[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2416-S2425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 456. A bill to establish a partnership to rebuild and modernize 
America's school facilities; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


        THE PARTNERSHIP TO REBUILD AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1997

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send to the desk, and I am 
pleased to introduce, along with a number of my colleagues, the 
Partnership To Rebuild America's School Act of 1997. This legislation 
is designed to address one of the most fundamental problems that we 
currently face as a nation with regard to public elementary and 
secondary education: many of our schools are literally falling down 
around our children. This legislation will help us address this 
problem, the crisis of crumbling schools in America.
  On Friday, the President officially transmitted this legislation to 
the Congress. The bill is the result of months of work by the 
Department of Education, the Department of the Treasury, the White 
House, my office, and a number of other congressional offices.
  At the outset, I commend and thank everyone who has participated in 
the development of this legislation for their efforts.
  Mr. President, the Partnership To Rebuild America's Schools Act of 
1997 will help States and local school districts finance the repair, 
renovation, modernization and construction of their schools. States and 
school districts will be able to use the Federal funds to assist them 
in financing their highest priority projects.
  This bill will allow school districts to do more of what they need to 
be doing, educating our children for the 21st century.
  In America, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity are still crafted 
in the classroom. High school graduates earn, on average, 46 percent 
more every year than those who do not graduate. College graduates earn 
155 percent more every year than those who do not graduate from high 
school. Over the course of a lifetime, the most educated Americans will 
earn five times as much as the least educated.
  Education, however, is not just a matter of individual benefit. It is 
a public good as well. It affects and correlates to the status and the 
quality of life for our entire community. It correlates to just about 
every indicia of economic and social well-being. Educational attainment 
can be directly tied to income, health, the likelihood of being on 
welfare, the likelihood of being incarcerated, and the likelihood of 
voting and participating in our democracy. Education, therefore, has 
both national as well as individual implications.
  In a recent Wall Street Journal survey of leading U.S. economists, 43 
percent of those surveyed said the single most important thing that we 
could do to increase our long-term economic growth rate would be to 
invest more in education and research and development. Nothing else 
even came close to education in the survey. One economist said, ``One 
of the few things that economists will agree upon is the fact that 
economic growth is very strongly dependent on our own abilities.''
  In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton noted that 
education is a critical national security issue for our future. I 
believe this notion should be at the heart of our debate over 
education.
  In order to compete with cheap, Third World labor in a global 
economy, in an information age, and to maintain the standard of living 
to which we have grown accustomed as Americans, we will have to have a 
work force that works smarter, that works better, that can hold its own 
in this global economy at the high end of the productivity scale.
  So education then becomes a matter of national concern and, indeed, 
as the President pointed out, a matter of our national security, 
because it is directly linked to our ability to be able to maintain the 
standard of living that we have come to appreciate as Americans and our 
ability to compete in this global marketplace.
  We all have a role to play. That is why this legislation starts off 
calling itself a partnership, because there must be a partnership 
between State, local and National Government to

[[Page S2417]]

meet the challenge that this global economy, and changes in the world, 
have given us all to face.
  The Partnership To Rebuild America's Schools Act of 1997 will help us 
to meet the challenge by investing in education in ways that preserve 
the fundamental tenet of local control of education.
  By investing in bricks and mortar the Federal Government can 
contribute to a more balanced partnership among all levels of 
Government and in the private sector to rebuild and modernize our 
schools so they can serve all of our children in the 21st century. This 
legislation strikes that balance. This legislation does preserve local 
control, but, much to the point, it says that we at the national level 
have an obligation to participate in addressing those needs that can be 
most appropriately addressed at the national level; and that is 
rebuilding our crumbling schools.
  The bill uses 5 billion Federal dollars to leverage an additional $15 
billion worth of State, local and private resources. Half of the money 
will be apportioned to States using the existing Title I basic grants 
formula. The remainder will flow directly to the 100 school districts 
in the country with the largest numbers of children living below the 
poverty level.

  Of the amount available for direct assistance to these impoverished 
communities, the Department of Education will apportion 70 percent by 
formula and will make the remaining 30 percent available on a 
competitive basis.
  In addition, the bill will allocate 2 percent of the funds to the 
Secretary of the Interior for administration to Indian schools and to 
the Secretary of Education for the outlying territories.
  Under both the State and local programs, States and school districts 
would have an enormous amount of flexibility in the use of these 
Federal funds to help finance school improvement projects. They could 
use the funds to subsidize State or local bond issues, certificates of 
participation, purchase or lease agreements, or other financial 
transactions used to finance school improvements.
  In addition, the States would be allowed to capitalize on entities 
similar to the State infrastructure banks which are currently used by a 
number of States to help finance highway improvement projects. These 
infrastructure banks could be used to leverage additional resources.
  This program is designed to stimulate new construction and 
renovation, and there are specific provisions in the bill to ensure 
that Federal funds are not used simply to finance school improvements 
that would have occurred anyway. The bill is designed to fill a real 
need that exists at both the State and local levels for school 
financing assistance, not to supplement districts that would have 
otherwise been able to finance their projects.
  It is carefully crafted to minimize administrative costs at the 
Federal level and to maximize local control over decisions that must be 
made with regard to school improvements.
  States and districts will be required to submit applications to the 
Secretary of Education describing their needs and the process that will 
be used to award the Federal funds. Once these applications are 
approved, grantees will immediately receive the full share of the $5 
billion.
  In addition, other than following certain criteria, States and local 
districts will be free to finance their top-priority projects. The 
Federal Government will not be in the business of dictating priorities 
and needs to State and local school districts who know their schools 
best.
  This bill helps address a need that has completely overwhelmed States 
and local school districts. The magnitude of the school facilities 
problem is so great today that many districts cannot maintain the kind 
of educational environment necessary to teach all of our children the 
kind of skills they will need to compete in the 21st century, global 
economy.
  The U.S. General Accounting Office, which at my request conducted an 
intensive 2-year study of the condition of America's schools, recently 
concluded that 14 million children attend schools in need of major 
renovations or outright replacement, and 7 million children attend 
schools with life-threatening safety code violations. They found that 
it will cost $112 billion to essentially bring schools up to code, not 
to equip them with new computers and cosmetic improvements, but just to 
address the toll that decades of deferred maintenance have taken on our 
Nation's school facilities.
  That $112 billion price tag, as enormous as it may sound, does not 
include the cost of wiring schools for modern technology. One of the 
greatest barriers to the incorporation of modern computers into the 
classroom is the physical condition of many school buildings. You 
cannot very well use a computer if you do not have the electrical 
system to plug it into the wall. Too many schools across the country do 
not have the physical capacity to provide our youngsters with the 
instruments they will need in order to be educated for this information 
age.
  According to the General Accounting Office, almost half of all 
schools lack enough electrical power for the full-scale use of 
computers, 60 percent of them lack enough conduits in the walls 
to connect classroom computers to a network, and more than 60 percent 
lack enough phone lines for instructional use.

  For this generation, computers really are the functional equivalent 
of books. My son sometimes is amazed that computers were not around 
when I was in school. The fact of the matter is, though, that many of 
our schools were built before the advent of these technologies, and 
they have not been upgraded so that modern teaching tools can be used 
in the classroom. Our youngsters need modern technology if they are to 
be prepared for this information age and for this global economy.
  That $112 billion price tag also does not include the cost of 
expanding capacity to accommodate soaring enrollments. According to the 
U.S. Department of Education, just to keep up with growing enrollment, 
we will need to build 6,000 new schools over the next 10 years.
  Teachers and parents know full well that these conditions directly 
affect the ability of children to learn. Recent research, however, has 
lent scientific proof to that intuitive knowledge. Two separate studies 
found a 10 to 11 percent achievement gap between students in good 
school buildings and those in poor school buildings after controlling 
for all other factors.
  Other studies have found that when buildings are in poor condition, 
students are more likely to misbehave. That should come as no surprise 
to parents. Three leading researchers in this area recently concluded, 
``Based on our research, there is no doubt that building condition 
affects academic performance.''
  Mr. President, this legislation is in the interest, I believe, of not 
just the children of America who have to go to these school buildings, 
many of which are dilapidated and rundown and neglected, but it is also 
in the interest of communities that will need the help to finance 
school repairs, and it is in the interest of our Nation that will need 
to have an educated work force.
  Mr. President, the current system of school finance, which relies 
primarily on local property taxes, is not flexible enough to meet the 
enormous needs of our Nation's schools. This country, I believe, needs 
a new approach to solve the problem of crumbling schools, a partnership 
among all levels of government and the private sector that preserves 
local control of education, but creates some balance, and infuses, 
frankly, a little more reason into our school finance system that does 
not now adequately serve the schools, the children, the country, or the 
local property taxpayers.
  The Department of Education has looked closely at a number of 
communities around the country and assessed the effect that this 
legislation would have on their ability to finance their construction 
needs. The Department looked at, for example, Los Angeles. Most of the 
school buildings there are more than 40 years old and are not wired for 
technology. Mr. President, 245 schools need roof replacements, and 50 
of them need new boilers. According to the Department, this legislation 
could accelerate many long overdue projects and facilitate the passage 
of bond referenda at the local level.
  The Department also looked at the State of Maine, which has many 100-
year-old buildings and one-room

[[Page S2418]]

schoolhouses. According to the Department, most districts in that State 
cannot cover the total cost of bonds issued to finance repair and 
modernization projects. Again, this legislation would allow needed 
projects to go forward.
  The Department also looked at a school district in southern Florida 
suffering from severe overcrowding. Mr. President, 34,000 students in 
that district do not have permanent desks. There are 10,000 new 
students added to the system each year. The district would have to 
build a new school every month to keep up with this demand. According 
to the Department this legislation will help this district move away 
from the use of portable classrooms, which do not provide as conducive 
a learning environment as real schools.
  My own State of Illinois would benefit greatly from this legislation. 
As the GAO reported last week, my State has unfortunately one of the 
most inequitable school finance systems in the Nation. With a low State 
contribution to school resources, and with a poor State effort to 
target funds to the neediest districts, local property taxpayers in 
Illinois are saddled with almost 60 percent of the costs of educating 
their children. It is no wonder, then, that the State board of 
education estimates that Illinois' construction needs are $13 billion. 
Too many of Illinois' school districts have a difficult time even 
providing textbooks and pencils, let alone major capital improvements. 
This legislation would free up local resources in Illinois for 
education by providing Federal support for the construction, 
rehabilitation and renovation of the school buildings.
  I urge all my colleagues to take a close look at the needs of the 
schools in their States and consider joining us in cosponsoring this 
legislation. This initiative is not about partisan politics. In fact, I 
think most Americans would agree wholeheartedly with the President when 
he said that partisan politics should stop at the schoolhouse door. 
This is something that transcends partisan differences and goes to the 
heart of our ability to provide for our children's well-being and their 
needs going into the 21st century.
  Congress has a unique opportunity to take a fundamentally new 
approach to improving the quality of elementary and secondary 
education. This bill represents a chance to improve our system of 
school finance and help prepare our children for the 21st century. I 
believe this will be welcomed by taxpayers at the local level, 
particularly those who, at this point, are unfairly burdened with the 
costs of trying to keep up a school system that deserves the support of 
all levels of government in our country.
  Mr. President, I have several documents from the Department of 
Education that I would like to have printed in the Record. I have the 
letter of transmittal from the Secretary of Education to the President 
of the Senate, a fact sheet regarding the correlation between building 
conditions and student achievement, and seven case studies assessing 
the impact this legislation would have on communities across America. I 
ask unanimous consent that these materials, as well as the text of the 
bill itself, be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 456

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
     Act may be cited as the ``Partnership to Rebuild America's 
     Schools Act of 1997.''

            TITLE I--SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

SEC. 101. The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

            TITLE I--SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Sec. 101. Table of contents.

                       Part 1--Program Authorized

Sec. 102. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
Sec. 104. Funds appropriated.
Sec. 105. Allocation of funds.

                        Part 2--Grants to States

Sec. 111. Allocation of funds.
Sec. 112. Eligible State agency.
Sec. 113. Allowable uses of funds.
Sec. 114. Eligible construction projects; period for initiation.
Sec. 115. Selection of localities and projects.
Sec. 116. State applications.
Sec. 117. Amount of Federal subsidy.
Sec. 118. Separate funds or accounts; prudent investment.
Sec. 119. State reports.

          Part 3--Direct Grants to Local Educational Agencies

Sec. 121. Eligible local educational agencies.
Sec. 122. Grantees.
Sec. 123. Allowable uses of funds.
Sec. 124. Eligible construction projects; redistribution.
Sec. 125. Local applications.
Sec. 126. Formula grants.
Sec. 127. Competitive grants.
Sec. 128. Amount of Federal subsidy.
Sec. 129. Separate funds or accounts; prudent investment.
Sec. 130. Local reports.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Technical employees.
Sec. 202. Wage rates.
Sec. 203. No liability of Federal Government.
Sec. 204. Consultation with Secretary of the Treasury.

                       Part 1--Program Authorized


                          findings and purpose

       Sec. 102. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) According to the General Accounting Office, one-third 
     of all elementary and secondary schools in the United States, 
     serving 14,000,000 students, need extensive repair or 
     renovation.
       (2) School infrastructure problems exist across the 
     country, but are most severe in central cities and in schools 
     with high proportions of poor and minority children.
       (3) Many States and school districts will need to build new 
     schools in order to accommodate increasing student 
     enrollments; the Department of Education has predicted that 
     the Nation will need 6,000 more schools by the year 2006.
       (4) Many schools do not have the physical infrastructure to 
     take advantage of computers and other technology needed to 
     meet the challenges of the next century.
       (5) While school construction and maintenance are primarily 
     a State and local concern, States and communities have not, 
     on their own, met the increasing burden of 
     providing acceptable school facilities for all students, 
     and the poorest communities have had the greatest 
     difficulty meeting this need.
       (6) The Federal Government, by providing interest subsidies 
     and similar types of support, can lower the costs of State 
     and local school infrastructure investment, creating an 
     incentive for States and localities to increase their own 
     infrastructure improvement efforts and helping ensure that 
     all students are able to attend schools that are equipped for 
     the 21st century.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide Federal 
     interest subsidies, or similar assistance, to States and 
     localities to help them bring all public school facilities up 
     to an acceptable standard and build the additional public 
     schools needed to educate the additional numbers of students 
     who will enroll in the next decade.


                              definitions

       Sec. 103. Except as otherwise provided, as used in this 
     Act, the following terms have the following meanings:
       (1) Charter school.--The term ``charter school'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 10306(1) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8066(1)).
       (2) Community school.--The term ``community school'' means 
     a school, or part of a school, that serves as a center for 
     after-school and summer programs and the delivery of 
     education, tutoring, cultural, and recreational services, and 
     as a safe haven for all members of the community by--
       (A) collaborating with other public and private nonprofit 
     agencies (including libraries and other educational, human-
     service, cultural, and recreational entities) and private 
     businesses in the provision of services;
       (B) providing services such as literacy and reading 
     programs; senior citizen programs; children's day-care 
     services; nutrition services; services for individuals with 
     disabilities; employment counseling, training, and placement; 
     and other educational, health, cultural, and recreational 
     services; and
       (C) providing those services outside the normal school day 
     and school year, such as through safe and drug-free safe 
     havens for learning.
       (3)(A) Construction.--The term ``construction' means----
       (i) the preparation of drawings and specifications for 
     school facilities;
       (ii) erecting, building, acquiring, remodeling, renovating, 
     improving, repairing, or extending school facilities;
       (iii) demolition, in preparation for rebuilding school 
     facilities; and
       (iv) the inspection and supervision of the construction of 
     school facilities.
       (B) The term ``construction'' does not include the 
     acquisition of any interest in real property.
       (4) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 14101(18) 
     (A) and (B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801(18) (A) and (B)).
       (5) School facility.--(A) The term ``school facility'' 
     means--
       (i) a public structure suitable for use as a classroom, 
     laboratory, library, media center, or related facility, whose 
     primary purpose is the instruction of public elementary or 
     secondary students; and

[[Page S2419]]

       (ii) initial equipment, machinery, and utilities necessary 
     or appropriate for school purposes.
       (B) The term ``school facility'' does not include an 
     athletic stadium, or any other structure or facility intended 
     primarily for athletic exhibitions, contests, games, or 
     events for which admission is charged to the general public.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States 
     and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (8) State educational agency.--The term ``State educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 14101(28) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 8801(28)).


                           funds appropriated

       Sec. 104. There are appropriated $5,000,000,000 for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act, which shall be available 
     for obligation by the Secretary of Education from October 1, 
     1997 until September 30, 2001.


                          allocation of funds

       Sec. 105. (a) Reservation for the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Outlying Areas.--(1) The Secretary shall reserve up 
     to two percent of the funds appropriated by section 104 to--
       (A) provide assistance to the Secretary of the Interior, 
     which the Secretary of the Interior shall use for the school 
     construction priorities described in section 1125(c) of the 
     Education Amendment of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2005(c)); and
       (B) make grants to America Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, 
     and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, in 
     accordance with their respective needs, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Grants provided under paragraph (1)(B) shall be used 
     for activities that the Secretary determines best meet the 
     school infrastructure needs of the areas identified in that 
     paragraph, subject to the terms and conditions, consistent 
     with the purpose of this Act, that the Secretary may 
     establish.
       (b) Allocation of Remaining Funds.--Of the remaining funds 
     appropriated by section 104--
       (1) 50 percent shall be used for formula grants to States 
     under section 111;
       (2) 35 percent shall be used for direct formula grants to 
     local educational agencies under section 126; and
       (3) 15 percent shall be used for competitive grants to 
     local educational agencies under section 127.

                        Part 2--Grants to States


                          allocation of funds

       Sec. 111. (A) Formula Grants to States.--Subject to 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall allocate the funds 
     available under section 105(b)(1) among the States in 
     proportion to the relative amounts each State would have 
     received for Basic Grants under subpart 2 of part A of title 
     I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year if the 
     Secretary had disregarded the numbers of children counted 
     under that subpart who were enrolled in schools of local 
     educational agencies that are eligible to receive direct 
     grants under section 126 of this Act.
       (b) Adjustments to Allocations.--The Secretary shall adjust 
     the allocations under subsection (a), as necessary, to ensure 
     that, of the total amount allocated to State under subsection 
     (a) and to local educational agencies under section 126, the 
     percentage allocated to a State under this section and to 
     localities in the State under section 126 is at least the 
     minimum percentage for the State described in section 1124(d) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 6334(d)) for the previous fiscal year.
       (c) Reallocations.--If a State does not apply for its 
     allocation, applies for less than its full allocation, or 
     fails to submit an approvable application, the Secretary may 
     reallocate all or a portion of the State's allocation, as the 
     case may be, to the remaining States in the same proportions 
     as the original allocations were made to those States under 
     subsections (a) and (b).


                         eligible state agency

       Sec. 112. The Secretary shall award each State's grant to 
     the State agency, such as a State educational agency, a State 
     school construction agency, or a State bond bank, that the 
     Governor, with the agreement of the chief State school 
     officer, designates as best able to administer the grant.


                        allowable uses of funds

       Sec. 113. Each State shall use its grant under this part 
     only for one or more of the following activities to subsidize 
     the cost of eligible school construction projects described 
     in section 114:
       (1) Providing a portion of the interest cost (or of another 
     financing cost approved by the Secretary) on bonds, 
     certificates of participation, purchase or lease 
     arrangements, or other forms of indebtedness issued or 
     entered into by a State or its instrumentality for the 
     purpose of financing eligible projects.
       (2) State-level expenditures approved by the Secretary for 
     credit enhancement for the debt or financing instruments 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Making subgrants, or making loans through a State 
     revolving fund, to local educational agencies or (with the 
     agreement of the affected local educational agency) to other 
     qualified public agencies to subsidize--
       (A) the interest cost (or another financing cost approved 
     by the Secretary) of bonds, certificates of participation, 
     purchase or lease arrangements, or other forms of 
     indebtedness issued or entered into by a local educational 
     agency or other agency or unit of local government for the 
     purpose of financing eligible projects; or
       (B) local expenditures approved by the Secretary for credit 
     enhancement for the debt or financing instruments described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       (4) Other State and local expenditures approved by the 
     Secretary that leverage funds for additional school 
     construction.


         eligible construction projects; period for initiation

       Sec. 114 (a) Eligible Projects.--States and their 
     subgrantees may use funds under this part, in accordance with 
     section 113, to subsidize the cost of--
       (1) construction of elementary and secondary school 
     facilities in order to ensure the health and safety of all 
     students, which may include the removal of environmental 
     hazards; improvements in air quality, plumbing, lighting, 
     heating and air conditioning, electrical systems, or basic 
     school infrastructure; and building improvements that 
     increase school safety;
       (2) construction activities needed to meet the requirements 
     of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     794) or of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12101 et seq.);
       (3) construction activities that increase the energy 
     efficiency of school facilities;
       (4) construction that facilitates the use of modern 
     educational technologies;
       (5) construction of new school facilities that are needed 
     to accommodate growth in school enrollments; or
       (6) construction projects needed to facilitate the 
     establishment of charter schools and community schools.
       (b) Period for Initiation of Project.--(1) Each State shall 
     use its grant under this part only to subsidize construction 
     projects described in subsection (a) that the State or its 
     localities have chosen to initiate, through the vote of a 
     school board, passage of a bond issue, or similar public 
     decision, made between July 11, 1996 and September 30, 2001.
       (2) If a State determines, after September 30, 2001, that 
     an eligible project for which it has obligated funds under 
     this part will not be carried out, the State may use those 
     funds (or any available portion of those funds) for other 
     eligible projects selected in accordance with this part.
       (c) Reallocation.--If the Secretary determines, by a date 
     before September 30, 2001 selected by the Secretary, that a 
     State is not making satisfactory progress in carrying out its 
     plan for the use of the funds allocated to it under this 
     part, the Secretary may reallocate all or part of those 
     funds, including any interest earned by the State on those 
     funds, to one or more other States that are making 
     satisfactory progress.


                  selection of localities and projects

       Sec. 115. (a) Priorities.--In determining which localities 
     and activities to support with grant funds, each State shall 
     give the highest priority to--
       (1) localities with the greatest needs, as demonstrated by 
     inadequate educational facilities, coupled with a low level 
     of resources available to meet school construction needs; and
       (2) localities that will achieve the greatest leveraging 
     effect on school construction from assistance under this 
     part.
       (b) Additional Criteria.--In addition to the priorities 
     required by subsection (a), each State shall consider each of 
     the following in determining the use of its grant funds under 
     this part:
       (1) The condition of the school facilities in different 
     communities in the State.
       (2) The energy efficiency and the effect on the environment 
     of projects proposed by communities, and the extent to which 
     these projects use cost-efficient architectural design.
       (3) The commitment of communities to finance school 
     construction and renovation projects with assistance from the 
     State's grant, as demonstrated by their incurring 
     indebtedness or by similar public or private commitments for 
     the purposes described in section 114(a).
       (4) The ability of communities to repay bonds or other 
     forms of indebtedness supported with grant funds.
       (5) The particular needs, if any, of rural communities in 
     the State for assistance under this Act.
       (6) The receipt by local educational agencies in the State 
     of grants under part 3, except that a local educational 
     agency is not ineligible for a subgrant under this part 
     solely because it receives such a grant.


                           state applications

       Sec. 116. (a) Application Required.--A State that wishes to 
     receive a grant under this part shall submit an application 
     to the Secretary, in the manner the Secretary may require, 
     not later than two years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Development of Application.--(1) The State agency 
     designated under section 112 shall develop the State's 
     application under this part only after broadly consulting 
     with the State board of education, and representatives of 
     local school boards, school administrators, the business 
     community, parents, and teachers in the State about the best 
     means of carrying out this part.
       (2) If the State educational agency is not the State agency 
     designated under section

[[Page S2420]]

     112, the designated agency shall consult with the State 
     educational agency and obtain its approval before submitting 
     the State's application.
       (c) State Survey.--(1) Before submitting the State's 
     application, the State agency designated under section 112, 
     with the involvement of local school officials and experts in 
     building construction and management, shall survey the need 
     throughout the State (including in localities receiving 
     grants under part 3) for construction and renovation of 
     school facilities, including, at a minimum--
       (A) the overall condition of school facilities in the 
     State, including health and safety problems;
       (B) the capacity of the schools in the State to house 
     projected enrollments; and
       (C) the extent to which the schools in the State offer the 
     physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-quality 
     education to all students.
       (2) A State need not conduct a new survey under paragraph 
     (1) if it has previously completed a survey that meets the 
     requirements of that paragraph and that the Secretary finds 
     is sufficiently recent for the purpose of carrying out this 
     part.
       (d) Application Contents.--Each State application under 
     this part shall include--
       (1) an identification of the State agency designated by the 
     Governor under section 112 to receive the State's grant under 
     this party;
       (2) a summary of the results of the State's survey of its 
     school facility needs, as described in subsection (c);
       (3) a description of how the State will implement its 
     program under this part;
       (4) a description of how the State will allocate its grant 
     funds, including a description of how the State will 
     implement the priorities and criteria described in section 
     115;
       (5)(A) a description of the mechanisms that will be used to 
     finance construction projects supported by grant funds; and
       (B) a statement of how the State will determine the amount 
     of the Federal subsidy to be applied, in accordance with 
     section 117(a), to each local project that the State will 
     support;
       (6) a description of how the State will ensure that the 
     requirements of this part are met by subgrantees under this 
     part;
       (7) a description of the steps the State will take to 
     ensure that local educational agencies will adequately 
     maintain the facilities that are constructed or improved with 
     funds under this part;
       (8) an assurance that the State will use its grant only to 
     supplement the funds that the State, and the localities 
     receiving subgrants, would spend on school construction 
     and renovation in the absence of a grant under this part, 
     and not to supplant those funds;
       (9) an assurance that, during the four-year period 
     beginning with the year the State receives its grant, the 
     combined expenditures for school construction by the State 
     and the localities that benefit from the State's program 
     under this part (which at the State's option, may include 
     private contributions) will be at least 125 percent of those 
     combined expenditures for that purpose for the four preceding 
     years; and
       (10) other information and assurances that the Secretary 
     may require.
       (e) Waiver of Requirement to Increase Expenditures.--The 
     Secretary may waive or modify the requirement of subsection 
     (d)(9) for a particular State if the State demonstrates to 
     the Secretary's satisfaction that that requirement is unduly 
     burdensome because the State or its localities have incurred 
     a particularly high level of school construction expenditures 
     during the previous four years.


                       AMOUNT OF FEDERAL SUBSIDY

       Sec. 117. (a) Projects Funded with Subgrants.--For each 
     construction project assisted by a State through a subgrant 
     to a locality, the State shall determine the amount of the 
     Federal subsidy under this part, taking into account the 
     number or percentage of children from low-income families 
     residing in the locality, subject to the following limits:
       (1) If the locality will use the subgrant to help meet the 
     cost of repaying bonds issued for a school construction 
     project, the Federal subsidy shall be not more than one-half 
     of the total interest cost of those bonds, determined in 
     accordance with paragraph (4).
       (2) If the bonds to be subsidized are general obligation 
     bonds issued to finance more than one type of activity 
     (including school construction), the Federal subsidy shall be 
     not more than one-half of the interest cost for that portion 
     of the bonds that will be used for school construction 
     purposes, determined in accordance with paragraph (4).
       (3) If the locality elects to use its subgrant for an 
     allowable activity not described in paragraph (1) or (2), 
     such as for certificates of participation, purchase or lease 
     arrangements, reduction of the amount of principal to be 
     borrowed, or credit enhancements for individual construction 
     projects, the Federal subsidy shall be not more than one-half 
     of the interest cost, as determined by the State in 
     accordance with paragraph (4), that would have been incurred 
     if bonds had been used to finance the project.
       (4) the interest cost referred to in paragraphs (1), (2), 
     and (3) shall be--
       (A) calculated on the basis of net present value; and
       (B) determined in accordance with an amortization schedule 
     and any other criteria and conditions the Secretary considers 
     necessary, including provisions to ensure comparable 
     treatment of different financing mechanisms.
       (b) State-Funded Projects.--For a construction project 
     under this part funded directly by the State through the use 
     of State-issued bonds or other financial instruments, the 
     Secretary shall determine the Federal subsidy in accordance 
     with subsection (a).
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--A State, and localities in the 
     State receiving subgrants under this part, may use any non-
     Federal funds, including State, local, and private-sector 
     funds, for the financing costs that are not covered by the 
     Federal subsidy under subsection (a).


             SEPARATE FUNDS OR ACCOUNTS; PRUDENT INVESTMENT

       Sec. 118. (a) Separate Funds or Accounts Required.--Each 
     State that receives a grant, and each recipient of a subgrant 
     under this part, shall deposit the grant or subgrant proceeds 
     in a separate fund or account, from which it shall make bond 
     repayments and pay other expenses allowable under this part.
       (b) Prudent Investment Required.--Each State that receives 
     a grant, and each recipient of a subgrant under this part, 
     shall--
       (1) invest the grant or subgrant in a fiscally prudent 
     manner, in order to generate amounts needed to make 
     repayments on bonds and other forms of indebtedness described 
     in section 113; and
       (2) Notwithstanding section 6503 of title 31, United States 
     Code or any other law, use the proceeds of that investment to 
     carry out this part.


                             state reports

       Sec. 119. (a) Reports Required.--(1) Each State receiving a 
     grant under this part shall report to the Secretary on its 
     activities under this part, in the form and manner the 
     Secretary may prescribe.
       (2) If the State educational agency is not the State agency 
     designated under section 112, the State's report shall 
     include the approval of the State educational agency or its 
     comments on the report.
       (b) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (1) describe the State's implementation of this part, 
     including how the State has met the requirements of this 
     part;
       (2) identify the specific school facilities constructed, 
     renovated, or modernized with support from the grant, and the 
     mechanisms used to finance those activities;
       (3) identify the level of Federal subsidy provided to each 
     construction project carried out with support from the 
     State's grant; and
       (4) include any other information the Secretary may 
     require.
       (c) Frequency.--(1) Each State shall submit its first 
     report under this section not later than 24 months after it 
     receives its grant under this part.
       (2) Each State shall submit an annual report for each of 
     the three years after submitting its first report, and 
     subsequently shall submit periodic reports as long as the 
     State or localities in the State are using grant funds.

          Part 3--Direct Grants to Local Educational Agencies


                  eligible local educational agencies

       Sec. 121. (a) Eligible Agencies.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), the local educational agencies that are 
     eligible to receive formula grants under section 126 and 
     competitive grants under section 127 from the Secretary are 
     the 100 local educational agencies with the largest numbers 
     of children aged 5 through 17 from families living below the 
     poverty level, as determined by the Secretary using the most 
     recent data available from the Department of Commerce that 
     are satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (b) Certain Jurisdictions Ineligible.--For the purpose of 
     this part, the local educational agencies for Hawaii and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are not eligible local 
     educational agencies.


                                grantees

       Sec. 122. For each local educational agency described in 
     section 121(a) for which an approvable application is 
     submitted, the Secretary shall make any grant under this part 
     to the local educational agency or to another public agency, 
     on behalf of the local educational agency, if the Secretary 
     determines, on the basis of the local educational agency's 
     recommendation, that the other agency is better able to carry 
     out activities under this part.


                        allowable uses of funds

       Sec. 123. Each grantee under this part shall use its grant 
     only for one or more of the following activities to reduce 
     the cost of financing eligible school construction projects 
     described in section 124:
       (1) Providing a portion of the interest cost (or of any 
     other financing cost approved by the Secretary) on bonds, 
     certificates of participation, purchase or lease 
     arrangements, or other forms of indebtedness issued or 
     entered into by a local educational agency or other unit or 
     agency of local government for the purpose of financing 
     eligible school construction projects.
       (2) Local expenditures approved by the Secretary for credit 
     enhancement for the debt or financing instruments described 
     in paragraph (1).
       (3) Other local expenditures approved by the Secretary that 
     leverage funds for additional school construction.


             eligible construction projects; redistribution

       Sec. 124. (a) Eligible Projects.--A grantee under this part 
     may use its grant, in accordance with section 123, to 
     subsidize the cost of the activities described in section 
     114(a) for projects that the local educational agency has 
     chosen to initiate, through the

[[Page S2421]]

     vote of the school board, passage of a bond issue, or similar 
     public decision, made between July 11, 1996 and September 
     30, 2001.
       (b) Redistribution.--If the Secretary determines, by a date 
     before September 30, 2001 selected by the Secretary, that a 
     local educational agency is not making satisfactory progress 
     in carrying out its plan for the use of funds awarded to it 
     under this part, the Secretary may redistribute all or part 
     of those funds, and any interest earned by that agency on 
     those funds, to one or more other local educational agencies 
     that are making satisfactory progress.


                           local applications

       Sec. 125. (a) Application Required.--A local educational 
     agency, or an alternative agency described in section 122 
     (both referred to in this part as the ``local agency''), that 
     wishes to receive a grant under this part shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary, in the manner the Secretary may 
     require, not later than two years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Development of Application.--(1) The local agency shall 
     develop the local application under this part only after 
     broadly consulting with parents, administrators, teachers, 
     the business community, and other members of the local 
     community about the best means of carrying out this part.
       (2) If the local educational agency is not the applicant, 
     the applicant shall consult with the local educational 
     agency, and shall obtain its approval before submitting its 
     application to the Secretary.
       (c) Local Survey.--(1) Before submitting its application, 
     the local agency, with the involvement of local school 
     officials and experts in building construction and 
     management, shall survey the local need for construction and 
     renovation of school facilities, including, at a minimum--
       (A) the overall condition of school facilities in the local 
     educational agency, including health and safety problems;
       (B) the capacity of the local educational agency's schools 
     to house projected enrollments; and
       (C) the extent to which the local educational agency's 
     schools offer the physical infrastructure needed to provide a 
     high-quality education to all students.
       (2) A local educational agency need not conduct a new 
     survey under paragraph (1) if it has previously completed a 
     survey that meets the requirements of that paragraph and that 
     the Secretary finds is sufficiently recent for the purpose of 
     carrying out this part.
       (d) Application Contents.--Each local application under 
     this part shall include--
       (1) an identification of the local agency to receive the 
     grant under this part;
       (2) a summary of the results of the survey of school 
     facility needs, as described in subsection (c);
       (3) a description of how the local agency will implement 
     its program under this part;
       (4) a description of the criteria the local agency has used 
     to determine which construction projects to support with 
     grant funds;
       (5) a description of the construction projects that will be 
     supported with grant funds;
       (6) a description of the mechanisms that will be used to 
     finance construction projects supported by grant funds;
       (7) a requested level of Federal subsidy, with a 
     justification for that level, for each construction project 
     to be supported by the grant, in accordance with section 
     128(a), including the financial and demographic information 
     the Secretary may require;
       (8) a description of the steps the agency will take to 
     ensure that facilities constructed or improved with funds 
     under this part will be adequately maintained;
       (9) an assurance that the agency will use its grant only to 
     supplement the funds that the locality would spend on school 
     construction and renovation in the absence of a grant under 
     this part, and not to supplant those funds;
       (10) an assurance that, during the four-year period 
     beginning with the year the local educational agency receives 
     its grant, its expenditures for school construction (which, 
     at that agency's option, may include private contributions) 
     will be at least 125 percent of its expenditures for that 
     purpose for the four preceding years; and
       (11) other information and assurances that the Secretary 
     may require.
       (e) Waiver of Requirement To Increase Expenditures.--The 
     Secretary may waive or modify the requirement of subsection 
     (d)(10) for a local educational agency that demonstrates to 
     the Secretary's satisfaction that that requirement is unduly 
     burdensome because that agency has incurred a particularly 
     high level of school construction expenditures during the 
     previous four years.


                             formula grants

       Sec. 126. (a) Allocations.--The Secretary shall allocate 
     the funds available under section 105(b)(2) to the local 
     educational agencies identified under section 121(a) on the 
     basis of their relative allocations under section 1124 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6333) in the most recent year for which that information is 
     available to the Secretary.
       (b) Reallocations.--If a local educational agency does not 
     apply for its allocation, applies for less than its full 
     allocation, or fails to submit an approvable application, the 
     Secretary may reallocate all or a portion of its allocation, 
     as the case may be, to the remaining local educational 
     agencies in the same proportions as the original allocations 
     were made to those agencies under subsection (a).


                           competitive grants

       Sec. 127. (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary shall use 
     funds available under section 105(b)(3) to make additional 
     grants, on a competitive basis, to recipients of formula 
     grants under section 126.
       (b) Additional Application Materials.--Any eligible 
     applicant under section 126 that wishes to receive additional 
     funds under this section shall include in its application 
     under section 125 the following additional information:
       (1) The amount of funds requested under this section, in 
     accordance with ranges or limits that the Secretary may 
     establish based on factors such as relative size of the 
     eligible applicants.
       (2) A description of the additional construction activities 
     that the applicant would carry out with those funds.
       (3) Information on the current financial effort the 
     applicant is making for elementary and secondary education, 
     including support from private sources, relative to its 
     resources.
       (4) Information on the extent to which the applicant will 
     increase its own (or other public or private) spending for 
     school construction in the year in which it receives a grant 
     under this section, above the average annual amount for 
     construction activity during the preceding four years.
       (5) A description of the energy efficiency and the effect 
     on the environment of the projects that the applicant will 
     undertake, both with its grant under this section and its 
     grant under section 126, and of the extent to which those 
     projects will use cost-efficient architectural design.
       (6) Other information that the Secretary may require.
       (c) Selection of Grantees.--The Secretary shall select 
     grantees under this section on the basis of criteria, 
     consistent with the purpose of this Act, that the Secretary 
     may establish, which shall include--
       (1) the relative need of applicants, as demonstrated by 
     inadequate educational facilities and a low level of 
     resources to meet their school construction needs;
       (2) the commitment of applicants to meet their school 
     construction needs and the leveraging effect that assistance 
     under this part would have, as demonstrated by the additional 
     resources that they will provide, from non-Federal sources, 
     to meet those needs, in accordance with subsection (b)(4).


                       amount of federal subsidy

       Sec. 128. (a) Amount of Federal Subsidy.--For each 
     construction project assisted under this part, the Secretary 
     shall determine the amount of the Federal subsidy in 
     accordance with section 117(a).
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--A grantee under this part may use 
     any non-Federal funds, including State, local, and private-
     sector funds, for the financing costs that are not covered by 
     the Federal subsidy under subsection (a).


             separate funds or accounts; prudent investment

       Sec. 129. (a) Separate Funds or Accounts Required.--Each 
     grantee under this part shall deposit the grant proceeds in a 
     separate fund or account, from which it shall make bond 
     repayments and pay other expenses allowable under this part.
       (b) Prudent Investment Required.--Each granteee under this 
     part shall--
       (1) invest the grant funds in a fiscally prudent manner, in 
     order to generate amounts needed to make repayments on bonds 
     and other forms of indebtedness; and
       (2) notwithstanding section 6503 of title 31, United States 
     Code or any other law, use the proceeds of that investment to 
     carry out this part.


                             local reports

       Sec. 130. (a) Reports Required.--(1) Each grantee under 
     this part shall report to the Secretary on its activities 
     under this part, in the form and manner the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       (2) If the local educational agency is not the grantee 
     under this part, the grantee's report shall include the 
     approval of the local educational agency or its comments on 
     the report.
       (b) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (1) describe the grantee's implementation of this part, 
     including how it has met the requirements of this part;
       (2) identify the specific school facilities constructed, 
     renovated, or modernized with support from the grant, and the 
     mechanisms used to finance those activities; and
       (3) other information the Secretary may require.
       (c) Frequency.--(1) Each grantee shall submit its first 
     report under this section not later than 24 months after it 
     receives its grant under this part.
       (2) Each grantee shall submit an annual report for each of 
     the three years after submitting its first report, and 
     subsequently shall submit periodic reports as long as it is 
     using grant funds.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                          technical employees

       Sec. 201. For the purpose of carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary, without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, may appoint not more than 10 technical employees who 
     may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter IV of chapter 5 of that title relating

[[Page S2422]]

     to classification and General Schedule pay rates.


                               wage rates

       Sec. 202. (a) Prevailing Wage.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and 
     subcontractors on any project assisted under this Act are 
     paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing as 
     determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the 
     Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.). 
     The Secretary of Labor has, with respect to this section, the 
     authority and functions established in Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 14 of 1950 (effective May 24, 1950, 64 Stat. 
     1267) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 
     276c).
       (b) Waiver for Volunteers.--Section 7305 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (40 U.S.C. 276d-3) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking out the ``and'' at the 
     end thereof'
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking out the period at the end 
     thereof and inserting a semi-colon and ``and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) The Partnership Rehabilitate America's Schools Act of 
     1997.''.


                   NO LIABILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

       Sec. 203. (a) No Federal Liability.--Any financial 
     instruments, including but not limited to contracts, bonds, 
     bills, notes, certificates of participation, or purchase or 
     lease arrangements, issued by States, localities or 
     instrumentalities thereof in connection with any assistance 
     provided by the Secretary under this Act are obligations of 
     such States, localities or instrumentalities and not 
     obligations of the United States and are not guaranteed by 
     the full faith and credit of the United States.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--Documents relating to any 
     financial instruments, including but not limited to 
     contracts, bonds, bills, notes, offering statements, 
     certificates of participation, or purchase or lease 
     arrangements, issued by States, localities or 
     instrumentalities thereof in connection with any assistance 
     provided under this Act, shall include a prominent statement 
     providing notice that the financial instruments are not 
     obligations of the United States and are not guaranteed by 
     the full faith and credit of the United States.


              Consultation with Secretary of the Treasury

       Sec. 204. The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of 
     the Treasury in carrying out this Act.
                                                                    ____

                                     U.S. Department of Education,


                                                 The Secretary

                                                   March 13, 1997.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed for consideration of the 
     Congress is the Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools Act 
     of 1997, a bill that would provide a one-time Federal 
     stimulus to help States and localities bring all public 
     school facilities up to acceptable standards and build the 
     additional schools needed to serve increasing enrollments. 
     Also enclosed is a section-by-section analysis summarizing 
     the contents of the bill. I am sending an identical letter to 
     the Speaker of the House.
       Mr. President, a number of factors have led the 
     Administration to conclude that the Federal Government must 
     assist the States and localities in providing the school 
     facilities that our children will need if they are to achieve 
     to challenging educational standards. First of all, recent 
     General Accounting Office reports have documented the 
     deplorable condition of too many of the Nation's schools. 
     According to the GAO, one-third of all schools, serving more 
     than 14 million students, need extensive repair or renovation 
     of one or more buildings. Students are attending schools that 
     have antiquated heating, plumbing, and electrical systems and 
     even fail to meet local health and safety codes. Some schools 
     do not provide full access to individuals with disabilities, 
     and many do not have the infrastructure needed to adopt new 
     educational technologies. All of these problems are most 
     prevalent in urban districts.
       In addition to making repairs and renovations to their 
     existing schools, many districts will have to build new 
     schools in order to accommodate increasing enrollments. In 
     fact, the Department has projected that States and localities 
     will need to build 6,000 more schools in order to serve an 
     additional 2.9 million students who will enroll in the next 
     decade. This need will put further pressure on already 
     strained school budgets.
       Clearly, school construction is, and will remain, primarily 
     a State and local responsibility, and the vast majority of 
     facilities needs will have to be met with non-Federal 
     resources. Unfortunately, however, for a variety of reasons 
     State and local governments have not been making substantial 
     progress even in clearing the existing backlog of 
     construction needs. The Federal Government can play a crucial 
     role in addressing this problem by providing limited 
     resources, on a one-time basis, in a manner that spurs 
     States, communities, and even the private sector to bear the 
     burden and provide adequate school facilities for all 
     children. That is the purpose of the enclosed legislation.
       In order to have maximum impact, our bill would leverage 
     State, local, and private support for school construction, 
     rather than paying for 100 percent of the cost of 
     construction projects. The proposal would provide interest 
     subsidies for school construction bonds, or other financing 
     mechanisms, to States and major urban school districts. 
     States would, in turn, pass these subsidies along to 
     localities, use them to reduce the servicing costs of State 
     bonds or other financing vehicles, use them to capitalize 
     State revolving funds for school construction, or use them 
     for other, similar purposes. The maximum amount of Federal 
     subsidy would be the equivalent of 50 percent of the interest 
     cost on bonds. Through this mechanism, every dollar of 
     Federal money would be matched by a minimum of three dollars 
     of State, local, or private money.
       The Federal Government would not determine the specific 
     construction projects that would be funded. Rather, States 
     and localities would use the Federal subsidy for the costs of 
     construction projects that reflect their highest needs, such 
     as addressing health and safety problems or problems with air 
     quality, plumbing, heating, and lighting; removal of 
     architectural barriers in order to ensure access for 
     individuals with disabilities; projects to increase energy 
     efficiency; construction to facilitate the use of modern 
     educational technologies; and new construction needed to 
     accommodate increased enrollments. While the State and local 
     recipients would have the flexibility to determine which of 
     these types of construction activities are their highest 
     priority, they would have to base their use of the Federal 
     funds on a thorough survey of State or local school 
     construction needs and use the funds in a manner consistent 
     with several other general criteria such as, at the State 
     level, awarding the subsidy to communities with the greatest 
     construction needs and the least ability to meet those needs 
     with their own resources.
       Under the program, the Department would allocate one-half 
     of a $5 billion mandatory appropriation to States using the 
     existing ``Title I'' basic grants formula. The remainder 
     would flow directly to the 100 districts that enroll the 
     greatest numbers of children living in poverty; those urban 
     districts, according to the GAO data, have far and away the 
     greatest school construction needs. Of the amount available 
     for direct assistance to urban districts, the Department 
     would allocate seventy percent by formula, again on a Title I 
     basis, and make the remainder available competitively to 
     districts that have particularly severe needs and are willing 
     to provide the most support for infrastructure improvements 
     from non-Federal resources.
       Under both the State and local programs, a critical 
     objective would be to spur additional construction paid for 
     with non-Federal dollars. For this reason, the bill would 
     prohibit recipients from using the Federal funds to supplant 
     State and local support for school construction. In addition, 
     each State or locality receiving assistance would have to 
     assure the Department that it will increase, over a four-year 
     period, the amount of school construction paid for with non-
     Federal funds compared to the level expended during the 
     preceding four-year period. These provisions would ensure 
     that a one-time Federal stimulus has an impact far beyond the 
     immediate benefit attributable to the Federal expenditures.
       Administration of the program would be kept simple. The 
     Department would make a single award to each State and 
     locality receiving direct assistance. We would allow the 
     recipients to invest the Federal funds in a prudent manner, 
     and use the returns from that investment to meet bond 
     payments and other costs. All of the mandatory appropriation 
     would become available in fiscal year 1998, and all the 
     payments would be made within a four-year period.
       To summarize, our bill reflects the following principles: 
     (1) The Federal Government should make available a one-time 
     $5 billion mandatory appropriation to address the major 
     national problem of inadequate school infrastructure; (2) The 
     Federal funds will have their greatest impact if they are 
     used to leverage additional State, local, and private effort 
     rather than for direct support for the entire cost of 
     construction projects; (3) Because the largest cities have 
     the most school construction needs, and often the fewest 
     resources for meeting those needs, they should receive a 
     major share of the funding; and (4) States and localities 
     should have the flexibility to use the Federal subsidy to 
     carry out the construction projects they deem most important, 
     but they should do so only after completing a careful survey 
     of their construction needs. Further, both the States and the 
     Federal Government should direct the subsidy to the most 
     needy communities.
       I urge the Congress to take prompt and favorable action on 
     this proposal. Its enactment would spur States and 
     communities nationwide to bring their school facilities up to 
     the standard our children need and deserve.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this proposal to the 
     Congress and that its adoption would be in accord with the 
     program of the President.
           Yours sincerely,
     Richard W. Riley.
                                                                    ____


       Impact of Inadequate School Facilities on Student Learning

       A number of studies have shown that many school systems, 
     particularly those in urban and high-poverty areas, are 
     plagued by decaying buildings that threaten the health, 
     safety, and learning opportunities of students. Good 
     facilities appear to be an important precondition for student 
     learning, provided that other conditions are present that

[[Page S2423]]

     support a strong academic program in the school. A growing 
     body of research has linked student achievement and behavior 
     to the physical building conditions and overcrowding.


                      Physical Building conditions

       Decaying environmental conditions such as peeling paint, 
     crumbling plaster, nonfunctioning toilets, poor lighting, 
     inadequate ventilation, and inoperative heating and cooling 
     systems can affect the learning as well as the health and the 
     morale of staff and students.

                     Impact on student achievement

       A study of the District of Columbia school system found, 
     after controlling for other variables such as a student's 
     socioeconomic status, that students' standardized achievement 
     scores were lower in schools with poor building conditions. 
     Students in school buildings in poor condition had 
     achievement that was 6% below schools in fair condition and 
     11% below schools in excellent condition. (Edwards, 1991)
       Cash (1993) examined the relationship between building 
     condition and student achievement in small, rural Virginia 
     high schools. Student scores on achievement tests, adjusted 
     for socioeconomic status, was found to be up to 5 percentile 
     points lower in buildings with lower quality ratings. 
     Achievement also appeared to be more directly related to 
     cosmetic factors than to structural ones. Poorer achievement 
     was associated with specific building condition factors such 
     as substandard science facilities, air conditioning, locker 
     conditions, classroom furniture, more graffiti, and noisy 
     external environments.
       Similarly, Hines' (1996) study of large, urban high schools 
     in Virginia also found a relationship between building 
     condition and student achievement. Indeed, Hines found that 
     student achievement was as much as 11 percentile points lower 
     in substandard buildings as compared to above-standard 
     buildings.
       A study of North Dakota high schools, a state selected in 
     part because of its relatively homogeneous, rural population, 
     also found a positive relationship between school condition 
     (as measured by principals' survey responses) and both 
     student achievement and student behavior. (Earthman, 1995)
       McGuffey (1982) concluded that heating and air conditioning 
     systems appeared to be very important, along with special 
     instructional facilities (i.e., science laboratories or 
     equipment) and color and interior painting, in contributing 
     to student achievement. Proper building maintenance was also 
     found to be related to better attitudes and fewer 
     disciplinary problems in one cited study.
       Research indicates that the quality of air inside public 
     school facilities may significantly affect students' ability 
     to concentrate. The evidence suggests that youth, especially 
     those under ten years of age, are more vulnerable than adults 
     to the types of contaminants (asbestos, radon, and 
     formaldehyde) found in some school facilities (Andrews and 
     Neuroth, 1988).

                           Impact on teaching

       Lowe (1988) interviewed State Teachers of the Year to 
     determine which aspects of the physical environment affected 
     their teaching the most, and these teachers pointed to the 
     availability and quality of classroom equipment and 
     furnishings, as well as ambient features such as climate 
     control and acoustics as the most important environmental 
     factors. In particular, the teachers emphasized that the 
     ability to control classroom temperature is crucial to the 
     effective performance of both students and teachers.
       A study of working conditions in urban schools concluded 
     that ``physical conditions have direct positive and negative 
     effects on teacher morale, sense of personal safety, feelings 
     of effectiveness in the classroom, and on the general 
     learning environment.'' Building renovations in one district 
     led teachers to feel ``a renewed sense of hope, of 
     commitment, a belief that the district cared about what went 
     on in that building.'' In dilapidated buildings in another 
     district, the atmosphere was punctuated more by despair and 
     frustration, with teachers reporting that leaking roofs, 
     burned out lights, and broken toilets were the typical 
     backdrop for teaching and learning.'' (Corcoran et al., 1988)
       Corcoran et al. (1988) also found that ``where the problems 
     with working conditions are serious enough to impinge on the 
     work of teachers, they result in higher absenteeism, reduced 
     levels of effort, lower effectiveness in the classroom low 
     morale, and reduced job satisfaction. Where working 
     conditions are good, they result in enthusiasm, high morale, 
     cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility.''
       A Carnegie Foundation (1988) report on urban schools 
     concluded that ``the tacit message of the physical 
     indignities in many urban schools is not lost on students. It 
     bespeaks neglect, and students' conduct seems simply an 
     extension of the physical environment that surrounds them.'' 
     Similarly, Poplin and Weeres (1992) reported that, based on 
     an intensive study of teachers, administrators, and students 
     in four schools, ``the depressed physical environment of many 
     schools . . . is believed to reflect society's lack of 
     priority for these children and their education.''


                              Overcrowding

       Overcrowded schools are a serious problem in many school 
     systems, particularly in the inner cities, where space for 
     new construction is at a premium and funding for such 
     construction is limited. As a result, students find 
     themselves trying to learn while jammed into spaces never 
     intended as classrooms, such as libraries, gymnasiums, 
     laboratories, lunchrooms, and even closets. Although research 
     on the relationship between overcrowding and student learning 
     has been limited, there is some evidence, particularly in 
     high-poverty schools, that overcrowding can have an adverse 
     impact on learning.
       A study of overcrowded schools in New York City found that 
     students in such schools scored significantly lower on both 
     mathematics and reading exams than did similar students in 
     underutilized schools. In addition, when asked, students and 
     teachers in overcrowded schools agreed that overcrowding 
     negatively affected both classroom activities and 
     instructional techniques. (Rivera-Batiz and Marti, 1995)
       Corcoran et al. (1988) found that overcrowding and heavy 
     teacher workloads created stressful working conditions for 
     teachers and led to higher teacher absenteeism.
       Crowded classroom conditions not only make it difficult for 
     students to concentrate on their lessons, but inevitably 
     limit the amount of time teachers can spend on innovative 
     teaching methods such as cooperative learning and group work 
     or, indeed on teaching anything beyond the barest minimum of 
     required material. In addition, because teachers must 
     constantly struggle simply to maintain order in an 
     overcrowded classroom, the likelihood increases that they 
     will suffer from burnout earlier than might otherwise be the 
     case.
                                                                    ____


                              Case Studies


                     broward county/ft. lauderdale

                              The problem

       Broward County is located in Southern Florida and is the 
     fifth largest school district in the nation. Its schools 
     suffer from severe overcrowding: 34,000 students without 
     permanent desks; approximately 10,000 new students added to 
     the school system each year; and in the past nine years, 
     Broward has built 36 new schools and rebuilt 23 schools, and 
     continues to have a difficult time meeting its demand.
       Broward would have to build a new school every month to 
     meet this demand adequately. Citing the approximately 2,000 
     portable classrooms in the county, the budget director for 
     the county public schools described Broward as ``the portable 
     capital of the world.'' One high school has 46 portable 
     classrooms in use during this school year alone.

                     Needs and available resources

       A recent needs analysis estimated Broward's capital 
     construction needs at $2.4 billion, $200 million of which is 
     needed for technology improvements alone. The last bond 
     approved for school construction was for $317 million in 
     1987. Mobilizing local support for new tax or bond referenda 
     has been difficult. In fact, in September, 1995, a tax 
     referendum to increase the sales tax by one penny to raise $1 
     billion for school construction was defeated.

  Potential impact of the Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools Act

       Under the President's legislative proposal, approximately 
     $16.4 million would be allocated to the county school 
     district. Broward could use these funds to subsidize interest 
     costs for a local bond to cover a substantial part of its 
     school construction costs. This funding could support nearly 
     $70 million in leveraged funds to assist in rebuilding a 
     number of local schools.
       These new funds would be used primarily to ease 
     overcrowding in schools by funding new schools as well as 
     renovations and additions to existing schools that would 
     expand seating capacity. Broward also wants to reduce its 
     reliance on portable classrooms due to the fact that--with a 
     life expectancy of approximately 20 years--portables are not 
     a good long-term investment compared to a traditional school 
     structure. In addition, portables cannot be wired for 
     technology the same way as a traditional classroom.


                  LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

                      I. The problem/current needs

       The Los Angeles Unified School District is one of the 
     largest institutions of any kind in the nation with an 
     enrollment of 670,000 students. The prevalence of aging 
     school facilities in Los Angeles poses a number of expensive 
     problems for the district, which estimates its current 
     deferred maintenance costs at more than $600 million. A 
     majority of Los Angeles school buildings are more than 40 
     years old. As a result, most schools are not wired for 
     technology, and most are not equipped with modern security 
     systems, telecommunications systems, or air conditioning. 
     Many facilities face similar repair needs--roof replacement 
     is needed for 245 schools, repainting at more than 600 
     schools, boiler replacement at more than 50 schools, and 
     playground re-pavement at almost 400 schools.
       A rebounding economy and an influx of immigrants is driving 
     steady growth in the Los Angeles schools. The number of 
     students grew by 18,000 this year, and school officials 
     predict enrollment will grow another 15,000 next year.
       A State of California mandate to lower class size in the 
     earliest grades consumed the limited number of vacant 
     classrooms that existed. The need for more classrooms is 
     illustrated by the fact that the district transports about 
     12,000 students a day to more distant schools because of 
     overcrowding in their area school.

[[Page S2424]]

                  II. Needs versus available resources

       The State of California school construction program uses 
     two mechanisms to provide funds to local districts for new 
     construction and modernization. In the more common approach, 
     the state pays one-half of the ``allowable'' costs as defined 
     by the state. Otherwise, the state pays the full bill, but in 
     a very limited number of projects. Additionally, the state 
     offers a small deferred maintenance program in which it 
     provides matching funds of up to one-half of 1 percent of the 
     district's general funds. In recent years, the Los Angeles 
     district has been eligible for about $17 million through this 
     program, but the state has not fully funded it in recent 
     budgets.
       District officials in Los Angeles report that a significant 
     impediment to raising funds for construction is the 
     requirement imposed by the state Constitution, which requires 
     a two-third majority vote for the passage of school bonds 
     financed by property tax increases. The last time the Los 
     Angeles Unified School District passed a bond measure was 
     1971. (This vote came shortly after the Sylmar earthquake 
     closed many schools and raised serious safety questions about 
     others. The measure received 66.5 percent of the vote, but 
     under state law, this bond required only a majority vote 
     because it pertained to buildings deemed structurally 
     unsafe.)

             III. The impact of the President's initiative

       A $2.4 billion school bond measure on the ballot in 
     November 1996 for school construction and modernization 
     received 65.5 percent of the vote, just missing the two-
     thirds majority needed for passage. In December 1996, the 
     board of Education voted to put another $2.4 billion bond 
     measure on the ballot in April 1997. The President's 
     initiative could accelerate the development of the long 
     overdue projects that would be financed by this bond.


                           THE STATE OF MAINE

                      1. The problem/current needs

       Maine is struggling to cope with two major factors related 
     to school facilities--booming economy driving explosive 
     growth in the southern part of the state, and the continued 
     use of one-room schools and other antiquated buildings--some 
     dating 100 years--throughout the state.
       The Bowdoin Community School offers an instructive example. 
     The dozen portable classrooms now in use exceed the number of 
     permanent classrooms inside the main structure. A proposed 
     expansion of the school has been shelved since 1987 because 
     of insufficient state funding to support the project.

                  II. Needs versus available resources

       Support from the state of Maine for local school 
     construction projects is restricted to debt service 
     subsidies, and the level of available support is extremely 
     limited. In fiscal 1998, school districts requested such 
     subsidies for 83 projects. However, the $65.8 million 
     authorized by the state is expected to be consumed by the 
     four projects given the highest priority.
       Schools districts in Maine are generally successful in 
     getting voter approval for bond measures, but most districts 
     in the state cannot cover the total cost of the bond. The 
     lack of support from the state for debt service is cited as 
     the leading reason why school districts fall short in raising 
     financing, leading to the deferment of these sorely needed 
     projects.

        III. The potential impact of the Presidential Initiative

       The executive director of the Maine Municipal Bond Bank 
     noted that the President's school construction initiative 
     could help Maine schools in two ways. The state could choose 
     to use its allocation all at once to supplement its debt 
     service subsidy program, or it could use that money to 
     establish a revolving loan fund that would commit its 
     revenues to debt service subsidies.


                         the state of maryland

                      I. The problem/current needs

       There are two primary problems facing Maryland school 
     facilities: aging structures and rising enrollments.
       A review of the list of Capital Improvement requests to the 
     state for the coming year reveals the extent of aging school 
     facilities. Requests are filled with descriptions of items in 
     need of repair or replacement, such as roofs as much as 44 
     years old, HVAC systems that are 25 years old or more, 
     boilers and chillers that date to the 1950s, and windows and 
     doors in use since the 1960s.
       Over the last decade, enrollment in Maryland schools has 
     grown by approximately 150,000 students. State officials 
     expect enrollment to continue climbing by another 30,000 or 
     so annually over the next five to ten years. Overall, local 
     districts requested approximately $310 million for 459 
     construction and renovation projects for FY 1998. While a 
     district might request more than one project for a school, 
     these figures suggest that districts are seeking assistance 
     with construction and renovation projects that could affect a 
     third of the state's 1,280 schools.

                  II. Needs versus available resources

       The Maryland State Public School Construction Program is 
     designed to help local districts with costs related to 
     planning and funding of school construction and renovation 
     projects.
       Early in the program, the state covered 100 percent of 
     eligible costs for approved projects. However, since the mid-
     1980s, the state use a sliding scale based on need to 
     determine how much assistance a district receives.
       Since the program's inception,the amount of funds requested 
     each year by local districts has exceeded program 
     allocations. For example, in FY 73, the program funded 72 
     percent of district requests--the highest proportion in the 
     program's history. In FY 89, the state supported an all-time 
     low of 24 percent of requests. In the current fiscal year, 
     the state funded 51 percent of requests, totaling $274 
     million.

        III. The potential impact of the Presidential initiative

       State officials see three possibilities for the use of 
     federal funds from the proposed School Construction 
     Initiative.
       First, the funds could subsidize additional state general 
     obligation bonds. Therefore, the amount of assistance going 
     to local districts with eligible costs would increase, and 
     more projects would be funded. The federal funds could be 
     targeted at poorer districts with larger projects that have 
     been delayed due to fiscal constraints. It should be noted 
     that an increase in the state funds for the Public School 
     Construction Program might lead more districts to seek state 
     assistance for additional projects. At this time, there are 
     projects for which local districts do not submit requests 
     because the district senses these projects will be deferred 
     due to state fiscal constraints.
       A second option would allow the state to use a portion of 
     the funds to subsidize a combination of additional state 
     bonds and country general obligation bonds. Finally, the 
     state could use all the federal funds to subsidize additional 
     county general obligation bonds.


                     new york city school district

                      I. The problem/current needs

       New York is experiencing enrollment growth of 20,000 to 
     23,000 students a year. In addition, more than half of the 
     over 1,000 school buildings are 50 years old or more. The 
     district must upgrade these facilities and accommodate its 
     burgeoning student population.
       There are limits to the amount of money the district can 
     raise through general obligation bonds, and this mechanism is 
     not sufficient to meet the district's needs. There is a state 
     constitutional limit on the amount of debt the district can 
     issue (as a percentage of total assessed property value), and 
     the district is running up against this limit.
       The fiscal year 1997 capital expenditures budget for the 
     Board of Education is just over $1 billion, out of a total 
     city capital budget of just over $4 billion. A proposed 10-
     year capital plan has just been put forth for $12.6 billion, 
     which includes an amount contingent on receipt of federal 
     funds. One of the main emphasis of this plan is to address 
     the district's overcrowding, using strategies such as new 
     construction, other ways of handling seating capacity, and 
     converting some schools to a year-round schedule, which could 
     increase seating capacity by 25 to 33 percent.

        II. The potential impact of the Presidential initiative

       New York expects that it could leverage federal funds to 
     address several needs. Among the most dire needs is for 
     additional seats for children. The districts proposed 10-year 
     plan was increased by about $700 million to address seating 
     capacity needs. The district envisions six different avenues 
     for the use of this money to increase seating capacity: 
     Leasing new facilities, transportables, modular construction, 
     rehabilitation of existing facilities to increase size, new 
     construction, and converting schools to a year-round schedule 
     (which necessitates putting in air-conditioning.)


                      Philadelphia School District

                       The problem/current needs

       The Philadelphia story has two strands. First, the district 
     estimates that it will need about two-thirds of a billion 
     dollars to bring its 257 existing building sites up to 
     standard. This includes major renovations, repairs, 
     improvements, and technology needs (schools need to be wired 
     for computers, but 60 of Philadelphia's schools are over 70 
     years old.)
       Second, to accommodate expected population growth, 
     approximately one-quarter of a billion dollars in additional 
     funding may be necessary. In the past five years, the public 
     school population has grown 9.2 percent, and in the past 
     seven years it has grown 12.6 percent. The district expects 
     this growth to continue by 1.4 percent the next year and by 
     2.5 percent the following year. In one area, the district 
     deals with overcrowding through a combination of classrooms 
     under stairwells, walling off the ends of hallways to create 
     classrooms, and portables.

                 II. Needs versus available resources.

       The district knows that its capital needs in the next 5 to 
     10 years seriously exceed its current budgeted capital 
     capacity. A Long Range Facilities Plan is being developed, 
     and it is expected that the total need will ultimately be 
     between $1-$1.4 billion.

        III. The potential impact of the Presidential Initiative

       The district says that federal funds could be extremely 
     helpful by supporting preventive maintenance projects. With 
     shrinking operation budgets, it is preventive maintenance 
     that gets cut from the budget. These projects include minor 
     roof and gutter repair, HVAC system cleaning, and yearly 
     boiler maintenance. These activities get pushed aside for 
     emergency projects and educational needs. Yet today's 
     preventive maintenance

[[Page S2425]]

     project is tomorrow's capital project. Roofs, boilers, and 
     heating systems wear out years before their time because 
     preventive maintenance funds are scarce. The failure of these 
     systems also causes additional capital damage, such as water 
     and pipe damage. Much of this could be avoided and long-term 
     capital budget could be brought down with additional 
     resources for preventive maintenance.


                   Santa Ana Unified School District

                      I. The problem/current needs

       Santa Ana is an extremely densely populated area. In its 24 
     square miles, there are 350,000 resident, and 52,000 
     students. There is a school approximately every two blocks.
       The primary problem in the district is school overcrowding, 
     the result of a lack of construction funding during a period 
     of raid enrollment growth. The district has grown from 31 
     thousand student in 1980 to 52,000 students in 1996.
       The school district has converted 22 of 31 elementary 
     schools and four of seven intermediate schools to multi-
     track, year-round schedules. Although other school districts 
     in California and around the country use year-round 
     schooling, it is unusual to have such a high percentage of 
     schools on this tract. The district has 534 portable 
     classrooms on existing sites, which is the equivalent of 24 
     free standing elementary schools. Santa Ana estimates that it 
     now spends $1 million to lease portable classrooms.
       A secondary, but also severe problem is maintaining ill-
     equipped and deteriorating facilities. The district prepared 
     a state-mandated five-year plan to deferred maintenance 
     needs, which is updated annually--the currently version 
     projects a $15 million need.

                  II. Needs versus available resources

       Santa Ana Unified has a need for three elementary schools 
     plus a new high school. Enrollment growth has averaged over 
     1300 students annually since 1980. The need is accentuated by 
     the fact that the State School Building Program is, ``broke'' 
     and it is not clear when there will be another bond measure.

        III. The potential impact of the President's initiative

       President Clinton's initiative would potentially provide 
     major benefits to the Santa Ana Community. The district needs 
     adequate classrooms equipped with up-to-date education 
     technology will be available to educate the rapidly growing 
     student population. If the district received an estimated six 
     million dollars from the federal government, it could 
     leverage those funds to pay for additional elementary 
     schools.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I would also like to call to my colleagues' 
attention the reports and the work done by the General Accounting 
Office recently, both with regard to the condition of America's 
schools, State efforts to address the issue of crumbling schools, and 
the most recent GAO report on school finance generally. These reports 
speak to the ability or the efforts taken by State and local 
governments to address the disparities between wealthy and poor and 
middle-class school districts.
  The fact of the matter is that this disparity, this gap in school 
funding, does not serve our national interest, does not serve the 
interest of taxpayers, and does not serve the interest of our children.
  I believe we have an obligation to put aside the old debates of 
whether or not school funding should happen here or happen there, and 
we should look at developing a partnership in which everybody plays a 
part, in which all levels of government collaborate, in which 
communities, parents, property taxpayers, and income taxpayers 
cooperate to prepare our people for the 21st century and the challenges 
they face.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I give my strong support to President 
Clinton's Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools Act of 1997, 
introduced today by Senator Moseley-Braun.
  The Nation's schools are facing enormous problems of physical decay. 
Fourteen million children in one-third of the schools are learning in 
substandard school buildings. Half the schools have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental condition.
  Massachusetts is no exception. Forty-one percent of Massachusetts 
schools report that at least one building needs extensive repair or 
should be replaced; 75 percent report serious problems in buildings, 
such as plumbing or heating defects; 80 percent have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental factor.
  It is difficult to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms. Student 
enrollments are at an alltime high and are continuing to rise. We 
cannot tolerate a situation in which facilities deteriorate while 
enrollments escalate.
  GAO estimates that schools need $112 billion just to repair their 
facilities. Obviously, the Federal Government cannot meet all of these 
needs. The Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools Act encourages 
State, local, and private support by providing interest subsidies for 
school construction bonds. The Federal Government will pay up to 50 
percent of interest on bonds used to finance school repair, renovation, 
modernization, and construction.
  Half of the $5 billion in Federal funds earmarked for this program 
over the next four years will be allocated to States using the existing 
title I formula. States and localities will distribute these funds to 
communities with the greatest construction needs and the least ability 
to meet their needs with their own resources. Massachusetts would 
receive $48 million for grants to local communities.
  The remaining Federal funds will be distributed by the U.S. 
Department of Education among the 100 school districts that enroll the 
greatest number of students living in poverty. Thirty percent of this 
funding will be allocated competitively to school districts that have 
particularly severe needs and obtain the most support for their 
construction projects from non-Federal sources. Under this part of the 
bill, Massachusetts would receive an estimated $25 million.
  I hope that the Partnership To Rebuild America's Schools Act will 
receive the bipartisan support it deserves, so that it can be in place 
for the beginning of the next academic year. Investing in education is 
investing in a stronger America here at home and around the world. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to enact this important measure.
                                 ______