)(1).
(D) Reimbursement.--For purposes of this
subtitle, available project proceeds of an
issue shall be treated as spent for a qualified
purpose if such proceeds are used to reimburse
the issuer for amounts paid for a qualified
purpose after the date that the Secretary makes
an allocation of bond limitation with respect
to such issue, but only if--
(i) prior to the payment of the
original expenditure, the issuer
declared its intent to reimburse such
expenditure with the proceeds of a
qualified tax credit bond,
(ii) not later than 60 days after
payment of the original expenditure,
the issuer adopts an official intent to
reimburse the original expenditure with
such proceeds, and
(iii) the reimbursement is made not
later than 18 months after the date the
original expenditure is paid.
(3) Reporting.--An issue shall be treated as meeting
the requirements of this paragraph if the issuer of
qualified tax credit bonds submits reports similar to
the reports required under section 149(e).
(4) Special rules relating to arbitrage.--
(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as
meeting the requirements of this paragraph if
the issuer satisfies the requirements of
section 148 with respect to the proceeds of the
issue.
(B) Special rule for investments during
expenditure period.--An issue shall not be
treated as failing to meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A) by reason of any investment of
available project proceeds during the
expenditure period.
(C) Special rule for reserve funds.--An issue
shall not be treated as failing to meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A) by reason of
any fund which is expected to be used to repay
such issue if--
(i) such fund is funded at a rate not
more rapid than equal annual
installments,
(ii) such fund is funded in a manner
reasonably expected to result in an
amount not greater than an amount
necessary to repay the issue, and
(iii) the yield on such fund is not
greater than the discount rate
determined under paragraph (5)(B) with
respect to the issue.
(5) Maturity limitation.--
(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as
meeting the requirements of this paragraph if
the maturity of any bond which is part of such
issue does not exceed the maximum term
determined by the Secretary under subparagraph
(B).
(B) Maximum term.--During each calendar
month, the Secretary shall determine the
maximum term permitted under this paragraph for
bonds issued during the following calendar
month. Such maximum term shall be the term
which the Secretary estimates will result in
the present value of the obligation to repay
the principal on the bond being equal to 50
percent of the face amount of such bond. Such
present value shall be determined using as a
discount rate the average annual interest rate
of tax-exempt obligations having a term of 10
years or more which are issued during the
month. If the term as so determined is not a
multiple of a whole year, such term shall be
rounded to the next highest whole year.
(6) Prohibition on financial conflicts of interest.--
An issue shall be treated as meeting the requirements
of this paragraph if the issuer certifies that--
(A) applicable State and local law
requirements governing conflicts of interest
are satisfied with respect to such issue, and
(B) if the Secretary prescribes additional
conflicts of interest rules governing the
appropriate Members of Congress, Federal,
State, and local officials, and their spouses,
such additional rules are satisfied with
respect to such issue.
(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
(1) Credit allowance date.--The term ``credit
allowance date'' means--
(A) March 15,
(B) June 15,
(C) September 15, and
(D) December 15.
Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
(2) Bond.--The term ``bond'' includes any obligation.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District
of Columbia and any possession of the United States.
(4) Available project proceeds.--The term ``available
project proceeds'' means--
(A) the excess of--
(i) the proceeds from the sale of an
issue, over
(ii) the issuance costs financed by
the issue (to the extent that such
costs do not exceed 2 percent of such
proceeds), and
(B) the proceeds from any investment of the
excess described in subparagraph (A).
(f) Credit Treated as Interest.--For purposes of this
subtitle, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
treated as interest which is includible in gross income.
(g) S Corporations and Partnerships.--In the case of a tax
credit bond held by an S corporation or partnership, the
allocation of the credit allowed by this section to the
shareholders of such corporation or partners of such
partnership shall be treated as a distribution.
(h) Bonds Held by Real Estate Investment Trusts.--If any
qualified tax credit bond is held by a real estate investment
trust, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
allowed to beneficiaries of such trust (and any gross income
included under subsection (f) with respect to such credit shall
be distributed to such beneficiaries) under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
(i) Credits May be Stripped.--Under regulations prescribed by
the Secretary--
(1) In general.--There may be a separation (including
at issuance) of the ownership of a qualified tax credit
bond and the entitlement to the credit under this
section with respect to such bond. In case of any such
separation, the credit under this section shall be
allowed to the person who on the credit allowance date
holds the instrument evidencing the entitlement to the
credit and not to the holder of the bond.
(2) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a
separation described in paragraph (1), the rules of
section 1286 shall apply to the qualified tax credit
bond as if it were a stripped bond and to the credit
under this section as if it were a stripped coupon.
SEC. 54E. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.
(a) Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.--For purposes of this
subchapter, the term ``qualified zone academy bond'' means any
bond issued as part of an issue if--
(1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of
such issue are to be used for a qualified purpose with
respect to a qualified zone academy established by an
eligible local education agency,
(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such academy is
located, and
(3) the issuer--
(A) designates such bond for purposes of this
section, and
[(B) certifies that it has written assurances
that the private business contribution
requirement of subsection (b) will be met with
respect to such academy, and]
[(C)] (B) certifies that it has the written
approval of the eligible local education agency
for such bond issuance.
[(b) Private Business Contribution Requirement.--For purposes
of subsection (a), the private business contribution
requirement of this subsection is met with respect to any issue
if the eligible local education agency that established the
qualified zone academy has written commitments from private
entities to make qualified contributions having a present value
(as of the date of issuance of the issue) of not less than 10
percent of the proceeds of the issue.]
(c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
(1) National limitation.--There is a national zone
academy bond limitation for each calendar year. Such
limitation is $400,000,000 for 2008, $1,400,000,000 for
2009 and 2010, [and $400,000,000] $400,000,000 for
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 [and, except as
provided in paragraph (4), zero thereafter.], and
$1,400,000,000 for 2020 and each year thereafter.
(2) Allocation of limitation.--The national zone
academy bond limitation for a calendar year shall be
allocated by the Secretary among the States on the
basis of their respective populations of individuals
below the poverty line (as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget). The limitation amount allocated
to a State under the preceding sentence shall be
allocated by the State education agency to qualified
zone academies within such State.
(3) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during
any calendar year which may be designated under
subsection (a) with respect to any qualified zone
academy shall not exceed the limitation amount
allocated to such academy under paragraph (2) for such
calendar year.
(4) Carryover of unused limitation.--
(A) In general.--If for any calendar year--
(i) the limitation amount for any
State, exceeds
(ii) the amount of bonds issued
during such year which are designated
under subsection (a) with respect to
qualified zone academies within such
State,
the limitation amount for such State for the
following calendar year shall be increased by
the amount of such excess.
(B) Limitation on carryover.--Any
carryforward of a limitation amount may be
carried only to the first 2 years following the
unused limitation year. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, a limitation amount shall
be treated as used on a first-in first-out
basis.
(C) Coordination with section 1397E.--Any
carryover determined under section 1397E(e)(4)
(relating to carryover of unused limitation)
with respect to any State to calendar year 2008
or 2009 shall be treated for purposes of this
section as a carryover with respect to such
State for such calendar year under subparagraph
(A), and the limitation of subparagraph (B)
shall apply to such carryover taking into
account the calendar years to which such
carryover relates.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) Qualified zone academy.--The term ``qualified
zone academy'' means any public school (or academic
program within a public school) which is established by
and operated under the supervision of an eligible local
education agency to provide education or training below
the postsecondary level if--
(A) such public school or program (as the
case may be) is designed in cooperation with
business to enhance the academic curriculum,
increase graduation and employment rates, and
better prepare students for the rigors of
college and the increasingly complex workforce,
(B) students in such public school or program
(as the case may be) will be subject to the
same academic standards and assessments as
other students educated by the eligible local
education agency,
(C) the comprehensive education plan of such
public school or program is approved by the
eligible local education agency, and
(D)(i) such public school is located in an
empowerment zone or enterprise community
(including any such zone or community
designated after the date of the enactment of
this section), or
(ii) there is a reasonable
expectation (as of the date of issuance
of the bonds) that at least 35 percent
of the students attending such school
or participating in such program (as
the case may be) will be eligible for
free or reduced-cost lunches under the
school lunch program established under
the National School Lunch Act.
(2) Eligible local education agency.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``eligible local education
agency'' means any local educational agency as defined
in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
(3) Qualified purpose.--The term ``qualified
purpose'' means, with respect to any qualified zone
academy--
(A) [rehabilitating or repairing]
constructing, rehabilitating, retrofitting, or
repairing the public school facility in which
the academy is established,
(B) providing equipment for use at such
academy,
(C) developing course materials for education
to be provided at such academy, and
(D) training teachers and other school
personnel in such academy.
(4) Qualified contributions.--The term ``qualified
contribution'' means any contribution (of a type and
quality acceptable to the eligible local education
agency) of--
(A) equipment for use in the qualified zone
academy (including state-of-the-art technology
and vocational equipment),
(B) technical assistance in developing
curriculum or in training teachers in order to
promote appropriate market driven technology in
the classroom,
(C) services of employees as volunteer
mentors,
(D) internships, field trips, or other
educational opportunities outside the academy
for students, or
(E) any other property or service specified
by the eligible local education agency.
* * * * * * *
Subpart J--School Infrastructure Bonds
Sec. 54BB. School infrastructure bonds.
SEC. 54BB. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS.
(a) In General.--If a taxpayer holds a school infrastructure
bond on one or more interest payment dates of the bond during
any taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against
the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount
equal to the sum of the credits determined under subsection (b)
with respect to such dates.
(b) Amount of Credit.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any interest payment date
for a school infrastructure bond is 100 percent of the amount
of interest payable by the issuer with respect to such date.
(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess
of--
(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as
defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed
by section 55, over
(B) the sum of the credits allowable under
this part (other than subpart C and this
subpart).
(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation
imposed by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such
excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year
and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a)
for such taxable year (determined before the
application of paragraph (1) for such succeeding
taxable year).
(d) School Infrastructure Bond.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``school infrastructure bond'' means any bond
issued as part of an issue if--
(A) 100 percent of the available project
proceeds of such issue are to be used for the
purposes described in section 301 of the
Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019,
(B) the interest on such obligation would
(but for this section) be excludable from gross
income under section 103,
(C) the issue meets the requirements of
paragraph (3), and
(D) the issuer designates such bond for
purposes of this section.
(2) Applicable rules.--For purposes of applying
paragraph (1)--
(A) for purposes of section 149(b), a school
infrastructure bond shall not be treated as
federally guaranteed by reason of the credit
allowed under section 6431(a),
(B) for purposes of section 148, the yield on
a school infrastructure bond shall be
determined without regard to the credit allowed
under subsection (a), and
(C) a bond shall not be treated as a school
infrastructure bond if the issue price has more
than a de minimis amount (determined under
rules similar to the rules of section
1273(a)(3)) of premium over the stated
principal amount of the bond.
(3) 6-year expenditure period.--
(A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as
meeting the requirements of this paragraph if,
as of the date of issuance, the issuer
reasonably expects 100 percent of the available
project proceeds to be spent for purposes
described in section 301 of the Rebuild
America's Schools Act of 2019 within the 6-year
period beginning on such date of issuance.
(B) Failure to spend required amount of bond
proceeds within 6 years.--To the extent that
less than 100 percent of the available project
proceeds of the issue are expended at the close
of the period described in subparagraph (A)
with respect to such issue, the issuer shall
redeem all of the nonqualified bonds within 90
days after the end of such period. For purposes
of this paragraph, the amount of the
nonqualified bonds required to be redeemed
shall be determined in the same manner as under
section 142.
(e) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The maximum
aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any calendar year
which may be designated under subsection (d) by any issuer
shall not exceed the limitation amount allocated under
subsection (g) for such calendar year to such issuer.
(f) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The
national qualified school infrastructure bond limitation for
each calendar year is--
(1) $10,000,000,000 for 2020,
(2) $10,000,000,000 for 2021, and
(3) $10,000,000,000 for 2022.
(g) Allocation of Limitation.--
(1) Allocations.--
(A) States.--After application of
subparagraph (B) and paragraph (3)(A), the
limitation applicable under subsection (f) for
any calendar year shall be allocated by the
Secretary among the States in proportion to the
respective amounts received by all local
educational agencies in each State under part A
of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.)
for the previous fiscal year relative to the
total such amount received by all local
educational agencies in for the most recent
fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
(B) Certain possessions.--One-half of 1
percent of the amount of the limitation
applicable under subsection (f) for any
calendar year shall be allocated by the
Secretary to possessions of the United States
other than Puerto Rico for such calendar year
shall be one-half of 1 percent.
(2) Allocations to schools.--The limitation amount
allocated to a State or possession under paragraph (1)
shall be allocated by the State educational agency (or
such other agency as is authorized under State law to
make such allocation) to issuers within such State or
possession in accordance with the priorities described
in section 103(c) the of the Rebuild America's Schools
Act of 2019 and the eligibility requirements described
in section 103(b) of such Act, except that paragraph
(1)(C) of such section shall not apply to the
determination of eligibility for such allocation.
(3) Allocations for indian schools.--
(A) In general.--One-half of 1 percent of the
amount of the limitation applicable under
subsection (f) for any calendar year shall be
allocated by the Secretary to the Secretary of
the Interior for schools funded by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs for such calendar year.
(B) Allocation to schools.--The limitation
amount allocated to the Secretary of the
Interior under paragraph (1) shall be allocated
by such Secretary to issuers or schools funded
as described in paragraph (2). In the case of
amounts allocated under the preceding sentence,
Indian tribal governments (as defined in
section 7701(a)(40)) shall be treated as
qualified issuers for purposes of this
subchapter.
(4) Digital learning.--Up to 10 percent of the
limitation amount allocated under paragraph (1) or
(3)(A) may be allocated by the State to issuers within
such State to carry out activities to improve digital
learning in accordance with section 301(b) of the
Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019.
(h) Interest Payment Date.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``interest payment date'' means any date on which the
holder of record of the school infrastructure bond is entitled
to a payment of interest under such bond.
(i) Special Rules.--
(1) Interest on school infrastructure bonds
includible in gross income for federal income tax
purposes.--For purposes of this title, interest on any
school infrastructure bond shall be includible in gross
income.
(2) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to
the rules of subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) of
section 54A shall apply for purposes of the credit
allowed under subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Procedure and Administration
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 65--ABATEMENTS, CREDITS, AND REFUND
* * * * * * *
Subchapter B--Rules of Special Application
SEC. 6431. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED BONDS ALLOWED TO ISSUER.
(a) In General.--In the case of a qualified bond issued
before January 1, 2011, the issuer of such bond shall be
allowed a credit with respect to each interest payment under
such bond which shall be payable by the Secretary as provided
in subsection (b).
(b) Payment of Credit.--The Secretary shall pay
(contemporaneously with each interest payment date under such
bond) to the issuer of such bond (or to any person who makes
such interest payments on behalf of the issuer) 35 percent of
the interest payable under such bond on such date.
(c) Application of Arbitrage Rules.--For purposes of section
148, the yield on a qualified bond shall be reduced by the
credit allowed under this section.
(d) Interest Payment Date.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term ``interest payment date'' means each date on which
interest is payable by the issuer under the terms of the bond.
(e) Qualified Bond.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``qualified bond'' has the meaning given such term in
section 54AA(g).
(f) Application of Section to Certain Qualified Tax Credit
Bonds.--
(1) In general.--In the case of any specified tax
credit bond--
(A) such bond shall be treated as a qualified
bond for purposes of this section,
(B) subsection (a) shall be applied without
regard to the requirement that the qualified
bond be issued before January 1, 2011,
(C) the amount of the payment determined
under subsection (b) with respect to any
interest payment due under such bond shall be
equal to the lesser of--
(i) the amount of interest payable
under such bond on such date, or
(ii) the amount of interest which
would have been payable under such bond
on such date if such interest were
determined at the applicable credit
rate determined under section
54A(b)(3),
(D) interest on any such bond shall be
includible in gross income for purposes of this
title,
(E) no credit shall be allowed under section
54A with respect to such bond,
(F) any payment made under subsection (b)
shall not be includible as income for purposes
of this title, and
(G) the deduction otherwise allowed under
this title to the issuer of such bond with
respect to interest paid under such bond shall
be reduced by the amount of the payment made
under this section with respect to such
interest.
(2) Special rule for new clean renewable energy bonds
and qualified energy conservation bonds.--In the case
of any specified tax credit bond described in clause
(i) or (ii) of paragraph (3)(A), the amount determined
under paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall be 70 percent of the
amount so determined without regard to this paragraph
and sections 54C(b) and 54D(b).
(3) Specified tax credit bond.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``specified tax credit bond''
means any school infrastructure bond (as defined in
section 54BB) or any qualified tax credit bond (as
defined in section 54A(d)) if--
(A) such bond is--
(i) a new clean renewable energy bond
(as defined in section 54C),
(ii) a qualified energy conservation
bond (as defined in section 54D),
(iii) a qualified zone academy bond
(as defined in section 54E) determined
without regard to any allocation
relating to the national zone academy
bond limitation for years after 2010 or
any carryforward of any such
allocation, or
(iv) a qualified school construction
bond (as defined in section 54F), and
(B) the issuer of such bond makes an
irrevocable election to have this subsection
apply.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1601 OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT TAX ACT OF 2009
SEC. 1601. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LABOR STANDARDS TO PROJECTS FINANCED
WITH CERTAIN TAX-FAVORED BONDS
Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of the title 40, United States
Code, shall apply to projects financed with the proceeds of--
(1) any new clean renewable energy bond (as defined
in section 54C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
issued after the date of the enactment of this Act,
(2) any qualified energy conservation bond (as
defined in section 54D of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) issued after the date of the enactment of this
Act,
[(3) any qualified zone academy bond (as defined in
section 54E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
issued after the date of the enactment of this Act,]
[(4)] (3) any qualified school construction bond (as
defined in section 54F of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986), and
[(5)] (4) any recovery zone economic development bond
(as defined in section 1400U-2 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986).
----------
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--IMPACT AID
* * * * * * *
SEC. 7014. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Payments for Federal Acquisition of Real Property.--For
the purpose of making payments under section 7002, there are
authorized to be appropriated $66,813,000 for each of fiscal
years 2017 through 2019, and $71,997,917 for fiscal year 2020.
(b) Basic Payments; Payments for Heavily Impacted Local
Educational Agencies.--For the purpose of making payments under
section 7003(b), there are authorized to be appropriated
$1,151,233,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, and
$1,240,572,618 for fiscal year 2020.
(c) Payments for Children With Disabilities.--For the purpose
of making payments under section 7003(d), there are authorized
to be appropriated $48,316,000 for each of fiscal years 2017
through 2019, and $52,065,487 for fiscal year 2020.
[(d) Construction.--For the purpose of carrying out section
7007, there are authorized to be appropriated $17,406,000 for
each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, and $18,756,765 for
fiscal year 2020.]
(d) Construction For the purpose of carrying out section
7007, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024.
(e) Facilities Maintenance.--For the purpose of carrying out
section 7008, there are authorized to be appropriated
$4,835,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, and
$5,210,213 for fiscal year 2020.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
All students deserve access to an excellent education that
prepares them for postsecondary success. This includes
attending schools with adequate facilities to support teaching
and learning. The condition of America's public school
facilities appears mixed. A 2014 study from NCES surveyed local
school districts and found that 53 percent of public schools
needed repairs, renovations, and modernizations, and that an
estimated $197 billion would be needed to bring all public
schools into good condition.\1\ However, that same report
indicated that only 3 percent of public school buildings were
described as being in poor condition while 76 percent were
described as being in excellent or good condition.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 2012-2013, page
3. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf
\2\Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 2012-2013, page
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government funds the Impact Aid Construction
program, which provides funding to school districts to build
and repair schools impacted by the loss of tax revenue because
of the presence of the federal government. In most cases, the
federal government also exempts interest income from municipal
bonds, including municipal bonds used to finance school
construction projects, from federal income tax. A handful of
small funding streams in specialized programs in various
agencies throughout the federal government can also be used to
build, repair, or modernize facilities. Otherwise, the federal
government has traditionally played a very limited role in
school construction.
This is because building and repairing public school
facilities has appropriately been primarily a state and local
responsibility. H.R. 865, the Rebuild America's Schools Act,
would, in theory, dramatically expand the federal government's
financial and regulatory role in school construction. In
reality, it would amount to another broken promise from the
federal government.
BROKEN PROMISES
Congress has made promises regarding school construction
before. Twenty-five years ago, Congress enacted H.R. 6, the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), to reauthorize
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Included
within the IASA was the Education Infrastructure Act of 1994,
which authorized the Secretary to award grants to school
districts ``to ensure the health and safety of students through
the repair, renovation, alteration, and construction of a
public elementary or secondary school library, media center, or
facility, used for academic or vocational instruction.''\3\
School districts were eligible for grants based on their
population of low-income students, a lack of local fiscal
capacity, and the current state of the public school facilities
in the district. In other words, while some of the details were
different, the program authorized by Congress 25 years ago was
almost identical in effect to the program proposed in the
Rebuild America's Schools Act. What effect did the 1994 program
have on school district facilities and student achievement?
None. No school district ever saw a dime, because the program
was never appropriated a single dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. Section 12007(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, this is the not the only commitment Congress has
failed to keep. In 1975, Congress enacted the predecessor to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In that
law, Congress promised a maximum grant to every state equal to
40 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure
(APPE). When Republicans took over the House in 1995 for the
first time in more than 40 years, and nearly 20 years after
IDEA was originally enacted, the federal government was funding
IDEA at 8 percent of the national APPE and Republicans more
than doubled that contribution. When Democrats regained the
majority in 2007, the federal government was funding IDEA at 17
percent of the national APPE. Unfortunately, the federal
government's contribution has steadily declined since then. In
fiscal year (FY) 2019 the federal government is funding IDEA at
about 14 percent of the national APPE.
Why has funding progress on this core program stalled?
Because Democrats have pursued other agendas. For example, in
FYs 2012 and 2013, Republicans controlled the House, but
Democrats controlled the Senate and the White House. In FY
2012, IDEA was funded at $11.578 billion. The Republican House
proposal for FY 2013 was $12.078 billion while President Obama
proposed flat funding and Senate Democrats proposed a modest
increase to $11.678 billion. The President's level-funding
proposal was enacted.
Where did funding increases for the Department of Education
go? Among other places, Democrats in Congress and the White
House spent nearly $6 billion on Race to the Top, a program
used to coerce states into sweeping policy changes, but which
provided actual funding to only a lucky few school districts
nationwide. Republicans have consistently prioritized IDEA
while Democrats have shortchanged this core program to fund
their own pet projects.
Now here we are again. The Democrats are advancing H.R.
865, yet another federal program at the Department of Education
to address a local challenge. This story will end in one of two
ways. One, this school construction program will follow in the
footsteps of its predecessor and never receive funding. Or two,
this program will receive some funding and some community
somewhere will benefit, while special education students
everywhere else continue to be shortchanged.
INCREASED COSTS AND BURDENS
In the unlikely event this bill is enacted and funded,
states and school districts will face a sobering reality. As
with so many other programs, the federal government offers
money then hides within the bill regulatory and compliance
burdens that will increase costs and make it harder for states
and school districts to take necessary steps to improve their
public school facilities.
This bill contains numerous regulatory burdens that will
increase costs to states and school districts, including the
following:
States are required to create, maintain, and
update every two years a database containing detailed
information on every public school facility in the state. It is
unlikely any current state meets this requirement.
The database must comply with national data
standards established by the Secretary.
The database must include information on 31
elements for every public school in the state.
States must develop regulations on 28 different
elements of a state's school renovation and construction work.
States must submit a state plan for how funds
will be spent.
The Secretary is authorized to request any
information he or she chooses in the state plan,
whether or not the information is relevant to the
state's school construction and renovation work.
States are required to maintain at least 90
percent of the average fiscal effort for capital expenditures
over the previous five years.
School districts receiving grants are required
to create a 10-year facilities master plan that includes 52
elements for every public school facility in the district.
States and school districts are required to
submit information for separate reports by the Secretary, the
Government Accountability Office, and the Institute of
Education Sciences.
A precise count of the reporting elements
collectively required in these reports is impossible
because there would be some variation between school
districts, but for most school districts the number of
elements would easily exceed 50.
School districts would be required to ensure
that projects are certified ``green'' and meet national
building, water conservation, and energy conservation codes
(that might not match the state's regulations also required in
the bill).
Again, H.R. 865 is the wrong answer. This bill will, under
a best case scenario, provide funding to a handful of school
districts in exchange for increased costs and regulatory
burdens for everyone. Committee Republicans believe there is a
better way.
OPPORTUNITY ZONES
In the 115th Congress, Republicans enacted, as part of the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, historic bipartisan reforms to
potentially unleash trillions of dollars in private capital
into communities left behind during the current economic
expansion. Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ)
championed the provision they and many others saw as an
innovative way to break the cycle of failed government programs
by using the energy and ingenuity of the private sector to
revitalize communities.
Under the program, governors nominate, and the Internal
Revenue Service certifies, communities as Opportunity Zones. To
be nominated and certified, a community must have a poverty
rate of 20 percent or higher or a median household income that
is less than 80 percent of the surrounding area. Governors are
allowed to designate 25 percent of a state's eligible
communities as Opportunity Zones. As of December 2018, 8,763
low-income communities had been designated as Opportunity
Zones, representing all 50 States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. An
estimated $6.1 trillion of paper profits currently rests on
American corporate balance sheets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\``An Unlikely Group of Billionaires and Politicians Has Created
the Most Unbelievable Tax Break Ever.'' Forbes. July 18, 2018. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/17/an-unlikely-group-
of-billionaires-and-politicians-has-created-the-most-unbelievable-tax-
break-ever/#29f02e941485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Opportunity Zones provision would provide tax
incentives for much of that capital to be reinvested in
Opportunity Funds that would in turn invest in communities
designated as Opportunity Zones. Investments in so-called vice
businesses (e.g., liquor stores) are prohibited, but beyond
that, investment opportunities are open-ended.
Decades of top-down mandates from Washington have failed to
revitalize communities, and those communities are desperate for
new solutions driven by local leaders working with local
citizens to address local needs. Schools are integral parts of
communities, and a key part of communities' economic and
workforce development efforts could be modernizing school
facilities through the Opportunity Zones provision of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 865
On February 26, 2019, the House Committee on Education and
Labor met to mark up H.R. 865.
REJECTED AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE BILL
During consideration of H.R. 865, Committee Republicans
offered several amendments to improve the bill. Unfortunately,
the amendments were rejected by the Democrats. Those amendments
were as follows:
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) offered an amendment
that would have ensured rural school districts received a fair
share of funds under the program. Rural school districts are
often at a disadvantage when states award grants competitively.
Rural districts lack the capacity to dedicate staff resources
to comply with application processes. Unfortunately, the
majority chose not to protect these districts and rejected the
amendment by a vote of 20-26.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY) offered an amendment to
ensure funds would only be awarded under the bill after an
independent auditor certifies the bill will not raise costs on
states and school districts. As outlined before, the bill
contains numerous provisions that will increase the regulatory
burden on states and districts and increase the costs of
construction projects. Rep. Comer's amendment would have
provided vital protection against these increased costs for
states and school districts but was rejected by the majority by
a vote of 20-26.
Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) offered an amendment to
ensure no funds under the bill could be used for lobbying
activities. If this bill is ever funded, then those funds
should be used by school districts to renovate or construct
schools. This amendment would have protected taxpayers from the
misuse of federal funds, but the majority rejected the
amendment by voice vote.
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) offered an amendment
that would have prohibited funds from being awarded under the
bill until the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, certifies the bill's green
requirements would not add to states' and school districts'
costs. The majority rejected this effort to protect states and
school districts from a portion of the regulatory burdens in
this bill by a vote of 20-26.
Ranking Member Virginia Foxx (R-NC) offered an
amendment to rename the bill the Trojan Horse Act. Too often,
Congress enacts bills with promises of new funding while
downplaying the ways it would increase costs. This amendment
would have ensured states and school districts understand that
the bill's promised funding also brings hidden costs and
regulatory burdens that would overwhelm them with red tape.
Unprecedented Attack on Minority Rights
The majority also took unprecedented steps to stifle debate
and trample on the rights of the minority. Two amendments were
ruled non-germane that were demonstrably germane; both were
offered by Republicans.
First, Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) offered an amendment to
ensure no state or school district could be denied funding
under the bill based on the state's or school district's
decision to permit teachers or other school personnel from
possessing firearms on school grounds. Second, Rep. Ron Wright
(R-TX) offered an amendment to prohibit school districts from
receiving funds under the bill unless the school district has
and follows a policy that prohibits the hiring of any
individual required to register as a sex offender. Based on
conversations with the House parliamentarians and on the long
precedents of this Committee, Committee Republicans believe
ruling these amendments non-germane was and remains
indefensible.
With respect to Rep. Allen's amendment, negative rules of
construction have a long history of being considered germane,
regardless of topic, as they by nature construe the text of the
underlying legislation. In addition, the amendment addresses a
specific weakness in the underlying bill. In section
102(b)(1)(E) of the manager's amendment offered by Chairman
Bobby Scott (D-VA), the Secretary is given authority to request
in state plans ``such other information as the Secretary may
require.'' This language gives the Secretary open-ended
authority to add state plan requirements. A Secretary would be
well within her or his authority to demand a state include in
its state plan a description of how the state will avoid
awarding grants to school districts that choose to permit
teachers or other school personnel to possess firearms on
school grounds.
With respect to Rep. Wright's amendment, additional plan
and eligibility requirements for federal grants also have a
long history of being considered germane as conditions and
qualifications. Here, too, the amendment addresses specific
provisions of the underlying bill. The amendment adds a new
state plan requirement and school district eligibility
criterion that is related to the purpose of the bill, which is
ensuring the safety of children in facilities under
construction from those performing the work. The underlying
bill does not limit its requirements only to those related
specifically to the authorized activities under the bill. The
aforementioned provision in section 102(b)(1)(E) does not limit
the Secretary's open-ended authority to add requirements to the
plan only to those that would be specifically related to school
construction.
The rulings of these amendments as non-germane represent an
abuse of the majority's power. We urge the majority to return
to Committee precedent.
In addition, Rep. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson (R-PA) offered an
amendment that would have forced Congress to live up to its
commitment under IDEA before funds could be awarded under this
bill. Committee Republicans note that the substance of this
amendment and a similar amendment related to Title I of the
ESEA were offered and voted on during consideration of another
school construction bill, H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, during the 111th
Congress. During this markup though, the majority ruled this
amendment not germane. Given Congress's long record of broken
promises, Committee Republicans believe any bill proposing
massive new spending and regulatory burdens should include a
debate about existing unfulfilled obligations.
Our Committee has always been willing to debate difficult
issues. We have understood that an open debate and amendment
process gives every Member a chance for his or her voice to be
heard and strengthens legislation before it is reported for
consideration by the whole House. We urge the majority to
respect this tradition.
ADOPTED AMENDMENTS THAT WILL IMPROVE THE BILL
Multiple worthwhile amendments were adopted, including one
offered by Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT). Her amendment will ensure
that no funds will be awarded to a charter school if the
building is owned by an individual or private sector entity
with a management or governance role in the charter school. The
amendment was adopted by a voice vote. Committee Republicans
agree that conflicts of interest should be avoided. We do note,
however, that charter schools often struggle to support
construction and renovation of facilities because they do not
possess the same capacity for raising capital as traditional
school districts. While it is unlikely this program will ever
be funded, if funds are appropriated and grants awarded,
Committee Republicans urge school districts to consult with
charter schools and include charter schools in their plans.
CONCLUSION
As outlined in these Minority Views, H.R. 865 presents us a
choice. We can try the same old approach that has failed
literally for decades. That approach demands more sacrifice
from taxpayers, offers more regulations from Washington, and
makes promises we know will not be kept. That is the Democrat
way.
The Republican way is to give communities the tools they
need to unleash innovation, investment, and revitalization,
with the flexibility to tailor local solutions for local
challenges. For this reason, Congress should reject H.R. 865,
so that Democrats and Republicans can work across the aisle to
pursue strategies that will work.
Virginia Foxx,
Ranking Member.
David P. Roe, M.D.
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson.
Tim Walberg.
Brett Guthrie.
Bradley Byrne.
Glenn Grothman.
Elise M. Stefanik.
Rick W. Allen.
Jim Banks.
Lloyd Smucker.
James Comer.
Mark Walker.
Russ Fulcher.
Ron Wright.
Daniel Meuser.
Dusty Johnson.
Fred Keller.
Gregory F. Murphy.
[all]
