[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7240-S7243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. L. Chafee):
  S. 2890. A bill to provide States with funds to support State, 
regional, and local school construction; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


  building, renovating, improving, and constructing kids' schools act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, 
Senator Chafee, to introduce a revised version of the ``Building, 
Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act''--
legislation that would address our nation's burgeoning need for K-12 
school construction, renovation, and repair.
  The legislation--which is endorsed by the National Education 
Association (NEA) and National PTA, and the National Association of 
State Boards of Education (NASBE)--would accomplish this in a fiscally-
responsible manner while seeking to find the middle ground between 
those who support a very direct, active federal role in school 
construction, and those who are concerned about an expanded federal 
role in what has been--and remains--a state and local responsibility.
  Mr. President, the condition of many of our nation's existing public 
schools is abysmal even as the need for additional schools and 
classroom space grows. Specifically, according to reports issued by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of 
all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement.
  As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the 
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1999 stated that the 
average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings 
beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES 
brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest 
condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have 
either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980.
  Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, 
but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due 
to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to 
the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by 
the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, 
which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 
million by 2008.
  Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school 
renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), it will cost $112 billion just to 
bring our nation's schools into good overall condition, and a recent 
report by the NEA identified $332 billion in unmet school modernization 
needs. Nowhere is this cost better understood than in my home state of 
Maine, where a 1996 study by the Maine Department of Education and the 
State Board of Education determined that the cost of addressing the 
state's school building and construction needs stood at $637 million.
  Mr. President, we simply cannot allow our nation's schools to fall 
into utter disrepair and obsolescence with children sitting in 
classrooms that have leaky ceiling or rotting walls. We cannot ignore 
the need for new schools as the record number of children enrolled in 
K-12 schools continues to grow.
  Accordingly, because the cost of repairing and building these 
facilities may prove to be more than many state and local governments 
can bear in a short period of time, I believe the federal government 
can and should assist Maine and other state and local governments in 
addressing this growing national crisis.
  Admittedly, not all members support strong federal intervention in 
what has been historically a state and local responsibility. In fact, 
many argue with merit that the best form of federal assistance for 
school construction or other local educational needs would be for the 
federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the 
cost of special education. This long-standing commitment was made when 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act was signed into 
law more than 20 years ago, but the federal government has fallen 
woefully short in upholding its end of the bargain, only recently 
increasing its share above 10 percent.
  Needless to say, I strongly agree with those who argue that the 
federal government's failure to fulfill this mandate represents nothing 
less than a raid on the pocketbook of every state and local government. 
Accordingly, I am pleased that recent efforts in the Congress have 
increased federal funding for IDEA by nearly $2.5 billion over the past 
four years, and I support ongoing efforts to achieve the 40 percent 
federal commitment in the near future.
  Yet, even as we work to fulfill this long-standing commitment and 
thereby free-up local resources to address local needs, I believe the 
federal government can do more to assist state and local governments in 
addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local 
control.
  Mr. President, the legislation we are offering today--the ``BRICKS 
Act''--will do just. Specifically, it addresses our nation's school 
construction needs in a responsible fiscal manner while bridging the 
gap between those who advocate a more activist federal role in school 
construction and those who do not.
  First, our legislation will provide $20 billion in federal loans to 
support school construction, renovation, and repair at the local level. 
By designating that at least one-half of these loan monies must be used 
to pay the interest owed to bondholders on new school construction 
bonds that are issued through the year 2003, the federal government 
will leverage the issuing of new bonds by states and localities that 
would not otherwise be made. In addition, by providing that up to one-
half of the monies may be used for state-wide school construction 
initiatives, the bill provides needed flexibility to ensure that unique 
state and local approaches to school construction will also be 
supported, such as revolving loan funds.

  Of importance, these loan monies--which will be distributed on an 
annual basis using the Title I distribution formula--will become 
available to each state at the request of a Governor. While the federal 
loans can only be used to support bond issues that will supplement, and 
not supplant, the amount of school construction that would have 
occurred in the absence of the loans, there will be no requirement that 
states engage in a lengthy application process that does not even 
assure them of their rightful share of the $20 billion pot.
  Second, our bill ensures that these loans are made by the federal 
government in a fiscally responsible manner that does not cut into the 
Social Security surplus or claim a portion of non-Social Security 
surpluses that may prove ephemeral in the future.
  Specifically, our bill would make these loans to states from the 
Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)--a fund that was created through the 
Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and has grown to hold more than $40 billion in 
assets. The principal activity of the fund--which is controlled solely 
by the Secretary of the Treasury--is foreign exchange intervention that 
is intended to limit fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the fund 
has also been used to provide stabilization loans to foreign countries, 
including a $20 billion line of credit to Mexico in 1995 to support the 
peso.
  In light of the controversial manner in which the ESF has been used, 
some have argued that additional constraints should be placed on the 
fund. Still others--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor 
Lawrence B. Lindsey--have stated that, for various reasons, the fund 
should be liquidated.
  Regardless of how one feels about exercising greater constraint over 
he ESF or liquidating it, I believe that if this $40 billion fund can 
be used to bailout foreign currencies, it certainly can be used to help 
America's schools.
  Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that the $20 billion in 
loans provided by my legislation will be made

[[Page S7241]]

from the ESF--an amount identical to the line of credit that was 
extended to Mexico by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1995. Of 
importance, these loans will be made from the ESF on a progressive, 
annual basis--not in a sudden or immediate manner. Furthermore, these 
monies will be repaid to the fund to ensure that the ESF is compensated 
for the loans it makes.
  Although the ESF will recoup all of the monies it lends, it should 
also be noted that my proposal ensures that states and local 
governments will not be forced to pay excessive interest, or that they 
will be forced to repay over an unreasonable period of time. In fact, 
if the federal government fails to substantially increase its share of 
IDEA funding, states will incur no interest at all!
  Specifically, to encourage the federal government to meet its funding 
commitment for IDEA--and to compensate states for the fact that every 
dollar in foregone IDEA funding is a dollar less that they have for 
school construction or other local needs--our bill would impose no 
interest on BRICKS loans during the first five years provided the 40 
percent funding commitment is not met.
  Thereafter, the interest rate is pegged to the federal share of IDEA: 
zero in any year that the federal government fails to fund at least 20 
percent of the cost of IDEA; 2.5 percent--the long-term projected 
inflation rate--in years that the federal share falls between 20 and 30 
percent; 3.5 percent in years the federal share is 30 to 40 percent; 
and 4.5 percent in years the full 40 percent share is achieved.
  Combined, these provisions will minimize the cost of these loans to 
the states, and maximize the utilization of these loans for school 
construction, renovation, and repair.
  Mr. President, by providing low-interest loans to states and local 
governments to support school construction, I believe that our bill 
represents a fiscally-responsible, centrist solution to a national 
problem.
  For those who support a direct, active federal role in school 
construction, our bill provides substantial federal assistance by 
dedicating $20 billion to leverage a significant amount of new school 
construction bonds. For those who are concerned about the federal 
government becoming overly-engaged in an historically state and local 
responsibility--and thereby stepping on local control--my bill directs 
that the monies provided to states will be repaid, and that no onerous 
applications or demands are placed on states to receive their share of 
these monies.
  Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues support the ``BRICKS Act''--
legislation that is intended to bridge the gap between competing 
philosophies on the federal role in school construction. Ultimately, if 
we work together, we can make a tangible difference in the condition of 
America's schools without turning it into a partisan or ideological 
battle that is better suited to sound bites than actual solutions.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of 
support from the NEA, PTA, NASBE, and Jim Rier, the Chairman of the 
Maine State Board of Education, be inserted in the Record following my 
statement.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Education Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2000.
     Senator Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 2.5 million members, we would like to 
     thank you for your leadership in introducing a revised 
     version of the Building, Renovating, Improving, and 
     Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act.
       As you know, our nation's schools are in desperate need of 
     repair and renovation. Too many students attend classes in 
     overcrowded buildings with leaky roofs, faulty wiring, and 
     outdated plumbing. A recently-released NEA study documents 
     more than $300 billion in unmet infrastructure and technology 
     needs, nearly three times the level estimated in previous 
     research by the General Accounting Office.
       NEA believes the revised BRICKS Act offers a meaningful 
     avenue for assisting schools. The bill would make available 
     $20 billion in guaranteed funding over 15 years to provide 
     low-interest--and in many cases zero interest--school 
     modernization loans to states and schools. According to a 
     preliminary Department of Education analysis, the BRICKS Act 
     would provide schools with a benefit of $465 for each $1,000 
     in bonds.
       We are pleased that the BRICKS Act would allow up to 50 
     percent of federal funds to be used for payment of actual 
     construction costs or the principal portion of loans, as well 
     as the interest costs. We also appreciate the provision 
     allowing those states with laws that prohibit borrowing to 
     pay the interest costs on school bonds to use 100 percent of 
     their BRICKS loans for state revolving loan funds or other 
     state administered school modernization programs.
       NEA believes it is essential to enact meaningful school 
     modernization assistance this year. We thank you for your 
     leadership in this area and look forward to continuing to 
     work with you toward passage of bipartisan school 
     modernization legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                                 National PTA,

                                        Chicago, IL, July 7, 2000.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
     United States Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Chafee and Snowe: On behalf of the 6.5 
     million parents, teachers, students, and other child 
     advocates who are members of the National PTA, I am writing 
     to support the Building, Renovating, Improving, and 
     Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act, which you plan to 
     introduce next week.
       We thank you for your leadership in proposing this 
     initiative, which acknowledges the federal government's 
     responsibility to help schools repair and renovate their 
     facilities. As you are aware, the U.S. General Accounting 
     Office has estimated that the cost of fixing the structural 
     problems in schools across the nation will cost more than 
     $112 billion. If new schools are built to accommodate 
     overcrowding, and if schools' technology, wiring, and 
     infrastructure needs are added in, this estimate would exceed 
     $200 billion dollars.
       This is a problem schools cannot address without a 
     partnership with the federal government, and National PTA 
     supports a variety of approaches to address this growing 
     crisis. In addition to endorsing the BRICKS bill, National 
     PTA is supporting the Public School Repair and Renovation 
     Act, which would provide tax credits to pay the interest on 
     school modernization bonds and create a grant and loan 
     program for emergency repairs in high-need districts; and 
     also the America's Better Classrooms Act, which would provide 
     $22 billion over two years in zero interest school 
     construction and modernization bonds.
       Under BRICKS, nearly $20 billion would be available over 15 
     years to provide low interest, and in many cases zero 
     interest, loans to States for interest payments on their 
     school modernization bonds. We are pleased that the proposal 
     will allow increased flexibility in using the federal funds 
     for interest payments, as well as for other state-
     administered programs that assist state entities or local 
     governments pay for the construction or repair of schools.
       National PTA is committed to helping enact a federal school 
     modernization proposal this Congress. We believe the BRICKS 
     Act should be promoted as one of the ways the federal 
     government can assist schools, and we thank you for your 
     leadership in this area. We look forward to continuing to 
     work with you toward formulation and passage of bipartisan 
     school modernization legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Vicki Rafel,
     Vice President for Legislation.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                    State Boards of Education,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 18, 2000.
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: The National Association of State 
     Boards of Education (NASBE) is a private nonprofit 
     association representing state and territorial boards of 
     education. Our principal objectives are to strengthen state 
     leadership in education policy-making, promote excellence in 
     the education of all students, advocate equality of access to 
     educational opportunity, and assure responsible governance of 
     public education.
       We are writing to applaud your efforts to provide federal 
     assistance to states for school construction. The 
     deterioration of America's school infrastructure has reached 
     crisis proportions. At least one-third of all U.S. schools 
     are in need of extensive repairs or replacement and 60% have 
     at least one major building deficiency such as cracked 
     foundations, leaky roofs, or crumbling walls. We cannot 
     expect our children to learn much less excel in such decrepit 
     and unsafe environments.
       The more than $112 billion needed to renovate and/or repair 
     existing school facilities has simply overwhelmed state and 
     local resources. This national problem demands federal 
     attention and we are encouraged that your office is 
     attempting to address this need by proposing a $20 billion 
     federal loan program.
       Your legislation, the Building, Renovating, Improving, and 
     Construction Kids' Schools Act (BRICKS), will leverage new 
     school construction expenditures at the state and local 
     levels and provides flexibility to integrate this assistance 
     with the variety of solutions

[[Page S7242]]

     states have already undertaken, such as revolving funds, to 
     enhance the financing of school construction.
       We appreciate your efforts and attention to address this 
     critical situation. NASBE is encouraged by your actions and 
     we look forward to working with your office to foster a 
     partnership between federal, state and local entities to 
     improve the learning conditions of American children.
           Sincerely,
                                        Brenda Lilienthal Welburn,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                     State Board of Education,

                                      Augusta, ME, April 29, 2000.
     Senator Olympia J. Snowe,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: The age and condition of our nation's 
     public schools are an expanding crisis and should be of great 
     concern to all. Decades of neglect, unfunded maintenance 
     programs, constrained state and municipal budgets, shifting 
     populations, technology requirements, and programmatic 
     changes have combined to weaken the infrastructure of public 
     education. As you are well aware, a 1995 GAO report estimated 
     that just repairing existing school facilities would cost 
     $112 billion. In addition, building new facilities to met the 
     demands of program and increased enrollments could cost 
     another $73 billion. We have allowed the condition of our 
     schools to deteriorate to a point that there are now critical 
     implications for the health and safety of our students and 
     staff who occupy those buildings. A number of states have 
     launched major efforts to address their school facilities 
     needs. The task is huge and beyond the ability of most local 
     and even state resources.
       Unfortunately, Maine mirrors the nation. A Facilities 
     Inventory Study, conducted in 1996 by the Department of 
     Education and the University of Maine's Center for Research 
     and Evaluation, identified approximately $650 million in 
     needed facility improvements. Of particular concern was the 
     need for over $60 million in serious health and safety 
     related improvements as well as an additional $150 million in 
     other renovation and upgrades required.
       In response to Maine's survey of over 700 buildings, 
     Governor King appointed a Commission to develop a plan to 
     address the needs identified. Their report was delivered to 
     the Maine Legislature in February 1998, and the 
     recommendations were enacted in April 1998. Maine has 
     responded to address the identified needs with significant 
     state and local resources. However, even as we develop policy 
     and resources to aggressively address those needs, our 
     concern grows.
       Progressing from the condition survey to a detailed 
     engineering and environmental analysis of the conditions 
     causes even greater alarm. Roofs that were reported as 
     leaking in the survey are found to have serious structural 
     integrity problems with greater safety risks for occupants as 
     well as more complex and costly solutions. Indoor air quality 
     problems in the survey grow from increased air exchange 
     solutions to more complex ones due to mold and microbial 
     growth in the interior walls. Again, this poses increased 
     health risk for students and staff. As we learn more about 
     the problems, our concerns grow and the necessary resources 
     increase. The critical health and safety needs from the 1996 
     survey ($60 million) have grown to over $86 million in our 
     latest project estimates. Many more projects are yet to be 
     identified.
       Applications for Major Capital Construction projects were 
     received in August of 1999 from over 100 buildings throughout 
     Maine. Even with a major new commitment of over $200 million 
     from this Session of the Maine Legislature we will only be 
     able to address approximately 20 of those projects over the 
     next two years. More will be applying in the next two-year 
     cycle that begins in July 2001.
       Although school construction and modernization is and 
     should remain primarily a state and local responsibility, 
     states and school districts cannot meet the current urgent 
     needs alone. Federal assistance in the form of reduced or low 
     interest loans as you have included in S1992, the BRICKS ACT, 
     responds to the urgent need and could provide a critical 
     component to a comprehensive but flexible approach to address 
     Maine's, as well as the nation's, school facilities needs. As 
     currently proposed, your legislation would allow the 
     flexibility to address the renovation and upgrade of existing 
     facilities as well as provide relief for overcrowding and 
     insufficient program space where major capital construction 
     is required. It creates an effective local/state/federal 
     partnership, while leaving decisions about which schools to 
     build or repair up to states and local school units. In 
     Maine, that would allow us to strengthen our Revolving 
     Renovation Fund (created to aid local units in the upgrade 
     and renovation of existing buildings), and it would enhance 
     our bonding capacity for long term debt commitment to major 
     capital construction projects.
       Structurally unfit, environmentally deficient, or 
     overcrowded classrooms impair student achievement, diminish 
     student discipline, and compromise student safety. Although 
     not cited often, the learning environment does affect the 
     quality of education and our ability to help students achieve 
     high standards.
       The National Association of State Boards of Education has 
     identified school construction as one of its priority issues. 
     I serve as Vice-Chair of their Governmental Affairs Committee 
     and would be happy to enlist their help in focusing the 
     nation's attention on the poor condition of our schools and 
     the need for comprehensive federal assistance. If you have 
     questions or need information from NASBE please contact David 
     Griffith, Director of Governmental Affairs at 703-684-4000. 
     As Chairman of the Maine State Board of Education and the 
     governor's School Facilities Commission I am available and 
     would be pleased to participate in any way you think 
     appropriate to outline Maine's innovative and comprehensive 
     school facilities program, and to elaborate on how federal 
     assistance could best complement state and local efforts to 
     address our school construction needs.
       It was an honor to meet you in March during NASBE's 
     Legislative Conference. I look forward to working with you in 
     support of a federal partnership with state and local school 
     units to provide a safe, healthy, and effective learning 
     environment for all.
           Sincerely,
                                               James E. Rier, Jr.,
                                                            Chair.

  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Snowe, in introducing a revised version of BRICKS--the 
Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools Act. 
This legislation represents a fresh approach to addressing the 
infrastructure problems in our nation's elementary and secondary 
schools.
  Many thanks to Senator Snowe for her commitment to this issue and for 
her leadership; to the National PTA and the NEA, both of whom have 
endorsed the proposal; and special thanks to the Rhode Island 
Department of Education and Commissioner Peter McWalters for offering 
suggestions which I believe helped to improve this proposal.
  As some of you may know, Senator Snowe first introduced the BRICKS 
proposal at the end of the last session. In January, I joined as a 
cosponsor. We had hoped to offer this revised version as an amendment 
to S. 2 but were unable to do so. As a result, we are introducing the 
revised version of BRICKS today in a form we hope many of our 
colleagues will be enthusiastic about cosponsoring.
  The BRICKS Act would permit the federal government to provide low, or 
no, interest loans to states to address their serious school 
infrastructure problems. The National Center for Education Statistics 
reports that three quarters of our nation's public schools need to 
build, renovate, improve or modernize their facilities. In some cases 
the need arises from increased school-age population. In other cases, 
school facilities are simply old and in need of repair. Today's 
estimated cost of modernizing and improving school facilities 
throughout the United States is $127 billion. There is no argument 
about whether a serious problem exists. There are differences on how 
best to solve this terribly serious problem.
  BRICKS recognizes that our nation faces a grave problem. We worry 
about whether our children are learning enough to compete in the 
international marketplace, yet we send our children to school in 
overcrowded classrooms. We tell them to do their best without adequate 
air conditioning, heating and plumbing. We expect them to learn in 
buildings with leaky roofs and crumbling walls, or we house them in 
``temporary'' classrooms in trailers on school parking lots.
  In Rhode Island, our schools are old: twenty five percent were built 
before 1930; another thirty-six percent were built in the 1940s and 
1950s; twenty-three percent were built in the 1960s; and thirteen 
percent were built in the recent 1980s. Between 1986 and 1990, our 
small State spent about $400 million on school construction projects, 
averaging about 11 projects per year, and there is much more to be 
done. My State isn't asking the federal government to step in and take 
over its school facilities responsibilities or the responsibilities of 
local communities. Rather, help is being sought at the federal level to 
meet a critical and immediate need.
  The legislation which Senator Snowe and I are introducing today, 
addresses that need by providing twenty billion dollars in federal 
loans to the states. Each state receives funds, based on the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act's Title I distribution formula, at the 
request of the Governor. States have until 2003 to request the loans. 
Fifty percent of the loans must be used to repay the interest on school 
construction bonds. The other fifty percent may be used to support 
existing state-administered school construction

[[Page S7243]]

programs. Decisions about the use of these federal dollars are made by 
the Governor in consultation with the director of the state education 
agency. I am very pleased that the revised legislation encourages the 
loans to go to those school districts with the greatest need, but the 
final decisions are made by those closest to the problems.
  As a former mayor, the person at the local level signing the checks 
to pay for my community's education needs, I am very familiar with 
educational priorities at the local level. I am deeply committed to 
ensuring that the federal government meets its overdue goal of paying 
up to forty percent of the cost of educating children with special 
needs. Since coming to the Senate, I have made fully-funding IDEA--the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--a top priority. This bill 
links the interest states and localities will be required to pay to the 
federal level of IDEA funding.
  Until 2006, there will be zero interest on BRICKS loans. After that, 
interest will be determined by the federal funding level for IDEA. If 
federal IDEA funding remains, as it is today, below twenty percent, the 
loans will remain at zero interest. If the federal spending on IDEA is 
between twenty and thirty percent, interest will be 2.5 percent. If 
federal spending on IDEA rises to between thirty and forty percent, 
interest rises to 3.5 percent. Finally, if the federal government meets 
its forty percent goal, interest peaks at 4.5 percent. Taking into 
account federal funding of IDEA seems completely appropriate to me. I 
hope this linkage of IDEA and spending on school facilities is another 
step which encourages Congress to meet the goal of fully funding IDEA.
  Our proposal does not ask the federal government to assume 
responsibility for building, improving and maintaining school 
facilities. States and local school districts already have accepted 
that responsibility by spending more than ever before on facilities. 
According to the most recent study by the General Accounting Office on 
school facilities, issued in March 2000, spending on school 
infrastructure increased by 39 percent from 1990 to 1997. But they 
cannot do it alone. The federal government can and should help by 
providing BRICKS loans.
  I hope that Senators who care about this issue will put aside 
partisan differences and look carefully at the plan Senator Snowe and I 
are proposing. We believe that BRICKS addresses an immediate problem in 
a responsible manner that does not usurp the authority or 
responsibility of states and school districts. I urge my colleagues to 
join as cosponsors of BRICKS.
                                 ______