[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.

                                  
