[House Report 111-100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-100
======================================================================
21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT
_______
May 11, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. George Miller of California, from the Committee on Education and
Labor, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2187]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2187) to direct the Secretary of Education to
make grants to State educational agencies for the
modernization, renovation, or repair of public school
facilities, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century Green
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--GRANTS FOR MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, OR REPAIR OF PUBLIC
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Sec. 101. Purpose.
Sec. 102. Allocation of funds.
Sec. 103. Allowable uses of funds.
TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA
Sec. 201. Purpose.
Sec. 202. Allocation to local educational agencies.
Sec. 203. Allowable uses of funds.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Impermissible uses of funds.
Sec. 302. Supplement, not supplant.
Sec. 303. Prohibition regarding State aid.
Sec. 304. Maintenance of effort.
Sec. 305. Special rule on contracting.
Sec. 306. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods.
Sec. 307. Labor standards.
Sec. 308. Charter schools.
Sec. 309. Green schools.
Sec. 310. Reporting.
Sec. 311. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 312. Special rules.
Sec. 313. YouthBuild programs.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term ``Bureau-funded school'' has the meaning given
to such term in section 1141 of the Education Amendments of
1978 (25 U.S.C. 2021).
(2) The term ``charter school'' has the meaning given such
term in section 5210 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7221).
(3) The term ``CHPS Criteria'' means the green building
rating program developed by the Collaborative for High
Performance Schools.
(4) The term ``Energy Star'' means the Energy Star program of
the United States Department of Energy and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(5) The term ``Green Globes'' means the Green Building
Initiative environmental design and rating system referred to
as Green Globes.
(6) The term ``LEED Green Building Rating System'' means the
United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design green building rating standard referred to
as LEED Green Building Rating System.
(7) The term ``local educational agency''--
(A) has the meaning given to that term in section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801), and shall also include the
Recovery School District of Louisiana and the New
Orleans Public Schools; and
(B) includes any public charter school that
constitutes a local educational agency under State law.
(8) The term ``outlying area''--
(A) means the United States Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands; and
(B) includes the freely associated states of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States
of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.
(9) The term ``public school facilities'' means an existing
public school facility, including a public charter school
facility, or another existing facility planned for adaptive
reuse as such a school facility.
(10) The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
TITLE I--GRANTS FOR MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, OR REPAIR OF PUBLIC
SCHOOL FACILITIES
SEC. 101. PURPOSE.
Grants under this title shall be for the purpose of modernizing,
renovating, or repairing public school facilities, based on their need
for such improvements, to be safe, healthy, high-performing, and up-to-
date technologically.
SEC. 102. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.
(a) Reservation.--
(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated to carry out
this title for each fiscal year pursuant to section 311(a), the
Secretary shall reserve 1 percent of such amount, consistent
with the purpose described in section 101--
(A) to provide assistance to the outlying areas; and
(B) for payments to the Secretary of the Interior to
provide assistance to Bureau-funded schools.
(2) Use of reserved funds.--In each fiscal year, the amount
reserved under paragraph (1) shall be divided between the uses
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such paragraph in the
same proportion as the amount reserved under section 1121(a) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6331(a)) is divided between the uses described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of such section 1121(a) in such fiscal year.
(b) Allocation to States.--
(1) State-by-state allocation.--Of the amount appropriated to
carry out this title for each fiscal year pursuant to section
311(a), and not reserved under subsection (a), each State shall
be allocated an amount in proportion to the amount received by
all local educational agencies in the State under part A of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the previous fiscal year relative
to the total amount received by all local educational agencies
in every State under such part for such fiscal year.
(2) State administration.--A State may reserve up to 1
percent of its allocation under paragraph (1) to carry out its
responsibilities under this title, which include--
(A) providing technical assistance to local
educational agencies;
(B) developing an online, publicly searchable
database that includes an inventory of public school
facilities in the State, including for each, its
design, condition, modernization, renovation and repair
needs, usage, utilization, energy use, and carbon
footprint; and
(C) creating voluntary guidelines for high-performing
school buildings, including guidelines concerning the
following:
(i) Site location, storm water management,
outdoor surfaces, outdoor lighting, and
transportation (location near public transit
and easy access for pedestrians and bicycles).
(ii) Outdoor water systems, landscaping to
minimize water use, including elimination of
irrigation systems for landscaping, and indoor
water use reduction.
(iii) Energy efficiency (including minimum
and superior standards, such as for heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems), use
of alternative energy sources, commissioning,
and training.
(iv) Use of durable, sustainable materials
and waste reduction.
(v) Indoor environmental quality, such as day
lighting in classrooms, lighting quality,
indoor air quality, acoustics, and thermal
comfort.
(vi) Operations and management, such as use
of energy efficient equipment, indoor
environmental management plan, maintenance
plan, and pest management.
(3) Grants to local educational agencies.--
(A) In general.--From the amount allocated to a State
under paragraph (1), each eligible local educational
agency in the State shall receive an amount in
proportion to the amount received by such local
educational agency under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the previous fiscal year
relative to the total amount received by all local
educational agencies in the State under such part for
such fiscal year, except that no local educational
agency that received funds under title I of that Act
for such fiscal year shall receive a grant of less than
$5,000 in any fiscal year under this title.
(B) Eligible local educational agency.--For purposes
of subparagraph (A), the term ``eligible local
educational agency'' means a local educational agency
that--
(i) meets the requirements of section 1112(a)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.); and
(ii) conducts an independent audit by a
third-party entity, and is certified by the
State, substantiating the overall condition of
the public school facilities and the need for
modernization, renovation, or repair.
(4) Special rule.--Section 1122(c)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6332(c)(3)) shall
not apply to paragraph (1) or (3).
(c) Special Rules.--
(1) Distributions by secretary.--The Secretary shall make and
distribute the reservations and allocations described in
subsections (a) and (b) not later than 30 days after an
appropriation of funds for this title is made.
(2) Distributions by states.--A State shall make and
distribute the allocations described in subsection (b)(3)
within 30 days of receiving such funds from the Secretary.
SEC. 103. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS.
A local educational agency receiving a grant under this title shall
use the grant for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school
facilities, including, where applicable, early learning facilities--
(1) repairing, replacing, or installing roofs, including
extensive, intensive or semi-intensive green roofs, electrical
wiring, plumbing systems, sewage systems, storm water runoff
systems, lighting systems, or components of such systems,
windows, ceilings, flooring, or doors, including security
doors;
(2) repairing, replacing, or installing heating, ventilation,
air conditioning systems, or components of such systems
(including insulation), including indoor air quality
assessments;
(3) bringing public schools into compliance with fire,
health, seismic, and safety codes, including professional
installation of fire/life safety alarms, including
modernizations, renovations, and repairs that ensure that
schools are prepared for emergencies, such as improving
building infrastructure to accommodate security measures;
(4) modifications necessary to make public school facilities
accessible to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794);
(5) abatement, removal, or interim controls of asbestos,
polychlorinated biphenyls, mold, mildew, or lead-based hazards,
including lead-based paint hazards;
(6) measures designed to reduce or eliminate human exposure
to classroom noise and environmental noise pollution;
(7) modernizations, renovations, or repairs necessary to
reduce the consumption of coal, electricity, land, natural gas,
oil, or water;
(8) upgrading or installing educational technology
infrastructure to ensure that students have access to up-to-
date educational technology;
(9) modernization, renovation, or repair of science and
engineering laboratory facilities, libraries, and career and
technical education facilities, including those related to
energy efficiency and renewable energy, and improvements to
building infrastructure to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian
access;
(10) renewable energy generation and heating systems,
including solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, or biomass,
including wood pellet, woody biomass, waste-to-energy, and
solar-thermal systems or components of such systems, and energy
audits;
(11) other modernization, renovation, or repair of public
school facilities to--
(A) improve teachers' ability to teach and students'
ability to learn;
(B) ensure the health and safety of students and
staff;
(C) make them more energy efficient; or
(D) reduce class size; and
(12) required environmental remediation related to public
school modernization, renovation, or repair described in
paragraphs (1) through (11).
TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA
SEC. 201. PURPOSE.
Grants under this title shall be for the purpose of modernizing,
renovating, repairing, or constructing public school facilities,
including, where applicable, early learning facilities, based on their
need for such improvements, to be safe, healthy, high-performing, and
up-to-date technologically.
SEC. 202. ALLOCATION TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Of the amount appropriated to carry out this title
for each fiscal year pursuant to section 311(b), the Secretary shall
allocate to local educational agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama an amount equal to the infrastructure damage inflicted on
public school facilities in each such district by Hurricane Katrina or
Hurricane Rita in 2005 relative to the total of such infrastructure
damage so inflicted in all such districts, combined.
(b) Distribution by Secretary.--The Secretary shall determine and
distribute the allocations described in subsection (a) not later than
60 days after an appropriation of funds for this title is made.
SEC. 203. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS.
A local educational agency receiving a grant under this title shall
use the grant for one or more of the activities described in section
103, except that an agency receiving a grant under this title also may
use the grant for the construction of new public school facilities.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. IMPERMISSIBLE USES OF FUNDS.
No funds received under this Act may be used for--
(1) payment of maintenance costs;
(2) stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic
contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is
charged to the general public;
(3) improvement or construction of facilities the purpose of
which is not the education of children, including central
office administration or operations or logistical support
facilities; or
(4) purchasing carbon offsets.
SEC. 302. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT.
A local educational agency receiving a grant under this Act shall use
such Federal funds only to supplement and not supplant the amount of
funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be available
for modernization, renovation, repair, and construction of public
school facilities.
SEC. 303. PROHIBITION REGARDING STATE AID.
A State shall not take into consideration payments under this Act in
determining the eligibility of any local educational agency in that
State for State aid, or the amount of State aid, with respect to free
public education of children.
SEC. 304. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.
(a) In General.--A local educational agency may receive a grant under
this Act for any fiscal year only if either the combined fiscal effort
per student or the aggregate expenditures of the agency and the State
involved with respect to the provision of free public education by the
agency for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90 percent of
the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second
preceding fiscal year.
(b) Reduction in Case of Failure To Meet Maintenance of Effort
Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The State educational agency shall reduce
the amount of a local educational agency's grant in any fiscal
year in the exact proportion by which a local educational
agency fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) by
falling below 90 percent of both the combined fiscal effort per
student and aggregate expenditures (using the measure most
favorable to the local agency).
(2) Special rule.--No such lesser amount shall be used for
computing the effort required under subsection (a) for
subsequent years.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive the requirements of this
section if the Secretary determines that a waiver would be equitable
due to--
(1) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a
natural disaster; or
(2) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of the
local educational agency.
SEC. 305. SPECIAL RULE ON CONTRACTING.
Each local educational agency receiving a grant under this Act shall
ensure that, if the agency carries out modernization, renovation,
repair, or construction through a contract, the process for any such
contract ensures the maximum number of qualified bidders, including
local, small, minority, and women- and veteran-owned businesses,
through full and open competition.
SEC. 306. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS.
(a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for a project for the modernization,
renovation, repair or construction of a public school facility unless
all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are
produced in the United States.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or
category of cases in which the Secretary finds that--
(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the
public interest;
(2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not
produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably
available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or
(3) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced
in the United States will increase the cost of the overall
project by more than 25 percent.
(c) Publication of Justification.--If the Secretary determines that
it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a
finding under subsection (b), the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register a detailed written justification of the determination.
(d) Construction.--This section shall be applied in a manner
consistent with United States obligations under international
agreements.
SEC. 307. LABOR STANDARDS.
The grant programs under this Act are applicable programs (as that
term is defined in section 400 of the General Education Provisions Act
(20 U.S.C. 1221)) subject to section 439 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b).
SEC. 308. CHARTER SCHOOLS.
A local educational agency receiving an allocation under this Act
shall distribute an amount of that allocation to charter schools within
its jurisdiction. The total amount to be distributed under the
preceding sentence shall be determined based on the percentage of
students eligible under part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in the schools
of the agency who are enrolled in charter schools. Of such total,
individual charter schools shall receive a share based on the needs of
the schools, as determined by the agency in consultation with the
charter school community. Funds shall be used only for allowable
activities in accordance with this Act.
SEC. 309. GREEN SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--In a given fiscal year, a local educational agency
shall use not less than the applicable percentage (described in
subsection (b)) of funds received under this Act for public school
modernization, renovation, repairs, or construction that are certified,
verified, or consistent with any applicable provisions of--
(1) the LEED Green Building Rating System;
(2) Energy Star;
(3) the CHPS Criteria;
(4) Green Globes; or
(5) an equivalent program adopted by the State or another
jurisdiction with authority over the local educational agency,
which shall include a verifiable method to demonstrate
compliance with such program.
(b) Applicable Percentages.--The applicable percentage described in
subsection (a) is--
(1) in fiscal year 2010, 50 percent;
(2) in fiscal year 2011, 60 percent;
(3) in fiscal year 2012, 70 percent;
(4) in fiscal year 2013, 80 percent;
(5) in fiscal year 2014, 90 percent; and
(6) in fiscal year 2015, 100 percent.
(c) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall provide outreach and technical assistance to
States and local educational agencies concerning the best practices in
school modernization, renovation, repair, and construction, including
those related to student academic achievement, student and staff
health, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.
SEC. 310. REPORTING.
(a) Reports by Local Educational Agencies.--Local educational
agencies receiving a grant under this Act shall annually compile a
report describing the projects for which such funds were used,
including--
(1) the number of public schools in the agency, including the
number of charter schools, and for each, in the aggregate, the
number of students from low-income families;
(2) the total amount of funds received by the local
educational agency under this Act and the amount of such funds
expended, including the amount expended for modernization,
renovation, repair, or construction of charter schools;
(3) the number of public schools in the agency with a metro-
centric locale code of 41, 42, or 43 as determined by the
National Center for Education Statistics and the percentage of
funds received by the agency under title I or title II of this
Act that were used for projects at such schools;
(4) the number of public schools in the agency that are
eligible for schoolwide programs under section 1114 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6314)
and the percentage of funds received by the agency under title
I or title II of this Act that were used for projects at such
schools;
(5) for each project--
(A) the cost;
(B) the standard described in section 309(a) with
which the use of the funds complied or, if the use of
funds did not comply with a standard described in
section 309(a), the reason such funds were not able to
be used in compliance with such standards and the
agency's efforts to use such funds in an
environmentally sound manner;
(C) if flooring was installed, whether--
(i) it was low- or no-VOC (Volatile Organic
Compounds) flooring;
(ii) it was made from sustainable materials;
and
(iii) use of flooring described in clause (i)
or (ii) was cost-effective; and
(D) any demonstrable or expected benefits as a result
of the project (such as energy savings, improved indoor
environmental quality, improved climate for teaching
and learning, etc.); and
(6) the total number and amount of contracts awarded, and the
number and amount of contracts awarded to local, small,
minority, women, and veteran-owned businesses.
(b) Availability of Reports.--A local educational agency shall--
(1) submit the report described in subsection (a) to the
State educational agency, which shall compile such information
and report it annually to the Secretary; and
(2) make the report described in subsection (a) publicly
available, including on the agency's website.
(c) Reports by Secretary.--Not later than December 31 of each fiscal
year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Education and
Labor of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, and make available on the
Department of Education's website, a report on grants made under this
Act, including the information described in subsection (b)(1), the
types of modernization, renovation, repair, and construction funded,
and the number of students impacted, including the number of students
counted under section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)).
SEC. 311. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Title I.--To carry out title I, there are authorized to be
appropriated $6,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
(b) Title II.--To carry out title II, there are authorized to be
appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
SEC. 312. SPECIAL RULES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds
authorized by this Act may be--
(1) used to employ workers in violation of section 274A of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a); or
(2) distributed to a local educational agency that does not
have a policy that requires a criminal background check on all
employees of the agency.
SEC. 313. YOUTHBUILD PROGRAMS.
The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of
Labor, shall work with recipients of funds under this Act to promote
appropriate opportunities for participants in a YouthBuild program (as
defined in section 173A of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2918a)) to gain employment experience on modernization,
renovation, repair, and construction projects funded under this Act.
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-
Performing Public School Facilities Act, is to support states'
and local educational agencies' efforts to provide public
school students with schools that are safe, healthy, high-
performing, and up-to-date technologically, and to promote
green building principles.
II. COMMITTEE ACTION
110th Congress
Full Committee hearing on ``Modern Public School
Facilities: Investing in the Future''
On Wednesday, February 13, 2008, the Committee on Education
and Labor held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Modern
Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future.'' The
purpose of the hearing was to highlight the poor quality of
public school buildings frequently found throughout the United
States, particularly in low-income areas, and the importance of
federal investment in public school buildings. Testifying
before the full Committee were, on the first panel,
Representatives Ben Chandler (D-KY), Michael N. Castle (R-DE),
Bob Etheridge (D-NC), David Loebsack (D-IA), Charles Boustany
(R-LA), Darlene Hooley (D-OR), Steve King (R-IA) and Rush Holt
(D-NJ), and on the second panel, Kathleen J. Moore, Director,
School Facilities Planning Division, California Department of
Education (Sacramento, California); Judi Caddick, Teacher,
Memorial Junior High School, Illinois Education Association
(Lansing, Illinois); Mary Cullinane, Director, Innovation and
Business Development Team, Microsoft Corporation (New York, New
York); Dr. Paula Vincent, Superintendent, Clear Creek Amana
School District (Oxford, Iowa); Paul Vallas, Superintendent,
Louisiana Recovery School District (New Orleans, Louisiana);
Jim Waters, Director, Policy and Communications, Bluegrass
Institute for Public Policy Solutions (Bowling Green,
Kentucky); Neal McCluskey, Associate Director, Center for
Educational Freedom, CATO Institute (Washington, D.C.).
Introduction of the ``21st Century High-Performing Public
School Facilities Act''
On Thursday, July 12, 2007, Representatives Chandler,
George Miller (D-CA), and Dale Kildee (D-MI) introduced H.R.
3021, the 21st Century High-Performing Public School Facilities
Act, a bill to direct the Secretary of Education to make grants
and low-interest loans to local educational agencies for the
construction, modernization, or repair of public kindergarten,
elementary, and secondary educational facilities, and for other
purposes.
Full Committee Markup of H.R. 3021
On Wednesday, April 30, 2008, the Committee on Education
and Labor considered H.R. 3021 in legislative session, and
reported the bill favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a vote of 28-19. Representatives Loebsack
and Kildee offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3021
made the following changes:
Inserted the word ``Green'' into the Act's
title;
Converted the competitive grant and loan
program authorized by the bill to a formula grant
program, based on each state's and local educational
agency's allocation under Part A of Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
Required the Secretary of Education to
distribute funds to states within thirty days of the
Department's appropriation, and states to distribute
funds to local educational agencies within thirty days
of having received such funds;
Required the Secretary to provide technical
assistance to states and local educational agencies;
Required states to provide technical
assistance to local educational agencies, to develop a
plan to establish a database that includes an inventory
of public school facilities in the state and the
modernization, renovation, and repair needs of, energy
use by, and carbon footprint of such schools, and to
develop a school energy efficiency quality plan;
Required local educational agencies to use
an increasing percentage of funds received under the
bill in compliance with sustainable building rating
systems;
Added a title authorizing funds for grants
to local educational agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi
and Alabama to compensate for damage to public school
facilities caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in
2005; and
Clarified that local educational agencies
are required to report publicly on the sustainable
building rating systems with which their uses of funds
comply, to explain any uses of funds that did not
comply with such systems, and to explain the
demonstrated or expected benefits from their uses of
funds (such as energy savings, indoor environmental
quality, improved climate for teaching and learning,
etc.), and the percentage of funds used in low-income
and rural schools.
The Committee rejected six amendments by
roll-call vote. The Chair ruled two other amendments
out of order on the ground that they addressed issues
that were beyond the scope of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The Committee upheld both
rulings by roll-call vote.
House Passage of H.R. 3021
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3021 on June 4,
2008, by a vote of 250-164. The bill was messaged to the Senate
and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Senate.
Related Legislative Action
On September 26, 2008, the House passed H.R. 7110, the Job
Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008, introduced by
Representative David Obey (D-WI), Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. H.R. 7110 appropriated $3 billion for
public school modernization, renovation and repair, essentially
as provided by Title I of H.R. 3021.
On January 28, 2009, at the beginning of the 111th
Congress, the House passed H.R. 1, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also introduced by Chairman Obey. H.R.
1 appropriated $14 billion for public school modernization,
renovation and repair, again, essentially as provided by Title
I of H.R. 3021. On February 12, 2009, the House passed the
Conference Report to H.R. 1, which did not include dedicated
funds for public school modernization, renovation and repair.
However, Title XIV of the Conference Report, the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund, includes $48.6 billion for states and local
educational agencies, of which public school modernization,
renovation and repair (including modernization, renovation and
repair that complies with a recognized green building standard)
is one authorized use.
111TH CONGRESS
Introduction of the ``21st Century Green High-Performing
Public School Facilities Act''
On Thursday, April 30, 2009, Representatives Ben Chandler
(D-KY), George Miller (D-CA), Dale Kildee (D-MI), and Dave
Loebsack (D-IA) introduced H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill, which
is largely similar to H.R. 30021, directs the Secretary of
Education to make grants and low-interest loans to local
educational agencies for the modernization, renovation, or
repair of public early learning, kindergarten, elementary, and
secondary educational facilities, and for other purposes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Other original cosponsors of the bill were Representatives
Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ),
Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Pedro R.
Pierluisi (D-PR), Jared Polis (D-CO), Gregorio Sablan (D-CNMI), John F.
Tierney (D-MA), Paul D. Tonko (D-NY), Lynn C. Woolsey (D-CA), and David
Wu (D-OR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Committee Markup of H.R. 2187
On Wednesday, May 6, 2009, the Committee on Education and
Labor considered H.R. 2187 in legislative session, and reported
the bill favorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives
by a vote of 31-14. Chairman Miller offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes several
changes, including:
Makes the state database online and publicly
searchable;
Expands reporting data concerning charter
schools;
Expands the areas to be covered by voluntary
high-performing school guidelines to be developed by
states;
Adds stormwater runoff, seismic code
compliance, and additional renewable energy systems as
allowable uses of funds;
Expands lead-based hazards that can be
mitigated with these funds;
Allows energy audits as a use of funds; and
Requires state or local green standards to
include a method for demonstrating compliance if they
are to be used to comply with the provisions of the
bill.
The Committee also adopted three amendments offered by the
following members: Representative Polis (to ensure that charter
schools receive a share of a local education agency's funds
based on the percentage of low-income students within the
agency served by charter schools and to ensure consultation
between the agency and charter schools concerning the needs of
individual schools); Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) (to
clarify that improvements to ceilings and floors are authorized
uses of funds); and Senior Republican Member Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon (to require local educational agencies to conduct a
state-certified, independent third-party facilities audit to
receive funds).
The Committee rejected two amendments by roll-call vote.
III. SUMMARY OF THE BILL
As reported, Title I of H.R. 2187 authorizes $6.4 billion
for fiscal year 2010 and such sums through fiscal year 2015.
The bill ensures that school districts around the country will
quickly receive funds for much needed public school
modernization, renovation, and repair projects to improve the
teaching and learning climate, student and staff health and
safety, energy efficiency, and the environment. It directs the
Secretary to reserve one percent of Title I funds for
assistance to outlying areas and Bureau of Indian Education-
funded schools and requires that such funds be distributed
between the outlying areas and the Department of the Interior
for Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools in the same
proportion as the amount reserved and distributed under section
1121(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
H.R. 2187 allocates to each state the same percentage of
funds that the state receives under Title I, Part A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and allocates within
states the same percentage to each school district that the
school district receives under such part (except that no such
school district will receive less than $5,000). To receive
funds, a local educational agency must conduct an independent,
third party audit of the condition of its public school
facilities that is certified by the state. It also requires the
Secretary to distribute funds to states within thirty days of
appropriation for redistribution to school districts within
thirty days of receipt.
The bill allows states to reserve one percent of their
Title I allocation to carry out their responsibilities under
the Act, which include technical assistance, developing an
online, publicly searchable statewide database of public school
facility design, condition, modernization, renovation and
repair needs, usage, utilization, energy use, and carbon
footprint, and creating voluntary guidelines for high-
performing public school buildings.
Funds under Title I may be used for public school
modernization, renovation, and repairs, including roofs,
electrical, plumbing, sewage, stormwater runoff and lighting
systems or components thereof, and windows, floors, ceilings
and doors; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems
or components thereof, including insulation and indoor air
quality assessments; bringing schools into compliance with
fire, health, seismic and safety codes, including
modernizations, renovations, and repairs that ensure that
schools are prepared for emergencies; complying with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; abatement, removal, or interim
controls of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, mold, mildew,
or lead-based hazards; reduction of classroom noise and
environmental noise pollution; modernization, renovation, or
repairs to reduce the consumption of coal, electricity, land,
natural gas, oil, or water; upgrading or installing educational
technology infrastructure; modernization, renovation, or
repairs of laboratory facilities, libraries, career and
technical education facilities and building infrastructure to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access; renewable energy
generation and heating systems and energy audits; other
modernizations, renovations, or repairs that improve the
teaching and learning climate, ensure the health and safety of
students and staff, make schools more energy efficient or
reduce class size; and required environmental remediation
related to modernizations, renovations, or repairs described
above.
H.R. 2187 requires that funds be used for projects that
meet one of four widely recognized green standards (Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating
System, Energy Star, Collaborative for High Performance
Schools, or Green Globes) or an equivalent state or local
standard, which must include a verifiable method to demonstrate
compliance. School districts must use their funds under the Act
for projects that meet one of the Act's green requirements as
follows--50 percent in 2010, 60 percent in 2011, 70 percent in
2012, 80 percent in 2013, 90 percent in 2014, and 100 percent
in 2015.
In Title II, the bill authorizes $100 million for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2015 for public schools in the Gulf
region in response to damages from Hurricane Katrina or
Hurricane Rita. These funds are to be used for the same
purposes as Title I funds, but also may be used for new
construction, and must be distributed by the Secretary within
60 days of an appropriation.
The bill requires local educational agencies to ensure that
the bid process for any projects carried out through a contract
ensures the maximum number of qualified bidders, including
local, small, minority, women- and veteran-owned businesses,
through full and open competition.
It requires that all iron, steel and manufactured goods
used in projects funded by this Act be produced in the United
States, but allows the Secretary to waive the requirement under
specified circumstances.
Davis-Bacon labor law protections apply to all funds
received under the Act.
The bill requires that charter schools receive a share of a
local education agency's funds under this Act based on the
percentage of low-income students within the agency served by
charter schools. The bill also requires consultation between
the agency and charter schools on that process.
The bill requires school districts to report publicly on
educational, energy, and indoor environmental benefits of
projects, compliance with the green requirement, and the
percentage of funds used for projects at low-income, charter
and rural schools. States must compile these reports and submit
them to the Secretary who shall, in turn, report to the House
Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and make that report
available on the Department's website
The bill requires the Secretary of Education (in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency) to disseminate best
practices in school modernization, renovation, repair and
construction of school facilities and to provide technical
assistance to states and school districts concerning such best
practices.
The bill prohibits funds to be used to employ workers in
violation of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality
Act or to be distributed to a local educational agency that
does not have a policy that requires a criminal background
check on all agency employees.
Finally, the bill requires the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Labor, to work with recipients of funds
under this Act to promote appropriate opportunities for
participants in Youthbuild programs to gain experience on
projects funded by this Act.
IV. COMMITTEE VIEWS
The Committee believes that H.R. 2187 addresses a number of
important issues--the quality of our nation's public school
facilities, student achievement, the state of the economy, and
the state of the environment. The Committee believes that these
issues are interrelated and that each represents a critical
national concern.
As noted above, President Obama and Congress have already
endorsed these principles by making green school modernization,
renovation and repair an allowable use of funds under the state
fiscal stabilization fund in H.R. 1. The Committee believes
H.R. 2187 is a critical next step in this effort because it is
important to provide funds specifically dedicated to this
purpose. Prior to ARRA, and with the exception of funding
through the Impact Aid program and through the Department of
the Interior for Indian schools, direct federal support for
school construction has been virtually non-existent since
fiscal year 2001, when Congress appropriated $1.2 billion
primarily for emergency school repair and renovation. The
Committee agrees with Representative Chandler's testimony
before the Committee last year, that ``[w]hile Congress has
recognized that educational excellence is vital to the economy
and national competitiveness, too often we have failed to
provide . . . the funding necessary to make these goals a
reality.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Testimony of Representative Ben Chandler, Hearing, U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School
Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://
edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-BenChandler.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demand for new and renovated public school facilities
is unprecedented in our nation's history.\3\ A briefing paper
delivered at an Economic Policy Institute forum, Investing in
U.S. Infrastructure, in April 2008, called for $140 billion in
federal funds for capital outlays for low-income school
districts and an ongoing federal role in such funding
comparable to the current federal share of education operations
funding (approximately 10 percent) in order to bring these
districts up to parity with the highest income districts. The
paper argued that such funding is necessary to ensure that
``the nation's public schools are healthy, safe,
environmentally sound, and built . . . to support a high-
quality education.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Testimony of Kathleen J. Moore, Director, School Facilities
Planning Division, California Department of Education, Hearing, U.S.
House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern
Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008
(http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-KathleenMoore.pdf).
\4\Good Buildings, Better Schools, Filardo, M., Economic Policy
Institute Briefing Paper, April 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need and disparity
The most recent comprehensive estimates of the national
need for school construction and renovation were made in 1995
($112 billion, U.S. General Accounting Office\5\ (GAO)\6\),
2000 ($127 billion, National Center for Education Statistics\7\
(NCES)), 2001 ($322 billion, National Education Association\8\
(NEA)), and 2008 ($254.6 billion, American Federation of
Teachers (AFT))\9\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Condition of America's Schools, Government Accounting Office,
1995 (GAO/HEHS-95-61).
\6\In 2004, the General Accounting Office was renamed the
Government Accountability Office. The Committee will use ``GAO'' to
refer to both.
\7\Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999, National
Center for Education Statistics.
\8\Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost?, National Education
Association, 2000.
\9\Building Minds, Minding Buildings: School Infrastructure Funding
Need, A state-by-state assessment and an analysis of recent court
cases: 2008, American Federation of Teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several studies highlight the inadequacy of school
facilities. In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers,
on its national infrastructure report card, gave America's
public schools a D.\10\ A 2005 survey of school principals by
NCES found that fifty-two percent of schools had no science
laboratories, thirty percent had no art rooms, nineteen percent
had no music rooms, and seventeen percent had no gymnasium.\11\
A 2004 NCES report found that one school in three had temporary
buildings as the primary learning space for at least 160
students, and that in one in five schools, teachers routinely
had to use a building's common areas for instructional
purposes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/schools.
\11\Public School Principals Report on Their School Facilities:
Fall 2005, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics.
\12\Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals,
and School Libraries in the United States 2003-2004, Schools and
Staffing Survey, National Center for Education Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disparities in the condition of our schools are also well-
documented. In 1996, GAO reported, in a follow-up to an earlier
study, that on every measure--inadequate buildings or building
features, unsatisfactory environmental conditions, etc.--the
same subgroups schools in central cities, western states, and
schools serving higher percentages of minority or low-income
students--reported having more significant problems.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\America's Schools Report Differing Conditions, Government
Accounting Office, 1996 (GAO/HEHS-96-103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, a report by Building Educational Success Together
(BEST) concluded that the GAO and NEA estimates ``grossly
underestimated'' the need for school improvements, and
concurred with the 1996 GAO finding that facilities in low-
income and minority-serving areas tended to be in significantly
worse condition. The report also concluded that despite
significant state and local expenditures on school construction
and renovation from 1996-2004, ``there continue to be millions
of students in substandard and crowded school conditions.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Growth and Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School
Construction, Building Educational Success Together, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the Committee's intent that funds authorized by this
bill be used to ensure that all children have access to a high-
quality public school facility. The Committee recognizes that
facility quality disparity is most likely to occur in low-
income areas. Accordingly, the Committee encourages local
educational agencies to take care to ensure that the needs of
low-income and rural schools are addressed by giving priority
to schools where modernization, renovation, and repair will
most benefit students, teachers, and other staff and ensuring
that the schools are safe, healthy, conducive to teaching and
learning, energy efficient, and environmentally sound.
Green Schools
A 2006 report concludes that a green school (1) uses one-
third less energy than a conventional school; (2) reduces
harmful carbon dioxide emissions by forty percent, which helps
reduce global climate change; (3) uses 30 percent less water;
(4) has better lighting and temperature controls, which
promotes higher student achievement; and (5) has a more
comfortable indoor environment, improved ventilation and indoor
air quality, which result in short-term ($96,760 per year) and
long-term savings as a result of green building.\15\ The
average national school construction cost is $150 per square
foot; building green adds only $3 per square foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Greening America's Schools, Kats, G., 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the study, the long-term savings from green
building are $70 per square foot.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of energy savings was illustrated by hearing
testimony of Representative and Committee Member Holt.
Representative Holt noted that between 2005 and 2007, schools'
energy costs increased from $6 billion annually to $8
billion.\17\ According to Committee Member Loebsack's testimony
at the same hearing, green schools save 33 percent on energy
and 32 percent on water costs compared to non-green
schools.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Testimony of Representative Rush Holt, Hearing, U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School
Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://
edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-RushHolt.pdf.
\18\Testimony of Representative David Loebsack, Hearing, U.S. House
of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://
edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-DaveLoebsack.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that green building can serve a
number of purposes. Such building will directly benefit both
the larger environment and the indoor environment. The
Committee further believes that green building will improve the
ability of teachers to teach and students to learn as well as
the health of students, teachers, and other school staff.
States, cities, and school districts around the country
have adopted green building and green schools initiatives.
Representative Hooley (Co-Chair of the Congressional Green
Schools Caucus) testified that by 2010, the green building
market will be worth $60 billion, of which twenty-seven percent
will be comprised by school facilities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Testimony of Representative Darlene Hooley, Hearing, U.S. House
of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://
edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-DarleneHooley.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that a critical component of the
success of this bill will be local educational agencies'
knowledge of best practices in school construction,
modernization, renovation, and repair as they relate to green
building.
With reference to states' responsibilities, the bill
directs states to develop voluntary guidelines for high-
performing school buildings. The Committee encourages states,
in developing the energy efficiency components of such
guidelines, to look for direction to the definition of such
plans in H.R. 579, the School Building Enhancement Act,
introduced by Representative Holt. That bill defines such plans
as including standards for school building design,
construction, and renovation; and proposals for the systematic
improvement (including benchmarks and timelines) of
environmental conditions in and around schools throughout the
state. H.R. 579 also encourages purchasing environmentally
preferable products for instruction and maintenance, increasing
the use of alternative energy fuels in school buses, and
maximizing transportation choices for students, staff, and
other members of the community.
In addition to the voluntary state guidelines for high-
performing school buildings required in the bill, the Committee
encourages states to establish voluntary guidelines concerning
performance monitoring, use of Energy Star equipment,
alternative fuels buses, anti-idling measures, and other
measures the state believes will contribute to high-performing
schools.
The Committee encourages the Secretary, in carrying out the
Department's technical assistance responsibilities under H.R.
2187, as amended, to examine the Illinois Resource Guide for
Healthy, High-Performing School Buildings. The recommendations
and information in the guide are intended to provide school
administrators, school boards and other community members with
guidance to make informed decisions about health and energy
efficiency issues important to schools. The guide's objective
is to promote long-term thinking and to ensure that school
buildings are compatible with the goals of improving learning
environments, reducing operating costs, supporting health and
safety, and protecting our natural environment.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\For a discussion of a case study in building a modern, green
school, see, Testimony of Mary Cullinane, Director, Innovation and
Business Development Team, Microsoft Corporation, Hearing, U.S. House
of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://
edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-MaryCullinane.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on teaching and learning
The Committee believes that while equity alone justifies
federal support for local educational agencies to ensure that
every child has access to a high-quality public school
facility, such support also is essential to closing the
achievement gap. The Committee believes that the relationship
between the quality of school facilities and student
achievement and teacher performance and retention are
positively intertwined.\21\ Research demonstrates that better
school facilities result in improved student achievement and
teacher recruitment and retention. The physical condition of
schools also affects student and teacher health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See, e.g., Testimony of Judi Caddick, Teacher, Memorial Junior
High School, Illinois Education Association, Lansing, Illinois,
Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and
Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future,
February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-
JudiCaddick.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a 2004 report by the 21st Century School Fund,
inadequate school facilities can result in alienated students,
low staff morale, high teacher attrition, the inability to
provide specialized curricula, reduced learning time,
distractions from learning, reduced ability to meet special
needs, lack of technological proficiency, health problems for
students and staff, safety hazards, and less supervision of
student behavior.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\For Generations to Come, 21st Century School Fund, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its 2005 survey, NCES noted that a key reason for school
construction and renovation is student and teacher safety, but
that building quality also affects the context for learning,
such that lighting, noise reduction, air quality and other
factors can affect student achievement and behavior. NCES
further noted that building quality affects teacher retention--
forty percent of teachers who transferred schools and thirty-
nine percent who left teaching cited the need for significant
school repairs as a source of their dissatisfaction.\23\ NCES
found that one-third of school principals cited at least one
environmental factor\24\ as interfering with their ability to
deliver instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Another study finding a relationship between facility quality
and teacher retention is The Effects of School Facility Quality on
Teacher Retention in Urban School Districts, Buckley, J., Schneider,
M., and Shang, Y., 2004.
\24\Those factors include: air conditioning, size/configuration of
rooms, acoustics or noise control, ventilation, heating, physical
condition, indoor air quality, natural lighting, artificial lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2004 study of the Los Angeles Unified School District,
authored by the current Commissioner of NCES, found a positive
relationship between a school's compliance with fourteen health
and safety measures\25\ and its students' academic performance
on California State tests.\26\ And, the testimony at the
Committee's February 13, 2008 hearing of Dr. Paula Vincent, the
Superintendent of the Clear Creek Amana (Iowa) School District
identifies and discusses a number of other studies linking
school facilities with improved student achievement and teacher
performance and retention.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\The fourteen health and safety measures are accident
prevention, asbestos management, fire/life safety, campus security,
chemical safety, pest management, lead management, restroom facilities,
indoor environment, maintenance and repair, safe school plan, emergency
preparedness, traffic and pedestrian safety, and science laboratory
safety.
\26\LAUSD School Facilities and Academic Performance, Buckley, J.,
Schneider, M. and Shang, Y., 2004.
\27\http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-PaulaVincent.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee encourages school districts that undertake
projects to reduce or eliminate human exposure to classroom
noise and environmental noise pollution, and the Secretary, in
providing technical assistance concerning reducing background
noise and reverberation in classrooms, to consider the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved Standard S12.6-
2002, [Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements,
and Guidelines for School].
Impact on health
A 2004 study mandated by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act, and funded by the Department of Education found that
``overall evidence suggests that poor environments in schools,
due primarily to the effects of indoor pollutants, adversely
affect the health, performance, and attendance of students.''
Specifically, the study found that indoor environmental quality
can influence health outcomes, which may, in turn, influence
student and teacher performance directly and indirectly.\28\
The study cites the 1995 GAO finding that thirty percent of
schools reported unsatisfactory ventilation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\A Summary of Scientific Findings on Adverse Effects of Indoor
Environments on Students' Health, Academic Performance and Attendance,
U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Centers for Disease Control advises that asthma
accounts for more than fourteen million missed school days per
year.\29\ A 2006 report by the American Federation of Teachers
concludes that ``[p]oor air quality in schools contributes to
students' asthma, absences due to illness, difficulty
concentrating, and lower achievement.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/children.htm.
\30\Building Minds, Minding Buildings, American Federation of
Teachers, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee further recognizes that although lead solder
with more than 0.2 percent lead and plumbing fixtures with more
than 8 percent lead were banned in 1987, such products remain
in schools across the country. The longer water remains in
contact with leaded plumbing, the more opportunity exists for
lead to leach into water. As a result, many facilities with on
again/off again water use patterns, such as schools, have
elevated lead concentrations in the water. The Environmental
Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control both have
concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to lead.
Exposure to lead early in life has been linked to cognitive
deficits, attention deficits, and extremely aggressive
behavior.
Impact on community
According to the 2006 BEST study, the difference between
good and poor quality facilities also affects the communities
in which they are located. School quality has a direct,
positive impact on residential property values and can improve
a community's ability to attract businesses and workers.\31\
This point also is supported by Representative Bob Etheridge's
testimony at the February 13, 2008 Committee hearing on this
issue.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Growth and Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School
Construction, Building Educational Success Together, 2006.
\32\Testimony of Representative Bob Etheridge, Hearing, U.S. House
of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public
School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://
edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-BobEtheridge.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BEST study also concluded that investments in school
facilities bring money into local economies through job
creation and supply purchases and can help revitalize
distressed neighborhoods. The Committee is persuaded by these
findings and expects that this bill will produce positive
results in our communities.
Impact on economy
Direct federal investment in school improvements could
provide an immediate boost to our economy and generate jobs.
Federal funding for the modernization, renovation, or repair of
school facilities could be spent quickly and efficiently to
address the loss of 1.3 million jobs in the construction
industry over the last year and a half.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis of H.R. 2187 as amended by the substitute was
provided to the Committee by the Economic Policy Institute. The
analysis estimates that this bill's funding would support
136,000 new jobs.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
H.R. 2187 provides additional support for Gulf Coast
schools still recovering from damage caused by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. The Gulf region, primarily New Orleans, has
hundreds of millions of dollars in unmet school modernization,
renovation, repair and construction needs, much as a result of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Prior to the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the
Recovery School District of Louisiana (RSD) already had a
deferred maintenance infrastructure deficit of approximately $1
billion. The hurricanes caused an additional $800 million in
damage to the district's schools.
The funding from this bill will help the district, and
others in the Gulf region, meet these important and timely
needs as they continue to recover from the hurricanes.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\See also Testimony of Paul Vallas, Superintendent, Louisiana
Recovery School District, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School Facilities:
Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/
testimony/2008-02-13-PaulVallas.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis-Bacon
Under the bill, the construction, modernization, repair,
and renovation projects paid for, in whole or in part, with the
grants made available by this legislation are subject to Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage requirements. Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
rules ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to undercut
local wage rates. These rules require contractors to pay the
local prevailing wage to their employees.
Davis-Bacon requirements will help control costs, ensure
higher quality work, and improve safety. Studies have shown
that, where prevailing wages are not required, contractors
compete on the basis of labor costs, frequently resulting in
poor construction quality as well as substantial cost and time
overruns due to cheaper workers' lower levels of skill,
productivity, and training.\35\ Where prevailing wages are
paid, higher rates of productivity, safety, and building
quality more than offset the cost of higher wages. For example,
one study by the Mechanical Electrical Sheet Metal Alliance,
focusing on highway and bridge construction, found that workers
who were paid more than double the wage of low-wage workers
were able to build 74.4 more miles of highway and 32.8 more
miles of bridges for $557 million less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\See generally, Peter Philips, ``Square Foot Construction Costs
for Newly Constructed State and Local Schools, Offices and Warehouses
in Nine Southwestern and Intermountain States 1992-1994,'' Prepared for
the Legislative Education Study Committee of the New Mexico State
Legislature, September 6, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis-Bacon requirements help save federal, state, and
local revenue. By creating family-supporting jobs in local
communities that do not drive workers' wages down, these
requirements ease the burden on public programs and provide
support for more economic activity. Studies have found that
repeal of local prevailing wage laws results in lower incomes,
loss of sales tax revenues, and a general loss of economic
activity.\36\ These are precisely the types of effects the
Committee intends to avoid by providing federal assistance to
local communities consistent with Davis-Bacon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\Michael P. Kelsay et al., ``The Adverse Economic Impact from
Repeal of the Prevailing Wage Law in Missouri,'' Council for Promoting
American Business, January 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Committee believes
passage of this bill will provide significant educational
benefits for our nation's students, health benefits for
students, teachers, and others who work in our schools,
financial benefits for schools resulting from energy savings,
economic benefits for hundreds of thousands of American workers
and their families, and environmental benefits.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Among the many organizations supporting H.R. 2187 are 21st
Century School Fund; American Association of Classified School
Employees; American Association of School Administrators (AASA);
American Architectural Foundation; American Congress on Surveying and
Mapping; American Council of Engineering Companies; American Federation
of Teachers; American Institute of Architects; American Lighting
Association; American Society of Civil Engineers; American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; American Society
of Landscape Architects; Architecture 2030; The Collaborative for High
Performance Schools (CHPS); The Campaign for Environmental Literacy;
Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing; Council of Educational
Facility Planners International (CEFPI); Council of the Great City
Schools; Environment America; Environmental and Energy Study Institute;
Global Green; Green for All; Healthy Schools Campaign; International
Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO; Mechanical Contractors
Association of America; National Association of Energy Service
Companies; National Association of State Energy Officials; National
Construction Alliance II (NCA II--the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America and the International Union of Operating
Engineers); National Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP); National Education Association; National School Plant
Management Association; National Society of Professional Engineers;
National Wildlife Federation; Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors
Association; Rebuild America's Schools; Sheet Metal and Air
Conditioning Contractors' National Association; The Stella Group;
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council; U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Sec. 2. Definitions
Includes definitions of Bureau-funded school, charter
school, local educational agency, outlying area, public school
facilities, state, LEED Green Building Rating System, Energy
Star, CHPS Criteria, and Green Globes.
TITLE I--GRANTS FOR MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, OR REPAIR OF SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Sec. 101. Purpose
Indicates the purpose of grants under Title I is for
modernizing, renovating, or repairing public early learning,
kindergarten, elementary, and secondary educational facilities.
Sec. 102. Allocation of funds
Directs the Secretary to reserve one percent of funds
appropriated for Title I in any fiscal year for assistance to
the outlying areas and for payments to the Secretary of the
Interior for assistance to Bureau-funded schools and requires
that such funds be distributed between the outlying areas and
the Department of the Interior for schools in outlying areas
and Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools in the same
proportion as the amount reserved under section 1121(a) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act is so distributed.
Allows each state to reserve up to one percent of funds
appropriated for Title I in any fiscal year to carry out its
responsibilities under the Act, which include providing
technical assistance, developing an online, publicly searchable
statewide database of public school facility design, condition,
modernization, renovation and repair needs, usage, utilization,
energy use, and carbon footprint, and creating voluntary
guidelines for high-performing public school buildings.
Allocates to each State the same percentage of funds
appropriated under Title I of this Act that the state receives
under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
Requires local educational agencies, in order to receive
funds, to conduct an independent, third party audit of the
condition of its public school facilities that is certified by
the state. Within each state, allocates to each local
educational agency the same percentage of funds appropriated
under Title I of this Act that the agency receives under Title
I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
Requires the Secretary, in determining state and local
allocations, to take into account the hold-harmless provisions
of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
Requires the Secretary to distribute funds to states within
thirty days of the Department's appropriation and requires
states to distribute funds to local educational agencies within
thirty days of having received them from the Secretary.
Sec. 103. Allowable uses of funds
Describes the types of public school modernizations,
renovations, and repairs that are allowable uses of funds under
Title I, including roofs, electrical, plumbing, sewage,
stormwater runoff and lighting systems or components thereof,
and windows, floors, ceilings and doors; heating, ventilation,
and air-conditioning systems or components thereof, including
insulation and indoor air quality assessments; bringing schools
into compliance with fire, health, seismic and safety codes,
including modernizations, renovations, and repairs that ensure
that schools are prepared for emergencies; complying with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; abatement, removal, or interim
controls of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, mold, mildew,
or lead-based hazards; reduction of classroom noise and
environmental noise pollution; modernization, renovation, or
repairs to reduce the consumption of coal, electricity, land,
natural gas, oil, or water; upgrading or installing educational
technology infrastructure; modernization, renovation, or
repairs of laboratory facilities, libraries, career and
technical education facilities and building infrastructure to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access; renewable energy
generation and heating systems and energy audits; other
modernizations, renovations, or repairs that improve the
teaching and learning climate, ensure the health and safety of
students and staff, make schools more energy efficient or
reduce class size; and required environmental remediation
related to modernizations, renovations, or repairs described
above.
TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA
Sec. 201. Purpose
Indicates the purpose of grants under Title I is for
modernizing, renovating, repairing, or constructing public
early learning, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary
educational facilities.
Sec. 202. Allocation to local educational agencies
Directs the Secretary to allocate funds to local
educational agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama
based on the infrastructure damage caused as a result of
Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
Requires the Secretary to distribute funds to local
educational agencies within sixty days of an appropriation of
funds.
Sec. 203. Allowable uses of funds
Includes the same list of allowable uses of funds as
section 103, but also allows local educational agencies to use
Title II funds for construction of new facilities.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Impermissible uses of funds
Prohibits funds received under this Act from being used for
maintenance, stadiums or similar facilities whose primary use
is for athletic contests or events for which admission is
charged to the general public. Also prohibits the improvement
or construction of facilities which purpose is not the
education of children, such as administrative facilities, or
the purchase of carbon offsets.
Sec. 302. Supplement, not supplant
Requires local educational agencies receiving funds under
this Act to use such funds to supplement, and not supplant,
funds that otherwise would be used for the same purposes.
Sec. 303. Prohibition regarding state aid
Prohibits a state from taking payments under this Act into
consideration when determining the eligibility, or amount of,
state aid for any local educational agencies.
Sec. 304. Maintenance of effort
Provides for a 90 percent maintenance of effort for local
educational agencies with respect to the provision of a free
public education from the previous to the second previous
fiscal year concerning the receipt of funds under this Act.
Sec. 305. Special rule on contracting
Requires a local educational agency that receives funds
under this Act and that carries out projects through a contract
to ensure that the bidding process consists of the maximum
number of qualified bidders, including local, small, minority,
women- and veteran-owned businesses, through full and open
competition.
Sec. 306. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods
Requires that all of the iron, steel, and manufactured
goods used in projects under this Act are produced in the
United States unless the Secretary finds that the use of these
products is inconsistent with the public interest, the products
are not produced in sufficient and reasonably available
quantities or of satisfactory quality, or the use of such
products will increase the overall cost of the project by more
than 25 percent. If the Secretary waives this provision due to
a circumstance described above, the Secretary must publish a
detailed written justification of the determination in the
Federal Register. This section must be applied in a manner that
is consistent with the United States' obligations under
international agreements.
Sec. 307. Application of GEPA
States that the Davis-Bacon labor law provisions apply to
any funds received under this Act.
Sec. 308. Charter schools
Requires that charter schools receive a portion of a local
educational agency's funds under this Act, based on the
percentage of low income students in the local educational
agency served by charter schools and that local educational
agencies consult with charter schools to determine individual
schools' needs for renovation, modernization, and repair.
Sec. 309. Green schools
Requires local educational agencies receiving funds under
this Act to use at least half of such funds in fiscal year 2010
(and increasing by ten percentage points per year, to one
hundred percent in fiscal year 2015) for public school
modernizations, renovations, repairs, or construction that meet
specified green standards, including equivalent standards
adopted by the state or local authority with jurisdiction over
the agency, which must include a verifiable method to
demonstrate compliance.
Requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to provide outreach and technical assistance to states
and local educational agencies concerning best practices in
school modernization, renovation, repair and construction,
including those related to student academic achievement,
student and staff health, energy efficiency, and environmental
protection.
Directs the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Labor, to work with local educational agencies to promote
appropriate opportunities for participants in the YouthBuild
program to gain employment experience through projects under
this Act.
Sec. 310. Reporting
Describes the reporting requirements applicable to local
educational agencies, states, and the Secretary, and requires
local educational agencies and the Secretary to make their
reports publicly available, including on their website.
Sec. 311. Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $6,400,000,000 for Title I for fiscal year 2010
and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011 through
2015. Authorizes $100,000,000 for Title II for each of the
fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
Sec. 312. Special rules
Prohibits funds from being used to employ workers in
violation of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality
Act or from being distributed to a local educational agency
that does not have a policy that requires a criminal background
check on all agency employees.
Sec. 313. Youthbuild programs
Requires the Secretary of Education, in consultation with
the Secretary of Labor, to work with recipients of funds under
this Act to promote appropriate opportunities for participants
in Youthbuild programs to gain experience on projects funded by
this Act.
VI. EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute is explained in
the body of this report.
VII. APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1, the Congressional
Accountability Act, requires a description of the application
of this bill to the legislative branch. H.R. 2187, as amended,
provides federal funding to help modernize and renovate public
schools. The bill does not prevent legislative branch
employees' coverage under this legislation.
VIII. UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded
mandates. H.R. 2187, as amended, contains no intergovernmental
or private-sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA).
IX. EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 2187, as amended, does not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clauses 9(d), 9(e) or 9(f) of rule XXI of the House
of Representatives.
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
XII. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to
requirements of 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for
H.R. 2187, as amended, from the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2009.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2187, the 21st
Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin
Humphrey.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2187--21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities
Act
Summary: H.R. 2187 would authorize the appropriation of
$6.4 billion for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to award grants to
help modernize and renovate public schools. It also would
authorize the appropriation of $100 million for each of fiscal
years 2010 through 2015 to help repair public schools damaged
by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and to construct new schools.
(Under the General Education Provisions Act, these
authorizations automatically would be extended one year.)
As shown in the following table, CBO estimates that H.R.
2187 would increase discretionary spending by nearly $20
billion over the 2010-2014 period. For this estimate, CBO
assumes that $32.9 billion will be appropriated over that
period and that outlays will follow the historical spending
patterns of similar programs. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget function 500 (education, training,
employment and social services). Enacting the bill would have
no impact on direct spending or revenues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars-- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Title I:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... 6,400 6,438 6,476 6,508 6,565 32,387
Estimated Outlays................................... 320 2,242 4,815 5,803 6,477 19,657
Title II:
Authorization Level................................. 100 100 100 100 100 500
Estimated Outlays................................... 5 35 75 90 100 305
Total Changes.......................................
Estimated Authorization Level................. 6,500 6,538 6,576 6,608 6,665 32,887
Outlays....................................... 325 2,277 4,890 5,893 6,577 19,962
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2187 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Humphrey.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
XIII. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the goal of H.R. 2187 is to provide grants to
help modernize and renovate public schools. The Committee
expects the Department of Education to comply with H.R. 2187
and implement the changes to the law in accordance with these
stated goals.
XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing
the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to
enact the law proposed by H.R.2187. The Committee believes that
the amendments made by this bill are within Congress' authority
under Article I, section 8, clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution.
XV. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires an estimate and a comparison of the costs that would
be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2187. However, clause
3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not
apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely
submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act.
XVI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, there are no changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported.
XVII. COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE
None.
MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 2187, THE 21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-PERFORMING
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT
Introduction
Over the past decade, the condition of local public school
facilities has become an important component of the education
debate in communities throughout the nation. In both cities and
suburbs, students, parents, teachers, and many public officials
argue that school buildings are overcrowded, unsafe, and
obsolete. As a result, the amount being spent on school
construction, modernization, and renovation has become a
significant issue in many states and local school districts.
The federal government has historically had an extremely
limited role in directly financing school infrastructure
projects and facility improvement programs. The U.S. Department
of Education operates the Impact Aid Construction program,
which provides funding to school districts to build and repair
schools impacted by the loss of tax revenue because of the
presence of military bases, federal lands, and Indian
reservations in the area; that is, assistance to children who
historically have been a federal responsibility. The federal
government also provides indirect financial support for school
construction by providing enhanced credit provisions for
construction of charter schools by incentivizing the private
sector to make loans to charter schools for facilities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The federal government also exempts the interest on state and
local governmental bonds from federal income taxes. States and local
areas are provided tax credits for issuing Qualified Zone Academy Bonds
or QZABs, which may be used for schools based in Empowerment Zones or
Enterprise Communities, or schools with 35 percent of students
qualified for free or reduced price lunches under the Federal School
Lunch Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, overall, the construction and modernization of public
elementary and secondary schools has historically been a State
and local responsibility. For more than 40 years, Congress has
deliberately limited the scope of federal intervention in
elementary and secondary education to those efforts that
increase student academic achievement. That is, until Democrats
on the House Education and Labor Committee took up and passed
legislation creating a massive new federal school construction
program, which would be administered through the U.S.
Department of Education. The bill, H.R. 2187, the 21st Century
Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, would
nationalize and regulate school construction projects; threaten
state, local, and private support for educational
infrastructure; jeopardize Congress' ability to reduce federal
spending; push the country further into debt; dramatically
increase the cost of elementary and secondary schools; and
siphon resources from longstanding education priorities while
failing to improve academic achievement.
H.R. 2187 nationalizes and regulates school construction projects.
States and local communities have the primary
responsibility to set public policy over education,
particularly public elementary and secondary education. When
the federal government has intervened to fulfill a pressing
need, it has done so while maintaining the autonomy and
authority of local communities to make those decisions that
impact students in their classrooms. The federal government
does not have the right to replace the responsibilities that
lie with states and school districts to set their own
priorities and to provide funding for programs that assist in
the education of children.
The introduction of a new federal program for school
construction, like that envisioned under H.R. 2187, would
fundamentally change this dynamic by giving the federal
government responsibility for funding and regulating school
construction projects. This would undermine the basic premise
of elementary and secondary education: that education policy
should be set at the local level by teachers, parents, and
superintendents. Instead of passing legislation that would
reinforce local control, the Democratic Majority proposes to
nationalize school construction projects, forcing states and
school districts to meet a variety of impractical requirements
and guidelines set by federal bureaucrats, including
regulations that building materials meet certain environmental
rules. These restrictive federal regulations will needlessly
increase project costs and provide less flexibility for states
and school districts to meet the needs of their students.
H.R. 2187 threatens state, local, and private support for educational
infrastructure.
While accurate estimates are difficult to obtain, the U.S.
Department of Education has attempted to project the needs and
costs of school construction, modernization, renovation, and
repair. According to a report released by the U.S. Department
of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
entitled Public School Principals Report on Their School
Facilities: Fall 2005, the unmet need for school construction
and renovation is estimated at $112 billion, with three-
quarters of the nation's schools reporting a need for funds to
bring their buildings into a ``good overall condition.''
However, it should be noted that much of the data on which the
Department relied was from self-reporting of construction needs
by school superintendents and other officials. There has been
no comprehensive independent analysis, such as by an
independent assessor, conducted to determine the true
infrastructure needs across the country.
In order to deal with the need for new construction or
renovations to existing buildings, states and local school
districts have made a significant commitment to public funding
of school construction, modernization, renovation, and repair.
According to ``The 2009 Annual School Construction Report''
recently released by School Planning and Management, school
construction valued at an estimated $19.5 billion was completed
in 2008. Of this amount, $13 billion was spent on the design
and construction of new schools (accounting for 66.5 percent of
the construction dollars), $3.2 billion (16.6 percent) on
additions to existing buildings, and just under $3.3 billion
(16.9 percent) on retrofit and modernization of existing
structures. According to the report, the percentage of
construction dollars spent on new buildings was the highest
since 1979. During the past seven years, school districts have
completed construction projects totaling more than $144
billion.
With statistics showing that the unmet need for school
construction and renovation is estimated at $112 billion and
that states and local school districts spend an average of $20
billion annually on school construction, it is valid to wonder
how a new federal school construction program administered by
the U.S. Department of Education (which annually receives
roughly $25 billion for the entire range of programs authorized
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) could do a
better job at building schools than state and local officials.
Yet despite the relatively miniscule impact this new federal
intervention will have, the mere presence of federal spending
could have the unintended consequence of signaling that other
parties are no longer responsible for these key investments.
With passage of H.R. 2187, there is a great possibility that
states, local communities, and private sector investors will
back away from their responsibility to build and maintain safe
and modern schools.
H.R. 2187 jeopardizes Congress' ability to reduce federal spending,
pushing the country further into debt.
America is in the midst of an economic and financial
crisis. The national debt now stands at more than $11 trillion,
and this year alone, the federal government is projected to run
a deficit of close to $2 trillion, a fact that is hard for most
Americans to comprehend when they have to balance their family
checkbook. With these sobering facts, it's time for Congress to
get the federal budget under control. During the recent
campaign and in his first few months in office, President Obama
has pledged repeatedly that his Administration will embrace
fiscal discipline by taking a scalpel to the massive federal
budget and going through it line-by-line to ``stop wasteful,
obsolete federal government programs that make no financial
sense.'' A complementary effort is for Congress to resist the
temptation to create new programs when the existing need is
already being addressed at the state and local level.
Instead of standing up to the out-of-control spending
spree, the Democratic majority is proposing to add an estimated
$20 billion to the federal debt over the next five years,
significantly increasing the size and scope of the federal
government and undermining Congress' ability to reduce the
deficit and get the federal budget under control.
H.R. 2187 dramatically increases the cost of building elementary and
secondary schools.
One of the most troubling aspects of the massive new
federal school construction program authorized through H.R.
2187 is that it will be subject to the requirements of the
Depression-era Davis-Bacon Act, which requires construction
projects to be paid using flawed ``prevailing wages'' and
favors union wage workers. Under the General Education
Provisions Act (GEPA), all laborers on all construction
projects assisted under any program administered by the U.S.
Department of Education must be paid wages at rates not less
than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality
as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the
Davis-Bacon Act.
The law was originally passed in 1935 to ensure that the
government's buying power did not drive down construction
workers' wages during the Great Depression. Decades later,
these prevailing wage rates have been proven to be
fundamentally flawed, often bearing no relation to market
wages. Still, they persist in adding bureaucratic complexity to
federally-funded construction projects, including the
administrative burden of weekly wage data filing. As such, any
federal intervention into school construction carries with it
significant burdens of costs and time consuming paperwork.
A number of studies have confirmed the flaws inherent in
Davis-Bacon wage calculations, and point out that projects
conducted under the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act
commonly cost between 22 and 26 percent more when compared to
similar projects completed under market conditions. For
example, the Beacon Hill Institute completed a study on the
effects of paying Davis-Bacon inflated wages in public
construction projects and found that when the Davis-Bacon
mandated wages were followed, labor costs rose by 22 percent
above the reported median wage, while overall construction
costs went up 10 percent (which means that almost 10 percent of
the total construction cost of a new school would be
attributable to mandates imposed under the Davis-Bacon Act). In
total, the study reports that Davis-Bacon costs taxpayers over
$8.6 billion annually--enough money to hire over 18,000
teachers.
Just as important, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
and the U.S. Government Accountability Office have weighed in
on this important issue. CBO estimates that the federal
government could save more than $10.5 billion in construction
costs if it were to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. It also found
that the Davis-Bacon Act contributes to the backlog of
maintenance projects on the federal level, because, ``by
raising labor costs, the act reduces the amount of maintenance
that can be accomplished within a given budget.'' The GAO is
also on record in stating that the Davis-Bacon Act is, ``not
susceptible to practical and effective administration'' by the
Department of Labor and that Davis-Bacon has resulted in
unnecessary construction and administration costs, inflated
prices, and inaccurate wages.
This information makes it hard to doubt that Davis-Bacon
Act ``prevailing wages'' would inflate the costs of building
our children's schools and threaten salaries for teachers and
in-class dollars for technology, textbooks, and supplies.
Subjecting new school construction projects to Davis-Bacon
wages is unnecessary and will force local school districts to
divert scarce funds away from teachers and students.
Given all of this information, it is clear that H.R. 2187
will dramatically raise the costs of school construction at the
state and local level. At a time when state and local budgets
are tightening or, in some cases, being cut because of the
economic downturn, Congress should not impose this unnecessary
and outdated mandate on local school districts, which will only
serve to overinflate school construction prices, limit
competition, and reduce jobs for entry-level workers.
H.R. 2187 siphons resources from longstanding education priorities and
fails to improve academic achievement.
Since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, the federal government has spent nearly $500 billion
in federal funds provided by the American taxpayer on public
elementary and secondary education. An overwhelming majority of
this funding has been directed toward two primary programs that
the federal government operates to improve student
achievement--(1) Title I grants to local educational agencies
(LEAs)/school districts under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, which authorizes federal aid to state and local
educational agencies to help low-income and other disadvantaged
children achieve to the same high state academic achievement
standards as their peers and (2) state grants for the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which authorizes
funds to help states and LEAs provide special education and
related services for children with disabilities.
Over the last five decades, the federal government has
deliberately focused its attention and funding on these
programs and others that provide assistance to states and
school districts to help them improve student academic
achievement and to comply with federal mandates that come with
educating students with special needs. This targeted focus
reflects the recognition that states and local communities have
the primary responsibility to set public policy over education,
particularly public K-12 education.
By passing H.R. 2187 and creating a new and massive federal
school construction program, Congressional Democrats will
weaken Congress' ability to focus on current priorities and
force us to back away from the federal focus on adequately
funding programs that increase student achievement, including
the Title I program and IDEA. In addition, it undermines the
authority and decision-making ability of state and local
officials who are in a better position to tailor programs to
more closely meet their students' unique needs and priorities.
Committee consideration of H.R. 2187
On May 6, 2009, the House Education and Labor Committee met
to mark-up H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing
Public School Facilities Act. The Democratic majority scheduled
consideration of the legislation even though no hearings were
held in advance to explore the merits of a new federal school
construction program.\2\ As has become all too common, the bill
was brought directly before the Full Committee, circumventing
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education and preventing Committee members on both sides of the
aisle from engaging in a thorough and open debate on issues
that impact our nation's schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\It should be noted that, last year, the Democratic majority held
a single hearing on the issue of school construction, which is more
than what has been afforded Members of the House Education and Labor
Committee this year. At that time, however, there was no opportunity to
question the expert witnesses that were called before the Committee as
the Chairman abruptly ended the hearing after the witnesses presented
their oral testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejected amendments that would have improved the bill
During consideration of H.R. 2187, Committee Republicans
offered a pair of amendments to reinforce the longstanding
federal education priorities of Title I and IDEA.
Unfortunately, both of the amendments were rejected by the
majority.
The amendments offered by Committee Republicans to improve
the bill included:
Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE) offered an amendment to
require the Title I program for low-income students to be fully
funded before federal resources could be redirected to support
a new federal school construction program. The amendment was
offered to address the fact that the underlying bill would
divert significant resources from programs that are properly
focused on raising the academic achievement of all students,
mainly through the Title I program for low-income students.
Under No Child Left Behind, Congress authorized $25 billion for
the Title I program that provides financial assistance to local
educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high
percentages of poor children. Recently, the Democrat-controlled
Congress provided $14.5 billion for the Title I program, more
than $10 billion below the authorized funding level. Even
though the Castle amendment would ensure that Congress keeps
making progress toward meeting the funding goals for the Title
I program for low-income students, it was rejected by a vote of
15-28.
Congressman John Kline (R-MN) offered an amendment to
require the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
to be fully funded before creating a new federal school
construction program. When the federal government set up the
IDEA program in 1975, Congress promised states and local school
districts that it would provide 40 percent of the excess costs
of educating children with disabilities to ensure that they
receive a free appropriate public education. But despite
enormous progress, especially over the past decade, Congress
still is not meeting that commitment. Earlier this year,
Congress provided $ 2.3 billion for IDEA. Although
appropriations for IDEA grants to states have increased
significantly over the last decade, funding still falls short
of the amount that would be necessary to provide maximum grants
to all states; some estimates conclude that appropriated
amounts only account for 17% of excess costs. The Kline
amendment would ensure that Congress keeps making progress
toward meeting the funding goals for IDEA; however, it was
rejected by a vote of 15-28.
Adopted amendments that will improve the bill
Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) offered an amendment to
ensure that public charter schools are treated in the same
manner as other public schools under the federal school
construction program. Committee Republicans strongly support
charter schools, which are public schools created by teachers,
parents, and other members of the community to educate students
and to stimulate reform in the public school system. In
exchange for greater accountability for student achievements,
these schools are exempt from many local and state regulations.
It is perhaps no coincidence that charter schools are usually
among the top performers in big city school districts.
Unfortunately, public charter schools are significantly
underfunded when compared to traditional public schools,
falling short of traditional public school funding by 22%,
according to some estimates. Through the Polis amendment,
charter schools will be guaranteed the same equitable access to
facilities assistance as regular public schools under the bill.
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA) offered an
amendment to require local educational agencies to conduct an
independent audit by a third-party entity substantiating the
overall condition of their public school facilities. As
discussed above, there has never been a comprehensive
independent audit or analysis, such as one conducted by an
independent assessor, on the nation's school construction needs
and it is nearly impossible to ascertain the true construction
and maintenance needs of public schools at the state and local
level. The McKeon amendment, similar to amendments offered by
Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) in the past, seeks to address this
situation by ensuring that school districts independently and
accurately assess the state of their elementary and secondary
schools to guide how resources would be allocated under this
bill. It was adopted by a voice vote.
Conclusion
As outlined in these Minority Views, the primary
responsibility for school construction has historically been
and should remain at the state and local school levels. While
members of the House Education and Labor Committee continue to
receive feedback from some interest groups that our nation's
elementary and secondary schools need funds for school
construction and facilities repair and renovation projects,
other schools may have a need to hire more teachers, to provide
additional instructional programs to improve student
achievement for low-income students under the Title I program,
or to provide needed services for special education students
under IDEA. As such, the limited role of the federal government
should remain focused on assisting local schools and school
districts in raising student academic achievement.
Committee Republicans would urge Congress to reject H.R.
2187 and any attempt to create a federal school construction
program. These efforts would undermine state and local
educational agencies' responsibility for school construction,
add billions of dollars to the national debt, and dramatically
increase the size and scope of the federal government; and it
would do these things while diminishing support for programs
that serve disadvantaged students.
Howard P. McKeon.
Thomas Price.
Duncan Hunter.
David P. Roe.
Joe Wilson.
Glenn Thompson.
John Kline.