Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
116th Congress    }                                 {   Rept. 116-684
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                 {          Part 1

======================================================================



 
                 REBUILD AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 2019

                                _______
                                

 December 21, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Scott of Virginia, from the Committee on Education and Labor, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 865]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 865) to provide for the long-term improvement of 
public school facilities, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................    24
Committee Action.................................................    25
Committee Views..................................................    30
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    43
Explanation of Amendments........................................    49
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    49
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    49
Earmark Statement................................................    49
Roll Call Votes..................................................    49
Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives....................    60
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    60
Hearings.........................................................    60
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    60
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate.......................    60
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    68
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    68
Minority Views...................................................    81

    The amendments are as follows:
  Strike section 1 and all that follows through the end of 
title I and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Rebuild 
America's Schools Act of 2019''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is 
as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

    TITLE I--GRANTS FOR THE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL 
                               FACILITIES

Sec. 101. Purpose and reservation.
Sec. 102. Allocation to States.
Sec. 103. Need-based grants to qualified local educational agencies.
Sec. 104. Annual report on grant program.
Sec. 105. Authorization of Appropriations.

                 TITLE II--SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS

Sec. 201. Restoration of certain qualified tax credit bonds.
Sec. 202. School infrastructure bonds.
Sec. 203. Annual report on bond program.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Allowable uses of funds.
Sec. 302. Prohibited uses.
Sec. 303. Requirements for hazard-resistance and energy and water 
conservation.
Sec. 304. Green Practices.
Sec. 305. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured products.
Sec. 306. Comptroller general report.
Sec. 307. Study and report physical condition of public schools.
Sec. 308. Development of data standards.
Sec. 309. Information clearinghouse.
Sec. 310. Prohibition on use of funds for facilities of for-profit 
charter schools.
Sec. 311. Prohibition on use of funds for certain charter schools.
Sec. 312. Sense of congress on Opportunity Zones.

                   TITLE IV--IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION

Sec. 401. Temporary increase in funding for impact aid construction.

   TITLE V--ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY 
                               PYRRHOTITE

Sec. 501. Allocations to States.
Sec. 502. Grants to local educational agencies.
Sec. 503. Definitions.
Sec. 504. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
        ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the 
        Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
        Labor and Pensions of the Senate.
          (2) Bureau-funded school.--The term ``Bureau-funded 
        school'' has the meaning given that term in section 
        1141 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
        2021).
          (3) Covered funds.--The term ``covered funds'' means 
        funds received--
                  (A) under title I of this Act;
                  (B) from a school infrastructure bond; or
                  (C) from a qualified zone academy bond (as 
                such term is defined in section 54E of the 
                Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as restored by 
                section 201)).
          (4) ESEA terms.--The terms ``elementary school'', 
        ``outlying area'', and ``secondary school'' have the 
        meanings given those terms in section 8101 of the 
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
        U.S.C. 7801).
          (5) Local educational agency.--The term ``local 
        educational agency'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801) except that such term does 
        not include a Bureau-funded school.
          (6) Public school facilities.--The term ``public 
        school facilities'' means the facilities of a public 
        elementary school or a public secondary school.
          (7) Qualified local educational agency.--The term 
        ``qualified local educational agency'' means a local 
        educational agency that receives funds under part A of 
        title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
        of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
          (8) School infrastructure bond.--The term ``school 
        infrastructure bond'' has the meaning given such term 
        in section 54BB of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
        (as added by section 202).
          (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the 
        Secretary of Education.
          (10) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 
        States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth 
        of Puerto Rico.
          (11) Zero energy school.--The term ``zero energy 
        school'' means a public elementary school or public 
        secondary school that--
                  (A) generates renewable energy on-site; and
                  (B) on an annual basis, exports an amount of 
                such renewable energy that equals or exceeds 
                the total amount of renewable energy that is 
                delivered to the school from outside sources.

    TITLE I--GRANTS FOR THE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL 
                               FACILITIES

SEC. 101. PURPOSE AND RESERVATION.

  (a) Purpose.--Funds made available under this title shall be 
for the purpose of supporting long-term improvements to public 
school facilities in accordance with this Act.
  (b) Reservation for Outlying Areas and Bureau-Funded 
Schools.--
          (1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2020 
        through 2029, the Secretary shall reserve, from the 
        amount appropriated to carry out this title--
                  (A) one-half of 1 percent, to make 
                allocations to the outlying areas in accordance 
                with paragraph (3); and
                  (B) one-half of 1 percent, for payments to 
                the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
                assistance to Bureau-funded schools.
          (2) Use of reserved funds.--
                  (A) In general.--Funds reserved under 
                paragraph (1) shall be used in accordance with 
                sections 301 through 305.
                  (B) Special rules for bureau-funded 
                schools.--
                          (i) Applicability.--Sections 301 
                        through 305 shall apply to a Bureau-
                        funded school that receives assistance 
                        under paragraph (1)(B) in the same 
                        manner that such sections apply to a 
                        qualified local educational agency that 
                        receives covered funds. The facilities 
                        of a Bureau-funded school shall be 
                        treated as public school facilities for 
                        purposes of the application of such 
                        sections.
                          (ii) Treatment of tribally operated 
                        schools.--The Secretary of the Interior 
                        shall provide assistance to Bureau-
                        funded schools under paragraph (1)(B) 
                        without regard to whether such schools 
                        are operated by the Bureau of Indian 
                        Education or by an Indian Tribe. In the 
                        case of a Bureau-funded school that is 
                        a contract or grant school (as that 
                        term is defined in section 1141 of the 
                        Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
                        2021)) operated by an Indian Tribe, the 
                        Secretary of the Interior shall provide 
                        assistance under such paragraph to the 
                        Indian Tribe concerned.
          (3) Allocation to outlying areas.--From the amount 
        reserved under paragraph (1)(A) for a fiscal year, the 
        Secretary shall allocate to each outlying area an 
        amount in proportion to the amount received by the 
        outlying area under part A of title I of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et 
        seq.) for the previous fiscal year relative to the 
        total such amount received by all outlying areas for 
        such previous fiscal year.

SEC. 102. ALLOCATION TO STATES.

  (a) Allocation to States.--
          (1) State-by-state allocation.--Of the amount 
        appropriated to carry out this title for each fiscal 
        year and not reserved under section 101(b), each State 
        that has a plan approved by the Secretary under 
        subsection (b) shall be allocated an amount in 
        proportion to the amount received by all local 
        educational agencies in the State under part A of title 
        I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the previous fiscal year 
        relative to the total such amount received by all local 
        educational agencies in every State that has a plan 
        approved by the Secretary under subsection (b).
          (2) State reservation.--A State may reserve not more 
        than 1 percent of its allocation under paragraph (1) to 
        carry out its responsibilities under this Act, which--
                  (A) shall include--
                          (i) providing technical assistance to 
                        local educational agencies, including 
                        by--
                                  (I) identifying which State 
                                agencies have programs, 
                                resources, and expertise 
                                relevant to the activities 
                                supported by the allocation 
                                under this section; and
                                  (II) coordinating the 
                                provision of technical 
                                assistance across such 
                                agencies;
                          (ii) in accordance with the guidance 
                        issued by the Secretary under section 
                        308, developing an online, publicly 
                        searchable database that contains an 
                        inventory of the infrastructure of all 
                        public school facilities in the State 
                        (including the facilities of Bureau-
                        funded schools, as appropriate), 
                        including, with respect to each such 
                        facility, an identification of--
                                  (I) the information described 
                                in subclauses (I) through (VII) 
                                of clause (vi);
                                  (II) the age (including an 
                                identification of the date of 
                                any retrofits or recent 
                                renovations) of--
                                          (aa) the facility;
                                          (bb) its roof;
                                          (cc) its lighting 
                                        system;
                                          (dd) its windows;
                                          (ee) its ceilings;
                                          (ff) its plumbing; 
                                        and
                                          (gg) its heating, 
                                        ventilation, and air 
                                        conditioning system;
                                  (III) fire safety inspection 
                                results;
                                  (IV) the proximity of the 
                                facilities to toxic sites or 
                                the vulnerability of the 
                                facilities to natural 
                                disasters, including the extent 
                                to which facilities that are 
                                vulnerable to seismic natural 
                                disasters are seismically 
                                retrofitted; and
                                  (V) any previous inspections 
                                showing the presence of toxic 
                                substances;
                          (iii) updating the database developed 
                        under clause (ii) not less frequently 
                        than once every 2 years;
                          (iv) ensuring that the information in 
                        the database developed under clause 
                        (ii)--
                                  (I) is posted on a publicly 
                                accessible State website; and
                                  (II) is regularly distributed 
                                to local educational agencies 
                                and Tribal governments in the 
                                State;
                          (v) issuing and reviewing regulations 
                        to ensure the health and safety of 
                        students and staff during construction 
                        or renovation projects; and
                          (vi) issuing or reviewing regulations 
                        to ensure safe, healthy, and high-
                        performing school buildings, including 
                        regulations governing--
                                  (I) indoor environmental 
                                quality and ventilation, 
                                including exposure to carbon 
                                monoxide, carbon dioxide, lead-
                                based paint, and other 
                                combustion by-products such as 
                                oxides of nitrogen;
                                  (II) mold, mildew, and 
                                moisture control;
                                  (III) the safety of drinking 
                                water at the tap and water used 
                                for meal preparation, including 
                                regulations that--
                                          (aa) address the 
                                        presence of lead and 
                                        other contaminants in 
                                        such water; and
                                          (bb) require the 
                                        regular testing of the 
                                        potability of water at 
                                        the tap;
                                  (IV) energy and water 
                                efficiency;
                                  (V) excessive classroom noise 
                                due to activities allowable 
                                under section 301;
                                  (VI) the levels of 
                                maintenance work, operational 
                                spending, and capital 
                                investment needed to maintain 
                                the quality of public school 
                                facilities; and
                                  (VII) the construction or 
                                renovation of such facilities, 
                                including applicable building 
                                codes; and
                          (vii) creating a plan to reduce or 
                        eliminate exposure to toxic substances, 
                        including mercury, radon, PCBs, lead, 
                        vapor intrusions, and asbestos; and
                  (B) may include the development of a plan to 
                increase the number of zero energy schools in 
                the State.
  (b) State Plan.--
          (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive an 
        allocation under this section, a State shall submit to 
        the Secretary a plan that--
                  (A) describes how the State will use the 
                allocation to make long-term improvements to 
                public school facilities;
                  (B) explains how the State will carry out 
                each of its responsibilities under subsection 
                (a)(2);
                  (C) explains how the State will make the 
                determinations under subsections (b) and (c) of 
                section 103;
                  (D) identifies how long, and at what levels, 
                the State will maintain fiscal effort for the 
                activities supported by the allocation after 
                the State no longer receives the allocation; 
                and
                  (E) includes such other information as the 
                Secretary may require.
          (2) Approval and disapproval.--The Secretary shall 
        have the authority to approve or disapprove a State 
        plan submitted under paragraph (1).
  (c) Conditions.--As a condition of receiving an allocation 
under this section, a State shall agree to the following:
          (1) Matching requirement.--The State shall 
        contribute, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal 
        to 10 percent of the amount of the allocation received 
        under this section to carry out the activities 
        supported by the allocation.
          (2) Maintenance of effort.--The State shall provide 
        an assurance to the Secretary that the combined fiscal 
        effort or the aggregate expenditures of the State with 
        respect to the activities supported by the allocation 
        under this section for fiscal years beginning with the 
        fiscal year for which the allocation is received will 
        be not less than 90 percent of the 5 year average for 
        total capital outlay of the combined fiscal effort or 
        aggregate expenditures by the State for the purposes 
        for which the allocation is received.
          (3) Supplement not supplant.--The State shall use an 
        allocation under this section only to supplement the 
        level of Federal, State, and local public funds that 
        would, in absence of such allocation, be made available 
        for the activities supported by the allocation, and not 
        to supplant such funds.

SEC. 103. NEED-BASED GRANTS TO QUALIFIED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

  (a) Grants to Local Educational Agencies.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), from the 
        amounts allocated to a State under section 102(a) and 
        contributed by the State under section 102(c)(1), the 
        State shall award grants to qualified local educational 
        agencies, on a competitive basis, to carry out the 
        activities described in section 301(a).
          (2) Allowance for digital learning.--A State may use 
        up to 10 percent of the amount described in paragraph 
        (1) to make grants to qualified local educational 
        agencies carry out activities to improve digital 
        learning in accordance with section 301(b).
  (b) Eligibility.--
          (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
        under this section a qualified local educational 
        agency--
                  (A) shall be among the local educational 
                agencies in the State with the highest numbers 
                or percentages of students counted under 
                section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary 
                Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c));
                  (B) shall agree to prioritize the improvement 
                of the facilities of public schools that serve 
                the highest percentages of students who are 
                eligible for a free or reduced price lunch 
                under the Richard B. Russell National School 
                Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) (which, in 
                the case of a high school, may be calculated 
                using comparable data from the schools that 
                feed into the high school), as compared to 
                other public schools in the jurisdiction of the 
                agency; and
                  (C) may be among the local educational 
                agencies in the State--
                          (i) with the greatest need to improve 
                        public school facilities, as determined 
                        by the State, which may include 
                        consideration of threats posed by the 
                        proximity of the facilities to toxic 
                        sites or brownfield sites or the 
                        vulnerability of the facilities to 
                        natural disasters; and
                          (ii) with the most limited capacity 
                        to raise funds for the long-term 
                        improvement of public school 
                        facilities, as determined by an 
                        assessment of--
                                  (I) the current and historic 
                                ability of the agency to raise 
                                funds for construction, 
                                renovation, modernization, and 
                                major repair projects for 
                                schools;
                                  (II) whether the agency has 
                                been able to issue bonds or 
                                receive other funds to support 
                                school construction projects; 
                                and
                                  (III) the bond rating of the 
                                agency.
          (2) Geographic distribution.--The State shall ensure 
        that grants under this section are awarded to qualified 
        local educational agencies that represent the 
        geographic diversity of the State.
          (3) Statewide thresholds.--The State shall establish 
        reasonable thresholds for determining whether a local 
        educational agency is among agencies in the State with 
        the highest numbers or percentages of students counted 
        under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)) as required 
        under paragraph (1)(A).
  (c) Priority of Grants.--In awarding grants under this 
section, the State--
          (1) shall give priority to qualified local 
        educational agencies that--
                  (A) demonstrate the greatest need for such a 
                grant, as determined by a comparison of the 
                factors described in subsection (b)(1) and 
                other indicators of need in the public school 
                facilities of such local educational agencies, 
                including--
                          (i) the median age of facilities;
                          (ii) the extent to which student 
                        enrollment exceeds physical and 
                        instructional capacity;
                          (iii) the condition of major building 
                        systems such as heating, ventilation, 
                        air conditioning, electrical, water, 
                        and sewer systems;
                          (iv) the condition of roofs, windows, 
                        and doors; and
                          (v) other critical health and safety 
                        conditions; and
                  (B) will use the grant to improve the 
                facilities of--
                          (i) elementary schools or middle 
                        schools that have an enrollment of 
                        students who are eligible for a free or 
                        reduced price lunch under the Richard 
                        B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
                        (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) that 
                        constitutes not less than 40 percent of 
                        the total student enrollment at such 
                        schools; or
                          (ii) high schools that have an 
                        enrollment of students who are eligible 
                        for a free or reduced price lunch under 
                        such Act that constitutes not less than 
                        30 percent of the total student 
                        enrollment at such schools (which may 
                        be calculated using comparable data 
                        from the schools that feed into the 
                        high school); and
                  (C) operate public school facilities that 
                pose a severe health and safety threat to 
                students and staff, which may include a threat 
                posed by the proximity of the facilities to 
                toxic sites or the vulnerability of the 
                facilities to natural disasters; and
          (2) may give priority to qualified local educational 
        agencies that--
                  (A) will use the grant to improve access to 
                high-speed broadband sufficient to support 
                digital learning accordance with section 
                301(b);
                  (B) serve elementary schools or secondary 
                schools, including rural schools, that lack 
                such access; and
                  (C) meet one or more of the requirements set 
                forth in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 
                paragraph (1).
  (d) Application.--To be considered for a grant under this 
section, a qualified local educational agency shall submit an 
application to the State at such time, in such manner, and 
containing such information as the State may require. Such 
application shall include, at minimum--
          (1) the information necessary for the State to make 
        the determinations under subsections (b) and (c);
          (2) a description of the projects that the agency 
        plans to carry out with the grant;
          (3) an explanation of how such projects will reduce 
        risks to the health and safety of staff and students at 
        schools served by the agency; and
          (4) in the case of a local educational agency that 
        proposes to fund a repair, renovation, or construction 
        project for a public charter school, the extent to 
        which--
                  (A) the public charter school lacks access to 
                funding for school repair, renovation, and 
                construction through the financing methods 
                available to other public schools or local 
                educational agencies in the State; and
                  (B) the charter school operator owns or has 
                care and control of the facility that is to be 
                repaired, renovated, or constructed.
  (e) Facilities Master Plan.--
          (1) Plan required.--Not later than 180 days after 
        receiving a grant under this section, a qualified local 
        educational agency shall submit to the State a 
        comprehensive 10-year facilities master plan.
          (2) Elements.--The facilities master plan required 
        under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to all 
        public school facilities of the qualified local 
        educational agency, a description of--
                  (A) the extent to which public school 
                facilities meet students' educational needs and 
                support the agency's educational mission and 
                vision;
                  (B) the physical condition of the public 
                school facilities;
                  (C) the current health, safety, and 
                environmental conditions of the public school 
                facilities, including--
                          (i) indoor air quality;
                          (ii) the presence of toxic 
                        substances;
                          (iii) the safety of drinking water at 
                        the tap and water used for meal 
                        preparation, including the level of 
                        lead and other contaminants in such 
                        water;
                          (iv) energy and water efficiency;
                          (v) excessive classroom noise; and
                          (vi) other health, safety, and 
                        environmental conditions that would 
                        impact the health, safety, and learning 
                        ability of students;
                  (D) how the local educational agency will 
                address any conditions identified under 
                subparagraph (C);
                  (E) the impact of current and future student 
                enrollment levels (as of the date of 
                application) on the design of current and 
                future public school facilities, as well as the 
                financial implications of such enrollment 
                levels;
                  (F) the dollar amount and percentage of funds 
                the local educational agency will dedicate to 
                capital construction projects for public school 
                facilities, including--
                          (i) any funds in the budget of the 
                        agency that will be dedicated to such 
                        projects; and
                          (ii) any funds not in the budget of 
                        the agency that will be dedicated to 
                        such projects, including any funds 
                        available to the agency as the result 
                        of a bond issue; and
                  (G) the dollar amount and percentage of funds 
                the local educational agency will dedicate to 
                the maintenance and operation of public school 
                facilities, including--
                          (i) any funds in the budget of the 
                        agency that will be dedicated to the 
                        maintenance and operation of such 
                        facilities; and
                          (ii) any funds not in the budget of 
                        the agency that will be dedicated to 
                        the maintenance and operation of such 
                        facilities.
          (3) Consultation.--In developing the facilities 
        master plan required under paragraph (1)--
                  (A) a qualified local educational agency 
                shall consult with teachers, principals and 
                other school leaders, custodial and maintenance 
                staff, emergency first responders, school 
                facilities directors, students and families, 
                community residents, and Indian Tribes; and
                  (B) in addition to the consultation required 
                under subparagraph (A), a Bureau-funded school 
                shall consult with the Bureau of Indian 
                Education.
  (f) Supplement Not Supplant.--A qualified local educational 
agency shall use a grant received under this section only to 
supplement the level of Federal, State, and local public funds 
that would, in the absence of such grant, be made available for 
the activities supported by the grant, and not to supplant such 
funds.

SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT ON GRANT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--Not later than September 30 of each fiscal 
year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
committees a report on the projects carried out with funds made 
available under this title.
  (b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall include, 
with respect to the fiscal year preceding the year in which the 
report is submitted, the following:
          (1) An identification of each local educational 
        agency that received a grant under this title.
          (2) With respect to each such agency, a description 
        of--
                  (A) the demographic composition of the 
                student population served by the agency, 
                disaggregated by--
                          (i) race;
                          (ii) the number and percentage of 
                        students counted under section 1124(c) 
                        of the Elementary and Secondary 
                        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
                        6333(c)); and
                          (iii) the number and percentage of 
                        students who are eligible for a free or 
                        reduced price lunch under the Richard 
                        B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
                        (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
                  (B) the population density of the geographic 
                area served by the agency;
                  (C) the projects for which the agency used 
                the grant received under this title, described 
                using measurements of school facility quality 
                from the most recent available version of the 
                Common Education Data Standards published by 
                the National Center for Education Statistics;
                  (D) the demonstrable or expected benefits of 
                the projects; and
                  (E) the estimated number of jobs created by 
                the projects.
          (3) The total dollar amount of all grants received by 
        local educational agencies under this title.
  (c) LEA Information Collection.--A local educational agency 
that receives a grant under this title shall--
          (1) annually compile the information described in 
        subsection (b)(2);
          (2) make the information available to the public, 
        including by posting the information on a publicly 
        accessible agency website; and
          (3) submit the information to the State.
  (d) State Information Distribution.--A State that receives 
information from a local educational agency under subsection 
(c) shall--
          (1) compile the information and report it annually to 
        the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the 
        Secretary may require;
          (2) make the information available to the public, 
        including by posting the information on a publicly 
        accessible State website; and
          (3) regularly distribute the information to local 
        educational agencies and Tribal governments in the 
        State.

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated $7,000,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2029 to carry out this title.
  Strike titles III and IV and insert the following:

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS.

  (a) In General.--Except as provided in section 302, a local 
educational agency that receives covered funds may use such 
funds to--
          (1) develop the facilities master plan required under 
        section 103(e);
          (2) construct, modernize, renovate, or retrofit 
        public school facilities, which may include seismic 
        retrofitting for schools vulnerable to seismic natural 
        disasters;
          (3) carry out major repairs of public school 
        facilities;
          (4) install furniture or fixtures with at least a 10-
        year life in public school facilities;
          (5) construct new public school facilities;
          (6) acquire and prepare sites on which new public 
        school facilities will be constructed;
          (7) extend the life of basic systems and components 
        of public school facilities;
          (8) ensure current or anticipated enrollment does not 
        exceed the physical and instructional capacity of 
        public school facilities;
          (9) ensure the building envelopes and interiors of 
        public school facilities protect occupants from natural 
        elements and human threats, and are structurally sound 
        and secure;
          (10) compose building design plans that strengthen 
        the safety and security on school premises by utilizing 
        design elements, principles, and technology that--
                  (A) guarantee layers of security throughout 
                the school premises; and
                  (B) uphold the aesthetics of the school 
                premises as a learning and teaching 
                environment;
          (11) improve energy and water efficiency to lower the 
        costs of energy and water consumption in public school 
        facilities;
          (12) improve indoor air quality in public school 
        facilities;
          (13) reduce or eliminate the presence of--
                  (A) toxic substances, including mercury, 
                radon, PCBs, lead, and asbestos;
                  (B) mold and mildew; or
                  (C) rodents and pests;
          (14) ensure the safety of drinking water at the tap 
        and water used for meal preparation in public school 
        facilities, which may include testing of the potability 
        of water at the tap for the presence of lead and other 
        contaminants;
          (15) bring public school facilities into compliance 
        with applicable fire, health, and safety codes;
          (16) make public school facilities accessible to 
        people with disabilities through compliance with the 
        Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
        12101 et seq.) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
        Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794);
          (17) provide instructional program space improvements 
        for programs relating to early learning (including 
        early learning programs operated by partners of the 
        agency), special education, science, technology, career 
        and technical education, physical education, music, the 
        arts, and literacy (including library programs);
          (18) increase the use of public school facilities for 
        the purpose of community-based partnerships that 
        provide students with academic, health, and social 
        services;
          (19) ensure the health of students and staff during 
        the construction or modernization of public school 
        facilities; or
          (20) reduce or eliminate excessive classroom noise 
        due to activities allowable under this section.
  (b) Allowance for Digital Learning.--A local educational 
agency may use funds received under section 103(a)(2) or 
proceeds from a school infrastructure bond limitation allocated 
under section 54BB(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 
added by section 202) to leverage existing public programs or 
public-private partnerships to expand access to high-speed 
broadband sufficient for digital learning.

SEC. 302. PROHIBITED USES.

  A local educational agency that receives covered funds may 
not use such funds for--
          (1) payment of routine and predictable maintenance 
        costs and minor repairs;
          (2) any facility that is primarily used for athletic 
        contests or exhibitions or other events for which 
        admission is charged to the general public;
          (3) vehicles; or
          (4) central offices, operation centers, or other 
        facilities that are not primarily used to educate 
        students.

SEC. 303. REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARD-RESISTANCE AND ENERGY AND WATER 
                    CONSERVATION.

  A local educational agency that receives covered funds shall 
ensure that any new construction, modernization, or renovation 
project carried out with such funds meets or exceeds the 
requirements of the following:
          (1) Requirements for such projects set forth in the 
        most recent published edition of a nationally 
        recognized, consensus-based model building code.
          (2) Requirements for such projects set forth in the 
        most recent published edition of a nationally 
        recognized, consensus-based model energy conservation 
        code.
          (3) Performance criteria under the WaterSense 
        program, established under section 324B of the of the 
        Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294b), 
        applicable to such projects within a nationally 
        recognized, consensus-based model code.

SEC. 304. GREEN PRACTICES.

  (a) In General.--In a given fiscal year, a local educational 
agency that uses covered funds for a new construction project 
or renovation project shall use not less than the applicable 
percentage (as described in subsection (b)) of the funds used 
for such project for construction or renovation that is 
certified, verified, or consistent with the applicable 
provisions of--
          (1) the United States Green Building Council 
        Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green 
        building rating standard (commonly known as the ``LEED 
        Green Building Rating System'');
          (2) the Living Building Challenge developed by the 
        International Living Future Institute;
          (3) a green building rating program developed by the 
        Collaborative for High-Performance Schools (commonly 
        known as ``CHPS'') that is CHPS-verified;
          (4) the International Green Construction Code; or
          (5) a program that--
                  (A) has standards that are equivalent to or 
                more stringent than the standards of a program 
                described in paragraphs (1) through (3);
                  (B) is adopted by the State or another 
                jurisdiction with authority over the agency; 
                and
                  (C) includes a verifiable method to 
                demonstrate compliance with such program.
  (b) Applicable Percentage.--The applicable percentage 
described in this subsection is--
          (1) for fiscal year 2020, 60 percent;
          (2) for fiscal year 2021, 70 percent;
          (3) for fiscal year 2022; 80 percent;
          (4) for fiscal year 2023, 90 percent; and
          (5) for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2029, 100 
        percent.

SEC. 305. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS.

  (a) In General.--A local educational agency that receives 
covered funds shall ensure that any iron, steel, and 
manufactured products used in projects carried out with such 
funds are produced in the United States.
  (b) Waiver Authority.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may waive the 
        requirement of subsection (a) if the Secretary 
        determines that--
                  (A) applying subsection (a) would be 
                inconsistent with the public interest;
                  (B) iron, steel, and manufactured products 
                produced in the United States are not produced 
                in a sufficient and reasonably available amount 
                or are not of a satisfactory quality; or
                  (C) using iron, steel, and manufactured 
                products produced in the United States will 
                increase the cost of the overall project by 
                more than 25 percent.
          (2) Publication.--Before issuing a waiver under 
        paragraph (1), the Secretary shall publish in the 
        Federal Register a detailed written explanation of the 
        waiver determination.
  (c) Consistency With International Agreements.--This section 
shall be applied in a manner consistent with the obligations of 
the United States under international agreements.
  (d) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Produced in the united states.--The term 
        ``produced in the United States'' means the following:
                  (A) When used with respect to a manufactured 
                product, the product was manufactured in the 
                United States and the cost of the components of 
                such product that were mined, produced, or 
                manufactured in the United States exceeds 60 
                percent of the total cost of all components of 
                the product.
                  (B) When used with respect to iron or steel 
                products, or an individual component of a 
                manufactured product, all manufacturing 
                processes for such iron or steel products or 
                components, from the initial melting stage 
                through the application of coatings, occurred 
                in the United States, except that the term does 
                not include--
                          (i) steel or iron material or 
                        products manufactured abroad from semi-
                        finished steel or iron from the United 
                        States; and
                          (ii) steel or iron material or 
                        products manufactured in the United 
                        States from semi-finished steel or iron 
                        of foreign origin.
          (2) Manufactured product.--The term ``manufactured 
        product'' means any construction material or end 
        product (as such terms are defined in part 25.003 of 
        the Federal Acquisition Regulation) that is not an iron 
        or steel product, including--
                  (A) electrical components; and
                  (B) non-ferrous building materials, 
                including, aluminum and polyvinylchloride 
                (PVC), glass, fiber optics, plastic, wood, 
                masonry, rubber, manufactured stone, any other 
                non-ferrous metals, and any unmanufactured 
                construction material.

SEC. 306. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
States shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees 
a report on the projects carried out with covered funds.
  (b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall include 
an assessment of--
          (1) State activities, including--
                  (A) the types of public school facilities 
                data collected by each State, if any;
                  (B) technical assistance with respect to 
                public school facilities provided by each 
                State, if any;
                  (C) future plans of each State with respect 
                to public school facilities;
                  (D) criteria used by each State to determine 
                high-need students and facilities for purposes 
                of the projects carried out with covered funds; 
                and
                  (E) whether the State issued new regulations 
                to ensure the health and safety of students and 
                staff during construction or renovation 
                projects or to ensure safe, healthy, and high-
                performing school buildings;
          (2) the types of projects carried out with covered 
        funds, including--
                  (A) the square footage of the improvements 
                made with covered funds;
                  (B) the total cost of each such project; and
                  (C) the cost described in subparagraph (B), 
                disaggregated by, with respect to such project, 
                the cost of planning, design, construction, 
                site purchase, and improvements;
          (3) the geographic distribution of the projects;
          (4) the demographic composition of the student 
        population served by the projects, disaggregated by--
                  (A) race;
                  (B) the number and percentage of students 
                counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary 
                and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 
                6333(c)); and
                  (C) the number and percentage of students who 
                are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch 
                under the Richard B. Russell National School 
                Lunch Act (42 USC 1751 et seq.);
          (5) an assessment of the impact of the projects on 
        the health and safety of school staff and students; and
          (6) how the Secretary or States could make covered 
        funds more accessible--
                  (A) to schools with the highest numbers and 
                percentages of students counted under section 
                1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary 
                Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
                  (B) to schools with fiscal challenges in 
                raising capital for school infrastructure 
                projects.
  (c) Updates.--The Comptroller General shall update and 
resubmit the report to the appropriate congressional 
committees--
          (1) on a date that is between 5 and 6 years after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act; and
          (2) on a date that is between 10 and 11 years after 
        such date of enactment.

SEC. 307. STUDY AND REPORT PHYSICAL CONDITION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

  (a) Study and Report.--Not less frequently than once in each 
5-year period beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
Institute of Education Sciences, shall--
          (1) carry out a comprehensive study of the physical 
        conditions of all public schools in the 50 States, the 
        District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
        the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
        and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; 
        and
          (2) submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
        committees that includes the results of the study.
  (b) Elements.--Each study and report under subsection (a) 
shall include--
          (1) an assessment of--
                  (A) the effect of school facility conditions 
                on student and staff health and safety;
                  (B) the effect of school facility conditions 
                on student academic outcomes;
                  (C) the condition of school facilities, set 
                forth separately by geographic region;
                  (D) the condition of school facilities for 
                economically disadvantaged students as well as 
                students from major racial and ethnic 
                subgroups;
                  (E) the accessibility of school facilities 
                for students and staff with disabilities;
                  (F) the prevalence of school facilities at 
                which student enrollment exceeds the physical 
                and instructional capacity of the facility and 
                the effect of such excess enrollment on 
                instructional quality and delivery of school 
                wraparound services;
                  (G) the condition of school facilities 
                affected by natural disasters;
                  (H) the effect that projects carried out with 
                covered funds have on the communities in which 
                such projects are conducted, including the 
                vitality, jobs, population, and economy of such 
                communities; and
                  (I) the ability of building envelopes and 
                interiors of public school facilities to 
                protect occupants from natural elements and 
                human threats;
          (2) an explanation of any differences observed with 
        respect to the factors described in subparagraphs (A) 
        through (H) of paragraph (1); and
          (3) a cost estimate for bringing school facilities to 
        a state of good repair, as determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 308. DEVELOPMENT OF DATA STANDARDS.

  (a) Data Standards.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation 
with the officials described in subsection (b), shall--
          (1) identify the data that States should collect and 
        include in the databases developed under section 
        102(a)(2)(A)(ii);
          (2) develop standards for the measurement of such 
        data; and
          (3) issue guidance to States concerning the 
        collection and measurement of such data.
  (b) Officials.--The officials described in this subsection 
are--
          (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency;
          (2) the Secretary of Energy;
          (3) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control 
        and Prevention; and
          (4) the Director of the National Institute for 
        Occupational Safety and Health.

SEC. 309. INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
clearinghouse to disseminate information on Federal programs 
and financing mechanisms that may be used to assist schools in 
initiating, developing, and financing--
          (1) energy efficiency projects;
          (2) distributed generation projects; and
          (3) energy retrofitting projects.
  (b) Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall--
          (1) consult with the officials described in section 
        308(b) to develop a list of Federal programs and 
        financing mechanisms to be included in the 
        clearinghouse; and
          (2) coordinate with such officials to develop a 
        collaborative education and outreach effort to 
        streamline communications and promote the Federal 
        programs and financing mechanisms included in the 
        clearinghouse, which may include the development and 
        maintenance of a single online resource that includes 
        contact information for relevant technical assistance 
        that may be used by States, outlying areas, local 
        educational agencies, and Bureau-funded schools 
        effectively access and use such Federal programs and 
        financing mechanisms.

SEC. 310. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR FACILITIES OF FOR-PROFIT 
                    CHARTER SCHOOLS.

  No covered funds may be used for the facilities of a public 
charter school that is operated by a for-profit entity.

SEC. 311. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN CHARTER SCHOOLS.

  No covered funds may be used for the facilities of a public 
charter school if--
          (1) the school leases the facilities from an 
        individual or private sector entity; and
          (2) such individual, or an individual with a direct 
        or indirect financial interest in such entity, has a 
        management or governance role in such school.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OPPORTUNITY ZONES.

  (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
          (1) Opportunity Zones were championed by prominent 
        leaders of both parties as an innovative way to tackle 
        longstanding challenges.
          (2) As of December 2018, 8,763 low-income communities 
        had been designated as Opportunity Zones, representing 
        all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Pue1io Rico, 
        the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
          (3) Schools are integral parts of communities, and a 
        key part of communities' economic and work force 
        development efforts could be modernizing school 
        facilities.
  (b) Sense of Congress.--lt is the sense of the Congress that 
opportunity zones, when combined with public infrastructure 
investment, can provide an innovative approach to capital 
financing that has the potential to unleash creativity and help 
local communities rebuild schools, rebuild economics, and get 
people back to work.

                   TITLE IV--IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION

SEC. 401. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION.

  Section 7014(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7714(d)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d) Construction.--For the purpose of carrying out section 
7007, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024.''.

   TITLE V--ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY 
                               PYRRHOTITE

SEC. 501. ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.

  (a) In General.--Beginning not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry 
out a program under which the Secretary makes allocations to 
States to pay the Federal share of the costs of making grants 
to local educational agencies under section 502.
  (b) Website.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish, on a 
publicly accessible website of the Department of Education, 
instructions describing how a State may receive an allocation 
under this section.

SEC. 502. GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

  (a) In General.--From the amounts allocated to a State under 
section 501(a) and contributed by the State under subsection 
(e)(2), the State shall award grants to local educational 
agencies--
          (1) to pay the future costs of repairing concrete 
        school foundations damaged by the presence of 
        pyrrhotite; or
          (2) to reimburse such agencies for costs incurred by 
        the agencies in making such repairs in the five-year 
        period preceding the date of enactment of this Act.
  (b) Local Educational Agency Eligiblity.--
          (1) Eligiblity for grants for future repairs.--To be 
        eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a)(1), a 
        local educational agency shall--
                  (A) with respect to each school for which the 
                agency seeks to use grant funds, demonstrate to 
                the State that--
                          (i) the school is a pyrrhotite-
                        affected school; and
                          (ii) any laboratory tests, core 
                        tests, and visual inspections of the 
                        school's foundation used to determine 
                        that the school is a pyrrhotite-
                        affected school were conducted--
                                  (I) by a professional 
                                engineer licensed in the State 
                                in which the school is located; 
                                and
                                  (II) in accordance with 
                                applicable State standards or 
                                standards approved by any 
                                independent, non-profit, or 
                                private entity authorized by 
                                the State to oversee 
                                construction, testing, or 
                                financial relief efforts for 
                                damaged building foundations; 
                                and
                  (B) provide an assurance that--
                          (i) the local educational agency will 
                        use the grant only for the allowable 
                        uses described in subsection (f)(1); 
                        and
                          (ii) all work funded with the grant 
                        will be conducted by a qualified 
                        contractor or architect licensed in the 
                        State.
          (2) Eligiblity for reimbursement grants.--To be 
        eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a)(2), a 
        local educational agency shall demonstrate that it met 
        the requirements of paragraph (1) at the time it 
        carried out the project for which the agency seeks 
        reimbursement.
  (c) Application.--
          (1) In general.--A local educational agency that 
        seeks a grant under this section shall submit to the 
        State an application at such time, in such manner, and 
        containing such information as the State may require, 
        which upon approval by the State under subsection 
        (d)(1)(A), the State shall submit to the Secretary for 
        approval under subsection (d)(1)(B).
          (2) Contents.--At minimum, each application shall 
        include--
                  (A) information and documentation sufficient 
                to enable the State to determine if the local 
                educational agency meets the eligibility 
                criteria under subsection (b);
                  (B) in the case of an agency seeking a grant 
                under subsection (a)(1), an estimate of the 
                costs of carrying out the activities described 
                in subsection (f);
                  (C) in the case of an agency seeking a grant 
                under subsection (a)(2)--
                          (i) an itemized explanation of--
                                  (I) the costs incurred by the 
                                agency in carrying out any 
                                activities described subsection 
                                (f);
                                  (II) any amounts contributed 
                                from other Federal, State, 
                                local, or private sources for 
                                such activities; and
                          (ii) the amount for which the local 
                        educational agency seeks reimbursement; 
                        and
                  (D) the percentage of any costs described in 
                subparagraph (B) or (C) that are covered by an 
                insurance policy.
  (d) Approval and Disbursement.--
          (1) Approval.--
                  (A) State.--The State shall approve the 
                application of each local educational agency 
                for submission to the Secretary that--
                          (i) submits a complete and correct 
                        application under subsection (c); and
                          (ii) meets the criteria for 
                        eligibility under subsection (b).
                  (B) Secretary.--Not later than 60 days after 
                receiving an application of a local educational 
                agency submitted by a State under subsection 
                (c)(1), the Secretary shall--
                          (i) approve such application, in a 
                        case in which the Secretary determines 
                        that such application meets the 
                        requirements of subparagraph (A); or
                          (ii) deny such application, in the 
                        case of an application that does not 
                        meet such requirements.
          (2) Disbursement.--
                  (A) Allocation.--The Secretary shall disburse 
                an allocation to a State not later than 60 days 
                after the date on which the Secretary approves 
                an application under paragraph (1)(B).
                  (B) Grant.--The State shall disburse grant 
                funds to a local educational agency not later 
                than 60 days after the date on which the State 
                receives an allocation under subparagraph (A).
  (e) Federal and State Share.--
          (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of each grant 
        under this section shall be an amount that is not more 
        than 50 percent of the total cost of the project for 
        which the grant is awarded.
          (2) State share.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), 
                the State share of each grant under this 
                section shall be an amount that is not less 
                than 40 percent of the total cost of the 
                project for which the grant is awarded, which 
                the State shall contribute from non-Federal 
                sources.
                  (B) Special rule for reimbursement grants.--
                In the case of a reimbursement grant made to a 
                local educational agency under subsection 
                (a)(2) a State shall be treated as meeting the 
                requirement of subparagraph (A) if the State 
                demonstrates that it contributed, from non-
                Federal sources, not less than 40 percent of 
                the total cost of the project for which the 
                reimbursement grant is awarded.
  (f) Uses of Funds.--
          (1) Allowable uses of funds.--A local educational 
        agency that receives a grant under this section shall 
        use such grant only for costs associated with--
                  (A) the repair or replacement of the concrete 
                foundation or other affected areas of a 
                pyrrhotite-affected school in the jurisdiction 
                of such agency to the extent necessary--
                          (i) to restore the structural 
                        integrity of the school to the safety 
                        and health standards established by the 
                        professional licensed engineer or 
                        architect associated with the project; 
                        and
                          (ii) to restore the school to the 
                        condition it was in before the school's 
                        foundation was damaged due to the 
                        presence of pyrrhotite; and
                  (B) engineering reports, architectural 
                design, core tests, and other activities 
                directly related to the repair or replacement 
                project.
          (2) Prohibited uses of funds.--A local educational 
        agency that receives a grant under this section may not 
        use the grant for any costs associated with--
                  (A) work done to outbuildings, sheds, or 
                barns, swimming pools (whether in-ground or 
                above-ground), playgrounds or ballfields, or 
                any ponds or water features;
                  (B) the purchase of items not directly 
                associated with the repair or replacement of 
                the school building or its systems, including 
                items such as desks, chairs, electronics, 
                sports equipment, or other school supplies; or
                  (C) any other activities not described in 
                paragraph (1).
  (g) Limitation.--A local educational agency may not, for the 
same project, receive a grant under both--
          (1) this section; and
          (2) title I.

SEC. 503. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title:
          (1) Pyrrhotite-affected school.--The term 
        ``pyrrhotite-affected school'' means an elementary 
        school or a secondary school that meets the following 
        criteria:
                  (A) The school has a concrete foundation.
                  (B) Pyrrhotite is present in the school's 
                concrete foundation, as demonstrated by a 
                petrographic or other type of laboratory core 
                analysis or core inspection.
                  (C) A visual inspection of the school's 
                concrete foundation indicates that the presence 
                of pyrrhotite is causing the foundation to 
                deteriorate at an unsafe rate.
                  (D) A qualified engineer determined that the 
                deterioration of the school's foundation, due 
                to the presence of pyrrhotite--
                          (i) caused the school to become 
                        structurally unsound; or
                          (ii) will result in the school 
                        becoming structurally unsound within 
                        the next five years.
          (2) Qualified contractor.--The term ``qualified 
        contractor'' means a contractor who is qualified under 
        State law, or approved by any State agency or other 
        State-sanctioned independent or nonprofit entity, to 
        repair or replace residential or commercial building 
        foundations that are deteriorating due to the presence 
        of pyrrhotite.

SEC. 504. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
title such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2020 and 
each fiscal year thereafter.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 865, the Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019 
supports the efforts of states and local educational agencies 
(LEAs) to achieve equity in school facilities and digital 
infrastructure, assists states in their role in creating safe 
and healthy schools, and improves regulation of, and data 
collection on the condition of public school facilities and the 
impact of such conditions on health and safety.
    The Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019, as amended, 
would authorize a $100 billion federal investment in public 
school construction and modernization, creating more than 1.9 
million good-paying jobs\1\ over 10 years by addressing 
critical physical and digital infrastructure needs in 
communities nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Josh Bivens & Hunter Blair, Economic Policy Institute A public 
investment agenda that delivers the goods for American workers needs to 
be long-lived, broad, and subject to democratic oversight. 8 (2016) 
available at https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/117041.pdf. (calculating 
that each $1 billion spent on construction creates 17,785 jobs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title I of the bill would authorize a grant program that 
targets federal support to high-poverty LEAs with public school 
facilities that pose health and safety risks to students and 
staff. It allocates to each state the same proportion of funds 
that the state receives under title I, part A of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA Title I) and provides 
reservations of funds for the outlying areas and the Bureau of 
Indian Education (BIE). States must distribute 99 percent of 
such allocation to high-poverty LEAs based on their relative 
need to improve school facilities, while ensuring the 
distribution of subgrants is also geographically equitable 
within the state. LEAs receiving a subgrant are required to 
submit to their state a comprehensive 10-year facilities master 
plan. States must provide a 10 percent match and promulgate 
regulations to ensure healthy, safe, and high-performing school 
buildings both during and after construction. The bill also 
directs participating states to develop a comprehensive 
database on the condition of public school facilities, a data 
set that does not currently exist and will provide 
comprehensive, non-partisan insight on the state of America's 
public schools.
    Title II proposes $30 billion in tax-free bond authority to 
states, again allocated in proportion to state ESEA Title I 
program funds. As title II is not within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee, it is not discussed at length in this report.
    Title III enumerates allowable uses of the grant and bond 
funds, prohibiting the funds from being spent on minor repairs, 
predictable or routine maintenance, vehicles, or athletic 
facilities for which admission is charged to the public. 
Provisions in title III encourage the use of green practices in 
construction, and, with a few exceptions, require construction 
projects to use American iron, steel, and manufactured 
products. The bill directs the Institute of Educational 
Sciences (IES) to carry out a national study on public school 
facilities and the impact of such facilities on students and 
staff. It also directs the Comptroller General to conduct a 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit on the condition 
of public school facilities and to produce recommendations to 
maximize the ability of under-resourced LEAs to access funds 
authorized under the bill.
    Title IV of the bill authorizes five years of increased 
funding for Impact Aid school construction. Finally, title V 
authorizes federal grants to support states impacted by the 
presence of pyrrhotite, a ferrous mineral found in the concrete 
of certain regions of the United States causing significant 
damage to facilities, including public schools. Under the 
program, states could apply for grants in support of 
construction to restore the condition of any public school 
facility with a foundation compromised due to the presence of 
pyrrhotite. Funds under title V could also be used by states to 
reimburse LEAs for past construction on crumbling school 
foundations due to pyrrhotite impact. Grants distributed under 
title V require a state match of 40 percent of the project's 
total cost and are prohibited from covering more than 50 
percent of the project's total cost.
    A diverse array of stakeholders have called upon Congress 
to pass the Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019 to address 
our nation's crumbling education infrastructure. Such 
stakeholders include educators, parents, school administrators, 
laborers, experts in child development, health and safety 
experts, civil rights advocates, and more.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\As of the filing of this report, supporters of H.R. 865 include: 
Tilt-Up Concrete Association, The School Superintendents Association, 
American Concrete Pavement Association, American Concrete Pipe 
Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American 
Concrete Pumping Association, American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees, Association for Supervision and Curriculum 
Development, Association of Educational Service Agencies, Association 
of Latino Administrators and Superintendents, Association of School 
Business Officials International, Blue Green Alliance, Build America's 
School Infrastructure Coalition, Californians for School Facilities, 
Coalition for Healthier Schools, Concrete Foundations Association, 
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, International Union of Operating 
Engineers, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, National 
Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of 
Federally Impacted Schools, National Association of School Nurses, 
National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Concrete 
Masonry Association, National Precast Concrete Association, National 
PTA, National Ready Mixed Concrete, National Rural Education 
Association, National Urban League, North American Concrete Alliance, 
Organizations Concerned About Rural Education, Parents for School 
Safety, Portland Cement Association, Precast/Prestressed Concrete 
Institute, Public Advocacy for Kids, Rebuild America's Schools 
Coalition, Rural School and Community Trust, Teach Plus, The Brick 
Industry Association, U.S. Green Building Council, International 
Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Committee Action


                             110TH CONGRESS

    On July 12, 2007, Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY), with original 
co-sponsors Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), and Chairman George Miller 
(D-CA), introduced H.R. 3021, the 21st Century High-Performing 
Public School Facilities Act, a bill to direct the Secretary of 
Education to make grants and low-interest loans to LEAs for the 
construction, modernization, or repair of public kindergarten, 
elementary, and secondary educational facilities, and for other 
purposes.
    On February 13, 2008, the Committee held a hearing in 
Washington, D.C. entitled ``Modern Public School Facilities: 
Investing in the Future.'' The purpose of the hearing was to 
highlight the poor quality of public school buildings 
throughout the United States, particularly in low-income areas, 
and the need for federal investment in public school buildings. 
Testifying before the full Committee on the first panel were: 
Representatives Chandler, Michael N. Castle (R-DE), Bob 
Etheridge (D-NC), David Loebsack (D-IA), Charles Boustany (R-
LA), Darlene Hooley (D-OR), Steve King (R-IA) and Rush Holt (D-
NJ). On the second panel, the Committee heard testimony from: 
Kathleen J. Moore, Director, School Facilities Planning 
Division, California Department of Education (Sacramento, 
California); Judi Caddick, Teacher, Memorial Junior High 
School, Illinois Education Association (Lansing, Illinois); 
Mary Cullinane, Director, Innovation and Business Development 
Team, Microsoft Corporation (New York, New York); Dr. Paula 
Vincent, Superintendent, Clear Creek Amana School District 
(Oxford, Iowa); Paul Vallas, Superintendent, Louisiana Recovery 
School District (New Orleans, Louisiana); Jim Waters, Director, 
Policy and Communications, Bluegrass Institute for Public 
Policy Solutions (Bowling Green, Kentucky); and Neal McCluskey, 
Associate Director, Center for Educational Freedom, CATO 
Institute (Washington, D.C.).
    On April 30, 2008, the Committee considered H.R. 3021 in a 
legislative session, and reported the bill favorably, as 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 28-19. 
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3021 on June 4, 2008, 
by a bipartisan vote of 250-164. The bill was messaged to the 
Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions. The Senate took no further 
action on the bill.

Related Legislative Action

    On September 26, 2008, by a bipartisan vote of 265-158, the 
House passed H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment 
Relief Act of 2008, introduced by Representative David Obey (D-
WI), Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 7110 
appropriated $3 billion for public school modernization, 
renovation and repair, modeled after the provisions in title I 
of H.R. 3021. The Senate took no further action on the bill.

                             111TH CONGRESS

    On January 28, 2009, the House passed H.R. 1, the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), introduced by Chairman 
Obey. H.R. 1 appropriated $14 billion for public school 
modernization, renovation and repair, modeled after provisions 
in title I of H.R. 3021 (110th Congress). On February 12, 2009, 
the House passed the Conference Report to H.R. 1. While the 
Conference Report did not include dedicated funds for public 
school modernization, renovation and repair, title XIV of the 
Conference Report authorized the State Fiscal Stabilization 
Fund, $48.6 billion for states and LEAs, which included public 
school modernization, renovation and repair (including 
modernization, renovation and repair that complies with a 
recognized green building standard) as authorized uses. The 
Conference Report also maintained provisions in H.R. 1 that 
authorized a multi-billion dollar qualified school construction 
bond authority for school construction and modernization. ARRA 
was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009.
    On April 30, 2009, Representative Chandler, Chairman 
Miller, and fifteen other members of the Committee\3\ 
introduced H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing 
Public School Facilities Act. This bill, which was 
substantively similar to H.R. 3021 (110th Congress), directed 
the Secretary of Education to make grants and low-interest 
loans to LEAs for the modernization, renovation, or repair of 
public early learning, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary 
educational facilities, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Reps. Kildee, Loebsack (D-IA), John Tierney (D-MA), Joe Courtney 
(D-CT), Phil Hare (D-IL), Holt, Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Raul Grijalva (D-
AZ), Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), David Wu (D-OR), Paul 
Tonko (D-NY), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Kilili 
Sablan (D-MP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 6, 2009, the Committee considered H.R. 2187 in a 
legislative session, and reported the bill favorably, as 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 31-14. 
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2187 on May 14, 2009, 
by a bipartisan vote of 275-155. The bill was messaged to the 
Senate and referred to the Senate committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Senate took no further 
action on the bill.

                             115TH CONGRESS

    On May 17, 2017, the 63rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme 
Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of 
Topeka,\4\ Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Rep. Donald 
Norcross (D-NJ) along with 57 other House colleagues (including 
nine Committee members\5\), introduced H.R. 2475, the Rebuild 
America's Schools Act of 2017. The bill was referred to the 
Committee, and Ranking Member Scott requested a legislative 
hearing on the state of public school facilities in a letter to 
Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\347 U.S. 483 (1954).
    \5\Reps. Sablan, Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), 
Alma Adams (D-NC), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Lisa 
Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Mark Takano (D-CA), and Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 17, 2018, Ranking Member Scott and House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member 
Peter DeFazio (D-OR) led 153 House colleagues in sending a 
letter to President Trump urging him to make federal investment 
in school construction a focal point of any federal 
infrastructure package considered for passage.
    On October 23, 2018, Ranking Member Scott again wrote to 
Chairwoman Foxx urging her to hold a hearing on H.R. 2475 
before the end of the 115th Congress. No hearing was held.

                             116TH CONGRESS

    On January 30, 2019, Chairman Scott along with Rep. 
Norcross and 151 other original co-sponsors (including all 
Democratic members of the Committee), introduced H.R. 865, the 
Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019. The bill's authorization 
of a $100 billion investment in public school facilities in the 
form of grants and bonds would leverage an additional $7 
billion in state funding for an overall investment of $107 
billion that would generate 1.9 million good-paying jobs over 
10 years.
    On February 12, 2019, the Committee held a hearing in 
Washington, D.C., entitled ``Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling 
Schools: How Underfunding Public Education Shortchanges 
America's Students.'' The purpose of the hearing was to 
highlight the poor quality of public school infrastructure 
across the country, especially in low-income communities, and 
to inform Committee members on how recent cuts to public 
education, in combination with historic underfunding of public 
education, have resulted in LEAs that do not have the resources 
to provide a quality education to all students. Such 
underfunding contributes to an average gap of $46 billion 
between what the U.S. spends on K-12 facilities every year and 
what should be spent according to building industry and best-
practice standards.\6\ Testifying before the Committee were Dr. 
Sharon Contreras, Superintendent, Guilford County Schools, 
North Carolina; Anna King, Board Member, National PTA, Oklahoma 
City, Oklahoma; Randi Weingarten, President, American 
Federation of Teachers, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Ben Scafidi, 
Professor of Economics and Director, Education Economics 
Center, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\U.S. Green Building Council, 21st Century Schools Fund, & 
National Council on School Facilities, the State of Our Schools: 
America's K-12 Facilities Report 26 (2016) available at https://
www.usgbc.org/articles/groundbreaking-schools-report-shows-systemic-
inequity-statebystate-analysis-investment-amer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 26, 2019 the Committee considered H.R. 865 in 
legislative session, and reported the bill favorably, as 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 26-20. 
The Committee considered and adopted the following amendments 
to H.R. 865:
     Chairman Scott offered a manager's amendment, 
adopted by voice vote, which made several improvements to H.R. 
865, including:
           Adding a new definition of a ``zero 
        energy school'' to highlight schools that both use and 
        produce their own sources of renewable energy;
           Clarifying language on the allocation of 
        funds;
           Adding requirements for the inclusion of 
        existing toxin tests in the state database of public 
        school facilities required in the bill;
           Adding to the list of approved statewide 
        activities the promulgation or review of regulations 
        related to the exposure to lead-based paint and other 
        combustion by-products to ensure the health and safety 
        of students; the promulgation or review of building 
        codes for public schools construction; and the 
        development of a plan to increase the number of zero 
        energy schools in the state;
           Amending state maintenance of effort 
        requirements in the bill to be based on an average of 
        the previous five fiscal years;
           Requiring that the state establish 
        thresholds for determining LEA eligibility for funds 
        authorized under title I of the bill;
           Adding comparison factors states must 
        consider in giving priority for subgrants to LEAs based 
        on the greatest need, including age of facilities, 
        overcrowding conditions, the condition of major 
        building systems (e.g., HVAC, electrical, water, and 
        sewer systems), the condition of roofs, windows, and 
        doors, and other critical health and safety conditions 
        on school property;
           Allowing a state to consider a school's 
        proximity to a ``brownfield site'', an area where 
        expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated 
        by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous 
        substance, pollutant, or contaminant, when prioritizing 
        schools near toxic areas;
           Clarifying that BIE should consult with 
        BIE-funded schools in developing facilities master 
        plans; and
           Requiring that data measurements on 
        projects included in the annual grant report by the 
        Secretary of Education be aligned to the latest 
        measurements in the Common Education Data Standards by 
        the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
     Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) offered an amendment 
to clarify that improving school security through building 
design plans is an allowable use of funds. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
     Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) offered an amendment to 
add the study of school security to the Institute of Education 
Sciences (IES) report required in the bill. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
     Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to 
prohibit for-profit charter schools from accessing funds 
authorized under the Act. The amendment was adopted by a 
recorded vote of 26-20.
     Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) offered an amendment to 
prohibit self-dealing charter schools from accessing the funds 
authorized under the Act. The amendment was adopted by a voice 
vote.
     Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA) offered an amendment 
expressing the sense of Congress that Opportunity Zones are an 
alternative source to support school infrastructure financing. 
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) offered an amendment to Mr. Meuser's 
amendment expressing the sense of Congress that Opportunity 
Zones can help rebuild communities when combined with public 
infrastructure investment. The Stevens amendment to the Meuser 
amendment was adopted by a recorded vote of 42-1. The Meuser 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    The Committee also considered the following amendments:
     Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) offered an amendment 
proposing that no funds authorized under the Act be made 
available in any fiscal year unless part B of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was fully funded for 
that same year. The amendment was ruled non-germane to H.R. 
865, and a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair was tabled 
by a recorded vote of 23-19.
     Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) offered an amendment 
proposing that nothing in the Act could be construed to 
prohibit a State or LEA from receiving funds under the Act 
based on a decision to permit teachers or other school 
personnel to possess firearms on school grounds. The amendment 
was ruled non-germane to H.R. 865, and a motion to appeal the 
ruling of the chair was tabled by a recorded vote of 28-17.
     Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) offered an amendment 
requiring the reservation of funds for rural LEAs. The 
amendment was defeated on a recorded vote of 20-26.
     Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) offered an amendment to 
delay authorization of funds until all other programs within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee are authorized. The amendment 
was withdrawn.
     Rep. James Comer (R-KY) offered an amendment to 
delay expenditure of funds authorized under the Act until an 
independent auditor determined that state and local agencies 
will incur no compliance costs related to the Act. The 
amendment was defeated on a recorded vote of 20-26.
     Rep. Banks offered an amendment to ban funds 
authorized by the act from being used for lobbying activities. 
The amendment was defeated on a voice vote.
     Rep. Ron Wright (R-TX) offered an amendment to 
condition a State's receipt of funds under the Act on an 
assurance the State would not award a grant to any LEA that 
does not have a policy prohibiting the hiring of registered sex 
offenders. The amendment was ruled non-germane to H.R. 865, and 
a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair was tabled by a 
recorded vote of 24-14.
     Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) offered an amendment to 
delay implementation until the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) certifies ``green requirements'' in the Act will not 
result in cost incurred by school districts. The amendment was 
defeated on a recorded vote of 20-26.
     Ranking Member Foxx offered an amendment to rename 
the bill the ``Trojan Horse Act''. The amendment was defeated 
on a recorded vote of 20-26.

                            Committee Views

    The federal government has played a pivotal role over the 
last 75 years in making our nation's inherently inequitable 
public education system more equitable. During this same 
period, the federal government has periodically provided funds 
to states and localities for school construction, both to 
improve equity of educational opportunity and to promote 
economic stimulus. H.R. 865, the Rebuild America's Schools Act 
of 2019, is an opportunity to reaffirm the federal government's 
position at the nexus of these two roles. If passed and funded, 
the bill would provide resources to ensure that all public 
school students have an opportunity to learn in a safe, 
healthy, and high-quality school facility, while at the same 
time creating almost two million jobs.

H.R. 865 Addresses Persistent Inequity in Public Education Facilities

    Compulsory public education in America proliferated during 
an era of de jure segregation. Plessy v. Ferguson\7\ sanctioned 
the maintenance of ``separate but equal'' public facilities in 
1896, a sanction applied in the following decades to the then-
emerging public school system. While the Supreme Court in Brown 
v. Board of Education of Topeka that rightfully concluded 
racially segregated schools inherently cannot be equal,\8\ the 
notion that Black and white public school facilities were ever 
substantially equal was a legal fiction. A pre-Brown report 
from the American Council on Education in 1941 describes the 
state of a typical Black schoolhouse in Alabama:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\163 U.S. 537 (1896).
    \8\Brown, 347 U.S. at 495.

          It is in a dilapidated building, once whitewashed, 
        standing in a rocky field unfit for cultivation. Dust-
        covered weeds spread a carpet all around, except for an 
        uneven, bare area on one side that looks like a ball 
        field. Behind the school is a small building with a 
        broken, sagging door. As we approach, a nervous, 
        middle-aged woman comes to the door of the school. She 
        greets us in a discouraged voice marked by a speech 
        impediment. Escorted inside, we observe that the broken 
        benches are crowded to three times their normal 
        capacity. Only a few battered books are in sight, and 
        we look in vain for maps or charts. We learn that four 
        grades are assembled here.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Peter Irons, Jim Crow's Children 34 (1st ed. 2002).

    Ten years after Brown, many school districts across the 
South had failed to fully integrate, leaving many students 
stuck in the same inferior school buildings, and in some cases 
no school buildings whatsoever.\10\ Recognizing a 
constitutional duty to remedy inequality and inequity, 
President Lyndon Johnson and Congress solidified the federal 
role in public education as an arbiter of equity, first with 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964,\11\ and subsequently with the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).\12\ The 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government the legal 
tools to realize the promise of Brown. The law gave the federal 
government the power to enforce desegregation plans in local 
school districts under threat of federal sanction, but also 
authorized grants to support desegregation in communities that 
took voluntary action.\13\ ESEA sought to close opportunity and 
achievement gaps in public education through grants which 
targeted resources and services to communities with high 
concentrations of poverty. This poverty fueled low-quality 
schools and school buildings due to inequitable public 
education financing systems,\14\ many of which still persist. 
Since most communities fund their public school systems via 
property taxes,\15\ wealthier communities with higher property 
tax bases invariably are able to provide more resources for 
their educational facilities. Communities surrounding schools 
continue to be largely homogenized by wealth, or the 
significant lack thereof, due in large part to the impact of 
local, state, and federal housing policies intended to 
segregate white from nonwhite families. These policies continue 
to deny nonwhites access to asset accumulation and upward 
mobility, and have corresponding effects on the school 
buildings in these communities as well.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\E.g., Charles Ogletree, All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on 
the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education Ch. 8 (``In fact, 
the southern segregated school system remained almost completely 
segregated for a full decade after Brown. By 1964, only one-fiftieth of 
all southern Black children attended integrated schools.'').
    \11\Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2000a et seq.(2012)).
    \12\Pub. L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 
Sec. 6301(2012)).
    \13\42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000c (2012).
    \14\E.g., Jeff Raikes & Linda Darling-Hammond, Money Matters: Why 
Our Education Funding systems Are Derailing the American Dream, LPI 
BLOG (Feb. 18, 2019), https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/why-our-
education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream.
    \15\Andrew Reschovsky, The Future of U.S. Public School Revenue 
from the Property Tax 1 (Lincoln Inst. of Land Policy, 2017) available 
at https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/future-us-
public-school-revenue-policy-brief_0.pdf.
    \16\Angela Hanks, et al., Systematic Inequality: How America's 
Structural Racism Helped Create the Black-White Wealth Gap, Ctr. for 
Am. Progress (Feb. 21, 2018, 9:03 am), https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/
systematic-inequality/; see generally Richard Rothstein, The Color of 
Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America 
(2017) (describing the legacy of local, state, and federal policy in 
creating segregated neighborhoods throughout the United States, 
including the systemic destruction of integrated neighborhoods, and the 
subsidization of suburbs which denied land sale to African-Americans 
through restrictive covenants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Simply put, students in wealthy communities have better-
resourced school infrastructure, which in turn prepares them 
better for long-term success. Students in poor communities 
disproportionately attend under-resourced schools. Studies show 
the highest poverty school districts in the country spend about 
$1,000 (seven percent) less per student than the lowest poverty 
school districts.\17\ Research also demonstrates that those 
disparities are significant along racial lines. School 
districts that serve mostly students of color receive about 
$1,800 (13 percent) per pupil less than those serving mostly 
white students.\18\ Students in these better-resourced schools 
have a better chance at graduating from high school and 
ultimately obtaining a college degree.\19\ This is particularly 
troubling since students from low-income communities stand to 
benefit the most from graduating from high school and college. 
Students from families in the lowest quintile of income have a 
90 percent chance of climbing the income ladder if they 
graduate from college.\20\ To make it that far, they must first 
have a strong K-12 foundation, and sadly the deck is stacked 
against them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Ivy Morgan & Ary Amerikaner, An Analysis of School Funding 
Equity Across the U.S. and Within Each State, Educ. Trust (Feb. 27, 
2018), https://edtrust.org/resource/funding-gaps-2018/
    \18\Id.
    \19\Michael Mitchell et al., Unkept Promises: State Cuts to Higher 
Education Threaten Access and Equity. Ctr. on Budg. & Pol'y Priorities 
(Oct. 4, 2018), https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/
unkept-promises-state-cuts-to-higher-education-threaten-access-and.
    \20\Pew Charitable Trusts, Pursuing the American Dream: Economic 
Mobility Across Generations 25 (2012), available at https://
www.pewtrusts.org/ /media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/
economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    States have proven unable to solve the problem of 
educational equity by themselves. While state-level public 
education financing formulas often send more funding to lower-
wealth communities than to high-wealth communities, this 
distribution is not enough to close the resource gap between 
localities in most states. And, in some states, state financing 
formulas actually exacerbate the existing inequities.\21\ The 
federal investment of ESEA sought to level the playing field 
and provide the equal opportunity promised by the Fourteenth 
Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensured that 
discriminating with the new federal funds would be illegal.\22\ 
While the federal government has put substantial resources into 
making classroom instruction funding more equitable, it has not 
brought that same focus to ensuring that physical classrooms 
and schools themselves are equitable for all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\U.S. Comm'n on C.R., Public Education Funding Inequity in an 
Era of Increasing Concentration of Poverty and Resegregation 14 (2018), 
available at https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-
Inequity.pdf.
    \22\42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d (2012) (``No person in the United States 
shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded 
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 
financial assistance.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Decades after the Brown decision and the enactment ESEA, 
public school infrastructure spending remains a source of 
education inequity. Low-wealth communities that have difficulty 
providing adequate funding for school operations can neither 
raise the funds necessary to keep pace with building 
modernization needs nor adequately accommodate growing student 
populations, relegating children to outdated and sometimes 
hazardous public school facilities. The most recent Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report on this issue, released in 
1996, determined that poor school facility conditions were most 
concentrated in high-poverty schools that serve students of 
color.\23\ A 2006 Building Education Success Together report 
found that high-poverty school systems are unable to adequately 
invest in school facilities.\24\ Districts that predominantly 
serve white students spend nearly 50 percent more on capital 
construction than those that predominantly serve students of 
color, and wealthy districts spend nearly triple the amount 
their high-poverty counterparts do.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO/HEHS-96-103, School 
Facilities: America's Schools Report Differing Conditions 18 (1996).
    \24\Building Educational Success Together, Growth and Disparity: A 
Decade of U.S. Public School Construction 20-21(October 2006), 
available at http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/publications/best-growth-
disparity-2006.pdf.
    \25\Id. at 21-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While state spending has sometimes made a positive 
difference when it comes inequity in school operations, that is 
rarely the case when it comes to school construction. Half of 
states contribute little to nothing toward the cost of capital 
school construction: 12 states actually contribute nothing, and 
13 states contribute between only one and nine percent of 
costs.\26\ Federally-impacted schools, including schools on or 
near military bases, reservation lands, and public housing 
facilities face a dire infrastructure need as well, with even 
fewer resources to rely on due to the lack of taxable property 
to fund schools. According to a recent report, these schools 
face a $13 billion backlog in school construction needs, $4 
billion of which is considered a ``pressing need''.\27\ 
Congress has a responsibility to address this persistent 
critical gap; every day of inaction maintains a system that not 
only fails to provide quality education infrastructure for all 
students, but also disproportionately impacts the quality of 
education for students of color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Aline Althen, 2016 State of Our Schools: America's K-12 
Facilities, Ctr for Green Schs. (Mar. 23, 2016), https://
centerforgreenschools.org/infographic-2016-state-our-schools-americas-
k-12-facilities.
    \27\Letter from National Association of Federally Impacted Schools 
to Rep. Bobby C. Scott and Sen. Jack Reed in support of the Rebuild 
America's Schools Act, (Feb. 25, 2019) available at https://
edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
NAFIS%20Mark%20up%20Support%20Rebuild%20 Americas%20Schools%20Act.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To fight the persistent inequity in school facilities, 
provisions of H.R. 865 ensure that funds authorized for school 
construction, rehabilitation, and modernization are allocated 
equitably. This begins by allocating funds authorized by title 
I of the bill ($70 billion over 10 years) proportional to state 
allocations under ESEA Title I. To ensure equitable 
distribution of funds to LEAs within each state, the bill 
requires that states subgrant to LEAs that are among those with 
either the highest number or percentage of low-income students. 
The Committee intends this provision to give the state the 
power to make subgrants both to LEAs that serve large 
populations of low-income students (often LEAs serving densely 
populated urban areas) and districts that serve high 
concentrations of low-income students (often LEAs serving less-
densely populated rural areas). The legislation's goal of 
intrastate equity is also furthered by the requirement that a 
participating state award subgrants to a geographically diverse 
slate of LEAs.

Federal Government's Historic Role in School Construction

    Over the last century, the federal government has either 
directly or indirectly provided billions of dollars to states 
and LEAs for new public school construction and the 
rehabilitation and modernization of existing public schools. 
The effects of these federal programs can last decades, even 
when a period of investment in public school facilities is 
relatively short-lived. A one-time investment in school 
construction as envisioned by the Rebuild America's Schools Act 
of 2019 has the potential to improve the trajectory of public 
education outcomes in America for generations to come.
    While it is outside the committee's jurisdiction, indirect 
federal spending on public school infrastructure via the 
federal tax code is too large to be ignored. Since 1913, 
federal law has given favorable tax treatment to state and 
local municipal bonds, bonds often used to fund public school 
construction.\28\ By exempting interest paid on these bonds 
from taxable income, the federal government has made these 
bonds an attractive investment vehicle, incentivizing billions 
of dollars in public school infrastructure investment, and 
forgoing billions of dollars in federal tax revenue in the 
process. As recently as 2009, the Congress acted to create new 
bond authority specifically for school construction. The 
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act created Qualified School 
Construction Bonds (QSCBs). The federal government issued up to 
$22 billion in bond authority to states over two years.\29\ In 
effect, QSCBs operated as an interest-free loan to LEAs because 
the federal government covered 100 percent of the interest paid 
to the bondholder. While many communities took advantage of the 
bonds, communities with the least ability to raise funds (the 
highest poverty LEAs) were not able to use the bonds due to 
their inability to raise the principal and repay the bond, even 
though the interest would have been paid by the federal 
government. In the history of federal spending on school 
construction, indirect spending via the tax code has been the 
tool most often used, and regrettably, the least equitable one. 
Reliance on indirect investment in public school facilities via 
the tax code has widened the opportunity gap between high-
poverty and wealthier school districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Cassandria Dortch, Cong. Research Serv. R41142, School 
Construction and Renovation: A Review of Federal Programs 3 (2013).
    \29\26 U.S.C. Sec. 54F (2012) (repealed 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 865 recognizes that making investment in public school 
infrastructure more affordable through tax-friendly benefits 
can help districts with the means to take advantage of such 
tools both defray costs and budget for school construction more 
effectively. Title II of the bill includes tax incentives 
designed to result in $30 billion for public school 
construction, modernization and rehabilitation. This title is 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
was not considered by this Committee during legislative session 
on H.R. 865.
    Recognizing that it will take more than tax incentives to 
fix our public school infrastructure gap, H.R. 865 authorizes 
$70 billion in grant aid to states and LEAs. The scope of 
investment envisioned in H.R. 865 harkens back to the last 
large-scale effort to provide federal grant funding for public 
school facilities: the New Deal.
    The New Deal's comprehensive response to the Great 
Depression included the funding of thousands of local public 
works projects paid for with federal funds, including public 
schools. In the first year of the New Deal, the Civil Works 
Administration (CWA) rehabilitated or constructed 30,000 
schools.\30\ While local labor was employed in the process, the 
buildings were constructed directly by funds from the federal 
government. The follow-up to the CWA, the Works Progress 
Administration (WPA) lasted from 1935-43. During that time, the 
WPA constructed more than 5,900 school buildings and over 2,100 
additions to existing school buildings. The WPA also 
constructed over 1,800 (and improved over 8,200) public school 
playgrounds,\31\ and renovated or modernized over 31,000 public 
school buildings.\32\ WPA school projects were funded through a 
combination of federal grant and/or loan funds, usually coupled 
with a local share. Many of the schools built with WPA funds 
during the New Deal are still in use today as schools or 
school-related facilities. There is no comprehensive list of 
all the schools built with New Deal funds that are still open 
and operating as schools, but the following facilities are 
still open and operating in districts represented by members of 
the Committee:\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Federal Works Agency, Final Report on the WPA Program, 1935-
1943 4 (1946).
    \31\Id. at 50. H.R. 865 includes as allowable uses of grant funds 
the construction, modernization, renovation and retrofitting of public 
playgrounds and playground on public school facilities as an eligible 
use of funds, noting the proven benefits of recreation both to student 
health and academic success.
    \32\Id. at 52.
    \33\This list is not exhaustive. No official record currently 
exists of schools built using New Deal funds that are still in use as 
schools. The list does not include New Deal projects that were solely 
renovations or improvements to existing buildings, like murals or 
athletic fields. There are many New Deal school buildings that are 
still in use but not for educational purposes; New Deal schools in 
Committee member districts have been converted to local government 
buildings, senior living facilities, and town halls. THE LIVING NEW 
DEAL, http://livingnewdeal.org (last visited Oct. 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Herbert Hoover High School, San Diego, CA
           Avondale Elementary School (now an 
        administration building), Avondale, AZ
           Grossmont High School, El Cajon, CA
           Lyme Consolidated School, Lyme, CT
           McAlister Intermediate School, Suffield, CT
           Near West Intergenerational School, 
        Cleveland, OH
           Acalanes High School, Lafayette, CA
           All City High School, Rochester, NY
           Pen Argyl Area High School, Pen Argyl, PA
           Burbank Elementary School, Modesto, CA
           Enslen Elementary School, Modesto California
           Wilson Elementary School, Modesto, CA
           Meridian Elementary School, Kent, WA
           Ranier School, Buckley, WA
           Housatonic Valley Regional High School, 
        Falls Village, CT
           Thomaston Center School, Thomaston, CT
           Canton Intermediate School, Canton, CT
           Shenandoah Middle School, Miami, FL
           Coral Way School, Miami, FL
           Fort Hill High School, Cumberland, MD
           Tennessee High School, Bristol, TN
           Farnsworth Middle School, Sheboygan, WI
           Keene Central School, Keene Valley, NY
           J.P. McCaskey High School, Lancaster, PA
           Lawsonville Avenue Elementary School, 
        Reidsville, NC
           Frances School Gymnasium, Marion, KY
           Canyon Springs High School, Caldwell, ID
           New York Elementary School, Lawrence, KS
           Kooken School, Arlington, TX
           Williams Middle School, Sturgis, SD
    An $100 billion investment in public school facilities is 
long overdue. While there have been attempts at the federal 
level to provide direct investment in school infrastructure in 
recent years, most have not been successful. Congress 
authorized more than $200 million for public school 
construction, modernization and repair in the 1994 
reauthorization of ESEA, but never appropriated money to the 
program.\34\ In 2001, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for 
public school facility renovation and repairs and ensured 
distribution to low-wealth, rural, and federally-connected 
schools.\35\ In 2009, House Democrats tried unsuccessfully for 
the inclusion of public school infrastructure grant funds in 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While $14 billion 
in grant funds for the repair, modernization, and renovation or 
public schools were included in the House-passed bill (H.R. 1), 
the provisions were stripped in Conference with the Senate. 
Typically, ``infrastructure'' is limited to federal buildings, 
roads, tunnels, bridges and water products. Under ESEA, the use 
of funds for schools must be explicit since the law expressly 
prohibits the use of funds on construction unless specifically 
authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Cassandria Dortch, Cong. Research Serv. R41142, School 
Construction and Renovation: A Review of Federal Programs 3-4 (2013).
    \35\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2009, as states have slowly recovered from the Great 
Recession, the need for federal investment in public school 
construction has only grown. Half of states spend less on 
education now than they did before the Recession.\36\ As AFT 
President Randi Weingarten noted in her testimony before the 
Committee, during the 2018 midterm elections, voters in 77 
school districts voted to pass referendums ``to enable school 
districts to borrow money for capital projects or exceed their 
state-mandated revenue limits to maintain or expand 
programming'' signaling both the overall need and the limited 
financial backing with which to accomplish that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\American Federation of Teachers, A Decade of Neglect, Public 
Education Funding in the Aftermath of the Great Recession 2 (2018) 
available at https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/decade-of-neglect-
2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The unmet need for capital investments is not merely a 
philosophical debate about federalism. As long as states 
maintain these inequitable funding systems, wealthy, primarily 
white neighborhoods will continue to fund high-quality schools, 
and non-wealthy, primarily communities of color, will continue 
to struggle to fund their schools to parity even with 
additional help from state and federal funding. Proponents of 
returning sole education funding responsibility to the states 
cannot deny the fact that in more than half of states, the 
least-wealthy school districts especially those that primarily 
serve students of color, still receive less funding--about 
$1,800 less per student.\37\Increasingly, citizens are holding 
their state governments accountable; there are currently 12 
states facing lawsuits for inadequate or inequitable education 
funding.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Morgan & Amerikaner, supra note 17, at 4.
    \38\Courtney Sanders, These 12 States Are Being Sued for not 
Funding Schools Equitably, Educ. Post (May 16, 2018), https://
educationpost.org/these-12-states-are-being-sued-for-not-funding-
schools-equitably/. The states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, 
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inequitable school funding is not simply a question of 
fairness on paper. It creates life-long consequences that bar 
individual economic independence and dignity that every 
American should know. In the face of overwhelming evidence that 
wealthy schools produce results for their students and non-
wealthy schools do not, it is the Committee view that Congress 
keep its promise to close the gap on quality and equality. 
School funding makes a marked difference in the quality of 
education a student receives--better course offerings, smaller 
class size, more-qualified teachers, and environments conducive 
for learning. As funding gaps persist, so do gaps in school 
infrastructure quality. A federal response is necessary as this 
problem has real world implications not only for equity in 
education offerings but also for the health and safety of 
students and teachers nationwide.

H.R. 865 Addresses Unsafe Learning and Working Conditions and Other 
        Deficits Caused by Inadequate School Infrastructure Funding

    On any given school day, nearly one-sixth of Americans 
spends time in one of our country's approximately 100,000 
public K-12 school facilities.\39\ On average these facilities 
are nearly 50 years old.\40\ While these statistics are 
nationwide averages, we know that facilities in need of repair 
are concentrated in high-poverty school districts. 
Additionally, a growing body of research shows that high-
quality facilities help improve academic achievement, reduce 
student and staff absences, and reduce suspensions.\41\ As the 
setting for learning, public school facility conditions either 
hinder or help student performance.\42\ Despite the positive 
effects of adequate facilities, far too many children and 
adults continue to learn and work in public schools that are 
unsafe and unhealthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Mary Filardo & Jeffrey Vincent, Adequate & Equitable U.S. PK-12 
Infrastructure: Priority Actions for Systemic Reform, (PK-12 School 
Infrastructure National Initiative, 2017), available at http://
www.centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/
infrastructure-priority-actions-report.pdf.
    \40\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO/HEHS-95-61, School 
Facilities: Condition of America's Schools (1995), available at https:/
/www.gao.gov/assets/230/220864.pdf.
    \41\E.g., Ctr. for Eval. & Pol'y Anal., Penn State University, The 
Importance of School Facilities In Improving Student Outcomes (June 
2015) available at https://sites.psu.edu/ceepa/2015/06/07/the-
importance-of-school-facilities-in-improving-student-outcomes/; Mark 
Schneider, Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?, Nat'l 
Clearinghouse for Educ. Facilities (Nov. 2002), http://www.ncef.org/
pubs/outcomes.pdf.
    \42\The Center for Green Schools, Green school buildings are better 
for teachers and students, (July 1, 2018), https://
www.centerforgreenschools.org/green-schools-are-better-learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is well-documented that our nation's public school 
facilities pose significant health and safety threats to many 
of the more than 50 million students and 6 million 
teachers.\43\ Despite an expanding research base to improve 
understanding of how health quality affects student learning, 
not much has changed at the state level to ensure healthy 
school buildings. The 1996 GAO report found that more than 
15,000 public schools were circulating air unfit to 
breathe.\44\ Low air circulation has been linked to missed 
school days for respiratory infections and asthma exacerbation 
and increased student visits to the nurse.\45\ Time has not 
significantly improved such deplorable conditions. More than 20 
years after the GAO audit, reports of poor air quality in 
schools persist.\46\ According to a 2014 CDC report, less than 
half of the country's schools have a program in place to 
address indoor air quality.\47\ Research also shows a 
correlation between test scores and air temperature,\48\ yet 
due to financial constraints, many schools across the country 
cannot afford to replace or even maintain heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning (HVAC) units. As recently as the 2018-19 
school year, public schools in the United States have either 
been forced to close or have had students and teachers 
``bundled up'' to withstand winter weather indoors\49\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Lindsay Baker & Harvey Bernstein, The Importance of School 
Buildings on Student Health and Performance (2012) available at http://
centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/
McGrawHill_ImpactOnHealth.pdf.
    \44\See America's Schools Report Differing Conditions, supra note 
22, at 43.
    \45\Oluyemi Toyinbo, et al., Modeling Associations between 
Principals' Reported Indoor Environmental Quality and Students' Self-
Reported Respiratory Health Outcomes Using GLMM and ZIP Models, 13 
Int'l J. Envtl. Res. & Pub. Health 385 (April 2016) available at 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27043595.
    \46\Courtney Vaughn and Nick Budnick, Portland teacher fights to 
fix school's air quality, Portland Trib., June 27, 2019, available at 
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/432100-340532-portland-teacher-
fights-to-fix-schools-air-quality.
    \47\Elena Page, et al., Evaluation of Indoor Environmental Quality 
and Health Concerns in a Public Elementary School, Health Hazard Eval 
Prog., No. 2015-0025-3237, (HHS, CDC, NIOSH) (2015) available at 
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0025-3237.pdf.
    \48\Jisung Park, Temperature, Test Scores, and Human Capital 
Production, (2017) available at http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/
jisungpark/files/temperature_test_scores_and_human_capital_ 
production_-_j_park_-_2-26-17.pdf.
    \49\Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling Schools: How Underfunding 
Public Education Shortchanges America's Students: Hearing Before H. 
Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 116th Cong. (2019) (statement of Randi 
Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers) (``Baltimore, 
last winter, teachers called on the city to close schools because of 
chronic heating problems as indoor temperatures plunged into the 30s, 
and children tried to learn bundled in coats and hats.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1996 GAO report also found that 21 percent of schools 
responding to their survey spent funds on removing lead in 
either paint or water, and another 16 percent needed to spend 
more on lead abatement to meet safety standards.\50\ Twenty-two 
years later, a GAO report on lead in water specifically, found 
that half of U.S. schools tested positive for lead in drinking 
water.\51\ A recent study by the T. H. Chan School of Public 
Health at Harvard University and the Nutrition Policy Institute 
at the University of California found that only 25 states had a 
school drinking water testing initiative between January 1, 
2016 and February 28, 2018.\52\ Even in the states that did 
test drinking water in schools, the researchers found that 
there was no uniformity in how the testing was done, or what 
actions schools took as a result of testing positive for lead. 
This inadequacy and inconsistency across states leaves students 
and staff vulnerable to serious health hazards, as we saw in 
Flint, Michigan. The continuing presence of lead in any form in 
public schools, nearly 50 years after Congress first recognized 
its toxicity and outlawed its use in paint in public 
housing,\53\ is endemic of the state of our school 
infrastructure crisis.\54\ H.R. 865 would require states to 
review and issue regulations to encourage safe construction 
practices and healthy school facilities, thereby ensuring the 
most effective use of the funding provided by the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\America's Schools Report Differing Conditions, supra note 22, 
at 5-6.
    \51\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-18-382, K-12 Education: 
Lead Testing of School Drinking Water Would Benefit From Improved 
Federal Guidance (2018) available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/
692979.pdf.
    \52\Angie Cradock, et al., Early Adopters: State Approaches to 
Testing School Drinking Water for Lead in the United States (Harvard 
T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 2019) available at http://
npi.ucanr.edu/files/296549.pdf.
    \53\Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 91-695, 
84 Stat. 2078 (1971).
    \54\Aside from presence in drinking water, U.S. schools still have 
problems related to lead paint as in some schools it is still peeling 
from school walls, severely poisoning students who ingest it. Wendy 
Ruderman, et al., Philadelphia school kids will get added protections 
from lead paint perils, Phila. Inq., Dec. 13, 2018 available at https:/
/www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/lead-paint-philadelphia-schools-
protections-toxic-city-20181213.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 865 also addresses specific dangerous conditions that 
impact public schools, such as crumbling building foundations. 
Pyrrhotite, a naturally-occurring mineral, can cause the rapid 
deterioration of building foundations when it is found in the 
concrete used to pour the foundation. New England generally, 
and Northeast and Northcentral Connecticut in particular, are 
experiencing hundreds, possibly thousands, of crumbling 
foundations in homes and public buildings, including schools, 
due to the use of concrete composed in part of quarried rock 
containing pyrrhotite.\55\ Engineers discovered the problem in 
2015 and contractors now test for the presence of pyrrhotite 
before pouring concrete foundations. But all school buildings 
in this region with concrete foundations built between 1983 and 
2015 could experience foundation crumbling at some point over 
the next 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\George Colli, Courtney Tours Crumbling School in Tolland, WTNH 
News 8, Mar. 5, 2019, available at https://www.wtnh.com/news/news-8-
investigators/courtney-tours-crumbling-school-in-tolland/1829040015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As an immediate precaution, public schools built during 
that 1983-2015 period have been forced to close on days when 
winds reach over 60 miles per hour. Many schools have taken the 
precaution of moving students to temporary classroom sites 
while LEAs consider or acquire the financial means to 
rebuild.\56\ Repairs can cost a school community millions of 
dollars and take up to two years for each affected school. 
Title V of the bill would authorize a federal grant program to 
states to reimburse pyrrhotite-affected school districts within 
their state. The program would cover up to 50 percent of the 
unexpected costs provided that the state in which affected 
school is located contributes at least 40 percent of the share. 
Only LEAs that fail to qualify for funds under either title I 
or title II of the bill are eligible for funds authorized under 
title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\Rob Polansky, et al., Town wide meeting held to discuss 
crumbling foundation at Tolland school, WFSB Eyewitness News 3, Mar. 5, 
2019, available at https://www.wfsb.com/news/town-wide-meeting-held-to-
discuss-crumbling-foundation-at-tolland/article_e5842d46-3f43-11e9-
ae92-bfd158ac6ff5.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are other issues caused by the lack of investment in 
educational infrastructure addressed in H.R. 865. The Committee 
recognizes the overcrowding problem schools face as student 
populations grow. The bill, therefore allows grants to be used 
to address that need, along with ensuring the building 
exteriors and interiors are well-protected and secure. The 
Committee also notes that air temperature is a prevalent issue 
schools face, due to insufficient heating or cooling systems, 
and H.R. 865 allows for major repairs or new investments in 
these systems to regulate a healthy learning temperature. 
Grants and bonds may also be used to improve energy and water 
efficiency to lower costs and energy consumption and to build 
modernizations that reduce reliance on fossil fuels and expand 
the use of solar power, wind power, and other renewable energy 
resources. H.R. 865 funds can be used to ensure safe drinking 
water and to take other steps to generally ensure the health 
and safety of students and staff during construction. States 
and LEAs may also use funds to bring a school facility into 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. And, recognizing the 
classroom of yesterday and the classroom of tomorrow are not 
the same, grants and bonds under H.R. 865 may be used to build 
appropriate instructional space according to school course 
offerings and services. For example, funds can be used to build 
collaborative workspaces such as makerspaces, which allow for 
creative approaches to science, technology, and math (STEM) 
disciplines, or to soundproof a school music room. Likewise, 
any construction to expand or support facilities that house or 
support school-provided services is also covered under the 
bill.

H.R. 865 increases support for existing sources of federal funding of 
        school construction

    Aside from indirect spending via the tax code, and direct 
grant aid to states, the federal government currently provides 
direct funding for public school construction in two other 
areas: schools with distinct federal roles (Impact Aid) and 
schools affected by natural disasters. H.R. 865 builds on both 
of these existing programs
    Federally impacted school districts, those with high 
percentages of federally owned (and therefore untaxed) land 
have long relied on federal aid to supplement both public 
school operation and construction budgets. The Impact Aid 
program, which provides funds for the operations of these 
school districts, also includes a line item specifically for 
school construction.\57\ While support for school construction 
via Impact Aid has been a longstanding federal investment, the 
amount authorized and appropriated is relatively low in the 
face of the outsized need.\58\ H.R. 865 authorizes an 
additional $500 million a year for Impact Aid school 
construction over the next five fiscal years, an increase of 
over 400 percent compared to the current authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7714(d)(2012).
    \58\Nat'l Assn. of Federally Impacted Schs., Foundations for 
Learning: the Facilities Needs of Federally Impacted Schools, 8 (2017), 
available at https://www.nafisdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-
school-construction-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal government also provides grant funding via the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to public entities 
for school repair or new school construction in the wake of a 
federally declared disaster. H.R. 865 does not directly address 
recovery from disasters, but instead allows school districts to 
use funds to prepare for natural disasters before they occur. 
Climate change, due in part to human activity, has increased 
the frequency and severity of natural disasters. Thirteen 
federal agencies recently released a report that predicts the 
effects of climate change will worsen and make protecting 
American infrastructure more difficult if steps are not taken 
to curb global warming.\59\ California has already lost public 
schools to wildfires exacerbated by drought, schools on the 
nation's coasts are constantly facing the threat of destruction 
due to hurricanes, and schools in inland areas are impacted by 
record-setting seasonal flooding.\60\ According to a CRS report 
of federal disaster relief funds, the U.S. has spent 
approximately $5.7 billion just between fiscal years 2005 and 
2017 repairing public school facilities that have not withstood 
major natural disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate 
Assessment 34 (Vol. II, 2018), available at https://
nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf; see also 
Brady Dennis & Chris Mooney, Major Trump administration climate report 
says damage is `intensifying across the country', Wash. Post, Nov. 23, 
2018, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/
2018/11/23/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-
intensifying-across-country/.
    \60\David Washburn & Diana Lambert, Plans come into focus for 
California schools ravaged by wildfires, Edsource, Nov. 28, 1018, 
available at https://edsource.org/2018/plans-come-into-focus-for-
schools-ravaged-by-wildfires/605409; Nicole Acevedo, In Puerto Rico, 
new school year begins after Hurricane Maria, big changes to education 
system, NBCNews, Aug. 13, 2018, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/
storyline/puerto-rico-crisis/puerto-rico-new-school-year-begins-after-
hurricane-maria-big-n899866; Scott Olson, For the Midwest, Epic 
Flooding is the Face of Climate Change, Wired, May 4, 2019, available 
at https://www.wired.com/story/for-the-midwest-epic-flooding-is-the-
face-of-climate-change/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 865 attempts to fix two major drawbacks in the use of 
FEMA funds for school construction. First, FEMA funds, by 
design, can only be used to address recovery after a disaster 
has occurred. In contrast, funds from H.R. 865 can be used to 
mitigate threats posed by climate change and natural disasters 
before they occur, allowing communities to proactively prepare 
for coming disasters. Second, FEMA funds are provided only to 
restore facilities to pre-disaster conditions. This restoration 
is done without consideration of modernized building codes or 
materials that could equip schools to withstand future 
disasters better. For example, Super Typhoon Yutu, the 
strongest storm to hit any American territory in over 80 
years,\61\ destroyed public schools with tin roofs in the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.\62\ In a time of 
increasingly volatile global temperatures that, according to 
the Trump Administration, will result in more frequent and more 
powerful natural disasters,\63\ mandating that these destroyed 
tin roofs be replaced with new tin roofs and not with more 
resilient roofs is shortsighted. Under H.R. 865, grant funds 
could be used for seismic retrofitting, protecting existing 
buildings from the elements, and hazard resistance. And to 
ensure that new construction with federal dollars does not 
exacerbate climate change, all construction funded under H.R. 
865 must conform to some extent with green building practices, 
with a requirement that 100 percent of funds spent in the last 
year of authorization be used in accordance with green building 
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\Allyson Chiu et al., Extreme Category 5 typhoon, the worst U.S. 
storm since 1935, leaves Northern Mariana Islands devastated, Wash. 
Post, Oct. 25, 2018, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
energy-environment/2018/10/24/extreme-category-typhoon-yutu-makes-
devastating-landfall-northern-mariana-islands-us-commonwealth/.
    \62\This is Not a Drill: Education-Related Response and Recovery in 
the Wake of Natural Disasters: Hearing Before H. Subcomm. on Early 
Childhood, Elem. & Sec. Educ. of the H. Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 116th 
Cong. (2019) (statement of Glenn Muna, Commissioner, CNMI Public School 
System) available at https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Muna%20Testimony %20060519.pdf.
    \63\See sources cited supra note 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 865 Provides Funds To Remedy Inequitable Access to the Internet

    Digital inequality is yet another symptom of inequitable 
public school funding. More than thirty years after the advent 
of the Internet, far too many public schools lack the high-
speed digital infrastructure necessary to support modern 
teaching and learning, a critical resource inequity that 
research suggests may be contributing to persistent achievement 
gaps.\64\ Currently, 6.5 million students in 40 states lack the 
minimum Federal Communications Commission's recommended 
bandwidth for Internet-connected digital learning, according to 
a 2017 Education Super Highway Report.\65\ Over 2,000 school 
districts still lack access to fiber networks; 77% of those 
districts are located in rural areas with fewer resources to 
cover the cost of construction of a fiber network.\66\ To help 
bridge the digital divide, H.R. 865 would allow LEAs to use 
grant funding to expand access to high-speed broadband to 
ensure digital learning necessary for the 21st century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Angelina Kewalramani et al., Student Access to Digital Learning 
Resources Outside of the Classroom XIV (NCES 2017-098: 2017) available 
at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098/index.asp.
    \65\Education Superhighway, 2017 State of the States Fulfilling Our 
Promise to America's Students 9 (2017) available at http://
stateofthestates.educationsuperhighway.org/2017/.
    \66\Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 865 Promotes Effective School Safety Design

    The Committee recognizes all public school facilities must 
be safe, secure, and welcoming for students and staff. H.R. 865 
allows for funding to be used on creating building designs that 
address security. The Committee believes the best way to 
address a school building's physical security issues is as part 
of a modernization and rehabilitation program. Secure and 
intentional building design considers student health, 
productivity, and sense of safety. Architects were able to 
design a safer school campus for Sandy Hook Elementary School 
in Newtown, Connecticut by using best design practices such as 
creating more visibility and using a layered strategic approach 
to mitigate threats.\67\ For example, the newly designed school 
allows for more natural light, which has been shown to increase 
productivity, not necessarily more physical barriers that make 
students feel barricaded as they are learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Tom Dobbins, Sandy Hook School Architect Testifies in Front of 
Congress About School Safety, Arch Daily, (8:00 am, Aug. 25, 2018) 
available at https://www.archdaily.com/900588/speaking-to-congress-jay-
brotman-outlines-how-the-profession-intends-to-improve-school-safety; 
But see Grieg O'Brien, Architect Jay Brotman testifying Before White 
house cabinet Secretaries on School Design Today, Architect, Aug. 16 
2018, available at https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architect-
jay-brotman-testifying-before-white-house-cabinet-secretaries-on-
school-design-today_o. (Correctly reporting that the Mr. Brotman's 
testimony was before the Federal Commission on School Safety and not 
Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee notes that this redesign is not the same as 
school hardening, a measure the Committee believes is not an 
allowable use of grant funds under H.R. 865. The research 
failed to conclude that hardening--such as in the form of fewer 
windows, metal detectors, intrusive surveillance systems, 
physical traits evident in prisons--actually makes schools 
safer.\68\ On the contrary, studies show students feel less 
safe because of the presence of such hardening, so its use is 
not authorized here.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\Valerie Strauss, Study: There's no evidence that hardening 
schools to make kids safer from gun violence actually works, Wash. 
Post, Apr. 16, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
education/2019/04/16/study-theres-no-evidence-that-hardening-schools-
make-kids-safer-gun-violence-actually-works/.
    \69\Bayliss Fiddiman, et al., Smart Investments for Safer Schools, 
Ctr. for Am. Progress (9:02 am, Dec. 19, 2018), https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2018/12/19/
464445/smart-investments-safer-schools/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 865 Provides Transparency To Hold Government Accountable for State 
        of School Facilities

    Local, state, and federal law created our nation's 
universal system of free public education. Its goal is to 
provide all children, regardless of family wealth or zip code, 
quality schooling in a safe learning environment. Sadly, the 
government at all levels has broken this promise to many 
communities. Children are compelled to learn in decrepit 
facilities that not only deny them equity of educational 
opportunity but are also making them sick. As Ms. Weingarten 
pointed out in her testimony, ``How do we send children to 
school with black toxic mold on floors, classrooms without heat 
or air conditioning, leaking ceilings and contaminated water? 
[. . .] We send our children to schools in these conditions, 
and we expect them to thrive.''\70\ Government must act boldly 
to remedy this injustice and make good on its promise of a safe 
and healthy public school for every child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Underpaid Teachers, supra note 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee notes that H.R. 865 proposes a comprehensive 
solution that brings all levels of government together to close 
our education infrastructure gap. Under H.R. 865, the federal 
government fulfills its role to ensure equity in education 
through targeted support. The state is empowered to fulfill its 
role as the primary custodian of public schools within its 
borders. And the LEA is charged with to identifying and 
addressing needs specific to local schools.
    And to ensure this accountability continues after the 
period of federal funding ends, the bill requires each state 
that receives funds under title I of the bill to build and 
maintain a comprehensive, publicly searchable school facilities 
online database. Currently there is no comprehensive national 
database on the condition of public school facilities. With 
increased transparency in each state, stakeholders can 
understand the extent of the problem from a wider lens and can 
better hold their government accountable for gaps in resources. 
State-level data collection and reporting will also allow 
policymakers and practitioners across states to learn from one 
another and share best practices. As a condition of the receipt 
of funds, states must also review existing health and safety 
regulations and issue updated regulations if necessary to 
ensure safe construction practices and healthy school 
environments.

Conclusion

    H.R. 865 is a necessary and long-overdue step toward 
closing the infrastructure gap in our nation's schools. The 
Committee believes that if passed and fully funded, H.R. 865 
will bring public education closer to achieving the equality 
promised in Brown, and help ensure that every student, 
regardless of his or her zip code or family wealth, can learn 
in a high-quality, safe and healthy public school building.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    This cites the short title of the Act as the ``Rebuild 
America's Schools Act of 2019.''

Section 2. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for the terms 
``appropriate congressional committees,'' ``Bureau-funded 
school,'' ``covered funds,'' ``elementary school,'' ``local 
educational agency,'' ``outlying area,'' ``secondary school,'' 
``public school facilities,'' ``qualified local educational 
agency,'' ``school infrastructure bond,'' ``Secretary'', 
``State'', and ``zero energy school''.

    TITLE I--GRANTS FOR THE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL 
                               FACILITIES

Section 101. Purpose and reservation

    This section states the purpose of this Act, which is to 
support ``long-term improvements to public school facilities.'' 
It also reserves 0.5 percent of total authorized funds for the 
outlying areas proportionate to their share of funds under ESEA 
Title I, and 0.5 percent of funds for schools funded by the 
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).

Section 102. Allocation to states

    This section outlines the allocation of funds to states as 
well as state responsibilities under this Act. States shall be 
allocated funds in proportion to the funds that all local 
education agencies (LEAs) in the state receive under ESEA Title 
I. In exchange, states must review and issue regulations to 
ensure safe, healthy, and high-performing buildings and develop 
an online, publicly searchable database that outlines the 
condition of all public school facilities in the state. Other 
state requirements include a 10 percent matching requirement, a 
maintenance of effort assurance, and a supplement-not-supplant 
assurance. This section also requires that states submit a plan 
to the Secretary of Education for approval to carry out the 
competitive grant program described in section 103.

Section 103. Need-based grants to qualified local education agencies

    Section 103 provides for awarding funds by the state to 
qualified LEAs on a competitive basis. A qualified LEA must be 
receiving ESEA Title I funds. For a qualified LEA to be 
eligible to receive a need-based grant from the state it must 
meet at least one of multiple eligibility criteria.
    All qualified LEAs in the state with the highest numbers of 
students counted under section 1124(c) of ESEA must be 
considered eligible for a need-based grant. All LEAs in the 
state with the highest percentages of students counted under 
section 1124(c) of ESEA must be considered eligible. In some 
instances, a LEA may meet both student eligibility criteria 
based on having both a high number and a high percentage of 
ESEA Title I-counted students.
    The state is expected to set both number and percentage 
thresholds in determining grant eligibility from among all 
qualified LEAs. The number and percentage thresholds are 
intended to reasonably define the eligible subset of qualified 
LEAs across the state demonstrating the highest number of ESEA 
Title I-counted students and those agencies demonstrating the 
highest percentage of ESEA Title I-counted students 
respectively.
    Additionally, once the state identifies the eligible LEAs 
determined by the number and the percentage of ESEA Title I-
eligible students, it may extend eligibility for the need-based 
grants to LEAs with the greatest need to improve school 
facilities that may include consideration of proximity to toxic 
sites, brownfield areas, or vulnerability to natural disasters. 
And, the state may also extend eligibility to LEAs with the 
most limited capacity to raise funds for facility improvements 
based on assessing its current and historic ability to raise 
facility funds, ability to issue bonds or to receive other 
funds for school construction, and its bond rating.
    Any LEA that is awarded need-based funds must prioritize 
the use of the funds in schools with highest percentage of 
students eligible for the free and reduced priced lunch 
program.
    The state will give priority in awarding funds to the 
qualified LEAs determined to be eligible for need-based grants 
that can demonstrate the greatest need for a grant by comparing 
the relative concentrations of ESEA Title I-counted students 
(both for numbers and for percentages), specific facility 
improvement needs such as proximity to toxic hazards or natural 
disaster vulnerability, as well as other indicators of need 
including age of facilities, over enrollment, condition of 
major building systems, condition of roofs, windows and doors, 
and other critical health and safety conditions.
    Priority for funding shall be given to eligible LEAs that 
commit to using the grant to improve facilities in elementary 
and middle schools with not less than 40 percent of students 
eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program, in high 
schools with not less than 30 percent school or feeder-school 
eligibility, or in a school operating under a severe health or 
safety threat. States may also give priority to eligible LEAs 
that serve schools that lack access to high-speed broadband, 
including from rural areas, to improve such access, if such 
schools also meet one or more of the previously stated needs.
    The state may reserve up to 10 percent of funds for grants 
to qualified LEAs to improve digital learning by leveraging 
other public funds or public-private partnerships to increase 
broadband access. The state also must ensure that grants are 
awarded to qualified LEAs that represent the geographic 
diversity of the state.

Section 104. Annual report on grant program

    The Secretary of Education must annually submit to Congress 
a report that includes a description of the projects carried 
out under the grant program as well as the demographic 
information of students attending schools that used funds from 
the grant program.

Section 105. Authorization of appropriations

    $70 billion total is authorized for title I of this Act 
from FY 2020 through FY 2029.

                 TITLE II--SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS

Sec. 201. Restoration of certain qualified tax credit bonds

    This section restores sections 54A, 54E, and 6431 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as if the repeals by the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act of 2017 had not taken effect. It amends section 
54(E)(d)(3) of the Code to allow proceeds from Qualified Zone 
Academy Bonds (QZABs) to be used for construction and 
retrofitting of public school facilities. Section 201 
permanently increases the national limitation for QZABs from 
$400 million annually to $1.4 billion annually and removes the 
private business contribution requirement for LEAs to 
participate in the QZAB program.

Sec. 202. School Infrastructure Bonds

    This section amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by 
adding ``Section 54BB. School Infrastructure Bonds.'' Section 
202 designates a total national bond limitation of $30 billion 
for qualified school infrastructure bonds (QSIBs), $10 billion 
each for FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. States may distribute 
up to 10 percent of the total bond limitation to enable LEAs to 
leverage existing public programs or public-private 
partnerships to expand access to high-speed broadband 
sufficient for digital learning.
    Section 202 also allocates bond authority to states based 
on the proportion of funds that states receive under ESEA Title 
I. It requires that the federal government provide a tax credit 
of 100 percent of the interest on any QSIB--such credit may be 
issued as a tax credit to the bondholder or as a direct payment 
to the bond issuer. Section 202 reserves 0.5 percent of the 
bond allocation for outlying areas, and 0.5 percent of the bond 
allocation for schools funded by the BIE and requires states to 
use the same criteria outlined in section 103 in distribution 
of bond authority to LEAs, excluding provisions related to 
fiscal capacity.

Section 203. Annual report on bond program

    The Secretary of Education must annually submit to Congress 
a report that includes the LEAs that participated in the bond 
program as well as LEAs that were unable to participate due to 
fiscal challenges.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 301. Allowable uses

    This section outlines the allowable uses of funds for 
titles I and II. Funds may be used to develop the facilities 
master plan required under section 103(e) and generally to 
construct, modernize, renovate, build new schools, and retrofit 
public school facilities. Retrofitting may include seismic 
retrofitting for schools vulnerable to seismic natural 
disasters, as well as other retrofitting to bring facilities up 
to code to withstand other natural disasters, or otherwise 
bring facilities to compliance for fire, safety, and other 
health codes.
    LEAs may also use grants to install suitable furniture or 
fixtures with at-least a ten-year life-span. This can include 
installing size-appropriate fixtures if retrofitting a building 
for younger children, updating, science lab infrastructure, and 
construction and improvement of public playgrounds. Allowable 
uses also include: improvements to building exteriors and 
interiors to ensure they are well-protected and secure; major 
repairs or new investments in HVAC systems; improvements to 
energy and water efficiency to lower costs and energy 
consumption including building modernizations that reduce 
reliance on fossil fuels and expand the use of solar power, 
wind power, and other renewable energy resources; improvements 
to ensure safe drinking water, or to generally ensure the 
health and safety of students and staff during construction; 
efforts to bring a school into compliance with the Americans 
with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973; construction of appropriate instructional space 
according to school course offerings and services; and any 
construction to expand or support facilities that house or 
support school-provided services.

Section 302. Prohibited uses

    Funds under titles I and II may not be used on athletic 
facilities or grounds that charge an admission fee, vehicles, 
central offices, or other facilities not primarily used to 
educate students. Funds also may not be used on routine 
maintenance or minor repairs.

Section 303. Requirements for Hazard-Resistance and Energy and Water 
        Conservation.

    Section 303 requires LEAs that receive funds for new 
construction to meet or exceed the requirements of a nationally 
recognized, consensus-based model building code, and the 
performance criteria under the WaterSense program of the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6294b.

Section 304. Green practices

    Section 304 outlines the requirements for green practices 
for projects funded under titles I and II.

Section 305. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured products

    This section includes a ``Buy America'' provision for iron, 
steel, and manufactured products.

Section 306. Comptroller General

    This section requires the Comptroller General to submit to 
Congress a report that must include the geographic distribution 
of projects, the impact of projects on student and staff health 
and safety, and how funds under these projects could be made 
more accessible to high-poverty schools and those with fiscal 
capacities.

Section 307. Study and report of physical conditions of public schools

    This section requires that the Institute of Educational 
Sciences (IES) carry out a national study that includes the 
condition of public school facilities, the impact of such 
facilities on students and staff, and a cost estimate for 
bringing schools to good condition. Such a comprehensive report 
would capture school facilities that represent the breadth of 
schools in the country--urban, suburban, rural, from different 
geographic regions, and high poverty and high wealth schools.

Section 308. Development of data standards

    This section requires that the Secretary of Education, in 
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Department of Energy (DOE), 
and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH), develop guidance on data to be collected by states 
under section 102.

Section 309. Information clearinghouse

    The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the 
officials in section 307, must disseminate information to 
schools on financing for green projects.

                   TITLE IV--IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION

Section 401. Temporary increase in funding for Impact Aid Construction

    This title temporarily increases funding for the Impact Aid 
Construction program under ESEA by $500 million over fiscal 
years 2020 through 2024.

   TITLE V--ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY 
                               PYRRHOTITE

Section 501. Allocations to states

    The Secretary of Education is directed to create a program, 
within 180 days of the bill's enactment into law, that would 
provide federal funding to states to distribute grants to LEAs 
for the repair or replacement of crumbling foundations due to 
pyrrhotite. It requires the Secretary to publish on the 
Department of Education's website instructions on how a state 
may receive funding for this program.
    For schools with a pyrrhotite emergency that already 
qualify for a grant under title I of this Act, such schools may 
use their title I grant to address the emergency, and do not 
need to apply for this separate program.

Section 502. Grants to local educational agencies

    This section requires the Secretary to award funds to 
states to either pay the future costs of repairing foundations 
deteriorating due to pyrrhotite, or to reimburse LEAs for the 
cost of repairs or replacement during the previous five-year 
period prior to this provision becoming law. LEAs must 
demonstrate that the school contains pyrrhotite in the 
foundation through proper laboratory, core, or visual 
inspections by a professional engineer licensed in the state. 
LEAs must also have had any testing of the foundation done 
through the proper channels outlined by the state or other 
entity overseeing relief efforts for crumbling foundations. The 
LEA must also only use the funding for the allowable uses 
described in the bill and must have all work performed by a 
contractor or architect licensed in the state. The LEA must 
meet these same requirements for a reimbursement grant and must 
provide information indicating that the project was carried out 
with these parameters at the time it was completed.
    LEAs must submit an application to the state that includes 
at minimum, information pertaining to the LEA's eligibility 
requirements, and an estimate of the cost of construction. If 
the LEA is applying for reimbursement, their application must 
include: proof of eligibility requirements, an itemized 
explanation of the costs incurred for the project, amounts 
already received from other federal, state, local, or private 
sources, the amount of reimbursement funds requested, and the 
percentage of funds covered by an insurance policy.
    The state must approve any application from an LEA that is 
complete with the criteria outlined above. The state will then 
transmit an application to the Secretary. Within 60 days of 
receiving the application from the state, the Secretary must 
either approve or deny the application. If the Secretary 
approves the application, the Secretary must disburse funds to 
the state within 60 days of the application's approval. Once 
the state has received the funds from the Secretary, the state 
must disburse those funds to the LEA within 60 days.
    To be eligible for federal funds, the state must provide at 
least 40 percent of the project's total costs, in the case of 
both reimbursement and grants made out in the future. In 
addition, the federal government may not provide any more than 
50 percent of the total cost of the project.
    Funds may be used to repair or replace a concrete 
foundation and other affected areas of a school to restore the 
structural integrity of the school to the health and safety 
standards outlined by the project's architect or engineer, and 
to restore the school to the condition it was in prior to the 
foundation's damage due to pyrrhotite. Funding may be used on 
other activities directly related to the project such as 
engineering reports, architectural design, and core tests.
    LEAs receiving federal funds for a project may not use this 
funding for any work done to outbuildings, sheds, barns, 
swimming pools, playgrounds, ballfields, ponds, or water 
features. Funds may not be used for the purchase of any items 
not directly related to the repair or replacement of the 
school's crumbling foundation. Prohibited items include desks, 
chairs, electronics, sports equipment, or other school 
supplies. Any other activities not explicitly described in the 
``allowable uses'' section are also prohibited. LEAs may not 
use funds under this title and title I for the same project.

Section 503. Definitions

    This section defines the terms ``Pyrrhotite-affected 
school'' and ``qualified contractor''.

Section 504. Authorization of appropriations

    This section requires funds to be authorized to carry out 
the program for fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year 
afterwards.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, are explained in the descriptive portions of this 
report.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    H.R. 865, as amended, does not apply to terms and 
conditions of employment or to access to public services or 
accommodations within the legislative branch.

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-4), the Committee 
adopts as its own the estimate of federal mandates regarding 
H.R. 865, as amended, prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office.

                           Earmark Statement

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 865 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as described in clauses 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule 
XXI.

                            Roll Call Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 865:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the goals of H.R. 865 are to ensure 
equity in school facilities and digital infrastructure, assist 
states in their role in creating safe and healthy schools, and 
improve regulation of and data collection on the condition of 
public school facilities and the impact of such conditions on 
health and safety.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee states that no 
provision of H.R. 865 establishes or reauthorizes a program of 
the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another 
federal program, a program that was included in any report from 
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

                                Hearings

    Pursuant to section 103(i) of H. Res. 6, the [hearing/
hearings] that the Committee held on February 12, 2019 entitled 
``Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling Schools: How Underfunding 
Public Education Shortchanges America's Students'' as the 
legislative hearing that was used to develop or consider H.R. 
865.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for 
H.R. 865 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, April 8, 2019.
Hon. Bobby Scott,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 865, the Rebuild 
America's Schools Act of 2019.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Leah 
Koestner.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    The bill would
           Reauthorize certain qualified tax credit 
        bonds and create a new school infrastructure bond 
        program
           Authorize the appropriation of $7 billion 
        for each year from 2020 through 2030 for need-based 
        grants to qualified local education agencies for school 
        construction and renovation
           Require a study of and report on the 
        physical condition of all U.S. public schools
           Authorize the appropriation of a total of 
        $562 million for the 2020-2025 period to fund Impact 
        Aid construction grants under the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act
           Permanently authorize the appropriation of 
        such sums as may be necessary for grants to states to 
        repair school foundations affected by pyrrhotite
    Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from
           The school infrastructure bond program
           New and increased authorizations of 
        appropriations for school improvement and construction
    Areas of significant uncertainty include
           Interest rates over the next decade
           The scope and funding required for a 
        comprehensive study of the physical condition of all 
        public schools
           The number of schools affected by pyrrhotite
    Bill summary: H.R. 865 would reauthorize certain qualified 
tax credit bonds and amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
create a new bond program to fund school construction and 
renovations. The bill also would create a need-based grant 
program for improvement and construction of public schools, 
increase funding for Impact Aid construction grants, and create 
a grant program to identify and repair buildings affected by 
pyrrhotite (a mineral that can compromise building materials 
such as concrete). In addition, H.R. 865 would direct the 
Department of Education, through the Institute of Education 
Sciences (IES), to conduct a comprehensive study of the 
physical condition of all public schools in the United States.
    Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of 
H.R. 865 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall 
within budget function 500 (education, training, employment, 
and social services).

                                                                        TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 865
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2019    2020    2021    2022    2023      2024       2025       2026       2027       2028       2029    2019-2024  2019-2029
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Increases in Direct Spending
 
Estimated Budget Authority......................................       0      54     273     635     968      1,100      1,089      1,078      1,067      1,057      1,046      3,030      8,367
Estimated Outlays...............................................       0      54     273     635     968      1,100      1,089      1,078      1,067      1,057      1,046      3,030      8,367
 
                                                                                      Decreases in Revenues
 
Estimated Revenues..............................................
                                                                       0      -2     -13     -39     -80       -122       -153       -174       -191       -207       -228       -255     -1,209
                                                            Net Increase in the Deficit From Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues
 
Effect on the Deficit...........................................       0      56     286     674   1,048      1,222      1,242      1,253      1,258      1,264      1,275      3,285      9,576
 
                                                             Increases in Spending Subject to Appropriation Estimated Authorization
 
Estimated Authorization.........................................       0   7,129   7,130   7,150   7,151      7,152      7,153      7,054      7,056      7,056      7,058     35,712     71,089
Estimated Outlays...............................................       0     731   1,804   3,938   6,421      7,153      7,179      7,150      7,115      7,066      7,054     20,047     55,611
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that H.R. 865 would be 
enacted near the end of fiscal year 2019 and that authorized 
and estimated funds would be appropriated every year.

Direct Spending and Revenues

    Title II of H.R. 865 would authorize a new tax credit bond 
program for Qualified School Infrastructure Bonds (QSIBs). 
Under that program, the Treasury would offer tax credits or 
make direct payments to the holders of those bonds. The bill 
would authorize up to $10 billion in QSIBs in each of 2020, 
2021, and 2022. Title II also would reauthorize two tax credit 
bond programs--Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs) and 
Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs). For QZABs, the 
bill would authorize up to $1.4 billion in 2020 and each year 
thereafter but the bill would make no allocation for QSCBs. The 
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that 
enacting those provisions would increase direct spending by 
$8.4 billion over the 2019-2029 period and reduce revenues by 
$1.2 billion over the same period.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

    H.R. 865 would authorize the appropriation of $35.5 billion 
over the 2020-2024 period and CBO estimates that the bill would 
authorize additional appropriations totaling about $0.2 billion 
over the same period. Assuming the appropriation of the 
authorized and estimated amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing the bill would cost $20.0 billion over the 2020-
2024 period (see Table 2).

               TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 865a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2019     2020     2021     2022     2023     2024   2019-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants for Public School Facilities:
    Authorization..............................        0    7,000    7,000    7,000    7,000    7,000     35,000
    Estimated Outlays..........................        0      700    1,750    3,850    6,300    7,000     19,600
Impact Aid Construction:
    Authorization..............................        0       81       81      100      100      100        462
    Estimated Outlays..........................        0        8       20       47       78      104        257
Study and Report:
    Estimated Authorization....................        0       25       26       26       27       27        131
    Estimated Outlays..........................        0       20       25       26       26       27        124
Assistance for Schools Affected by Pyrrhotite:
    Estimated Authorization....................        0       23       23       24       24       25        119
    Estimated Outlays..........................        0        3        9       15       17       22         66
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Authorization................        0    7,129    7,130    7,150    7,151    7,152     35,712
        Estimated Outlays......................        0      732    1,805    3,938    6,421    7,152    20,047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a CBO estimates spending subject to appropriation would total $35.6 billion over the 2019-2029 period.

    Grants for Public School Facilities. The bill would 
authorize the appropriation of $7 billion for each year over 
the 2020-2029 period for the long-term improvement of public 
school facilities. Under the General Education Provisions Act 
(GEPA), those authorizations would be extended automatically 
for an additional year, through fiscal year 2030. Based on 
historical spending patterns for similar programs, CBO 
estimates that implementing this provision would cost $19.6 
billion over the 2020-2024 period, an additional $35 billion 
through 2029, and about $22 billion after 2029.
    Impact Aid Construction. The federal Impact Aid Program 
provides funds to school districts that serve children who live 
on military installations and other federal lands that are 
exempt from local property taxes. The bill would authorize the 
appropriation of $100 million for construction under that 
program for each year from 2020 through 2024. (Under GEPA, that 
funding would be extended automatically through 2025.) 
Currently, $19 million is authorized to be appropriated for 
2020 and 2021 and the Congress appropriated $17 million for 
those purposes for 2019. CBO expects the newly authorized funds 
would spend more slowly at first than is ordinarily the case 
for this program because the bill would authorize a substantial 
increase over current funding amounts. CBO estimates that 
implementing this provision would cost $257 million over the 
2020-2024 period and an additional $306 million through 2029.
    Study and Report. The bill would require IES to complete a 
comprehensive study of the physical condition of all U.S. 
public schools. CBO assumes that IES would conduct the study by 
aggregating available information and augmenting that data with 
survey results and with inspections of a sample set of schools. 
CBO expects that IES would need to collect information from 
about 10 percent of U.S. public schools over a five-year 
period. In addition, CBO estimates that the institute would 
need to hire five full-time employees, conduct site visits, and 
hire contractors. On that basis, CBO estimates that 
implementing those provisions would cost $124 million over the 
2020-2024 period and an additional $144 million through 2029.
    Assistance for Schools Affected by Pyrrhotite. H.R. 865 
would permanently authorize the appropriation of whatever 
amounts are necessary for grants to schools with concrete 
foundations that contain pyrrhotite, which can cause building 
foundations to crack and crumble. CBO is unaware of any 
comprehensive data on schools affected by pyrrhotite; only one 
school is currently known to be affected as far as CBO knows. 
CBO estimates that approximately one school per year would 
receive such a grant, and that, based on the estimated cost of 
a similar repair, the federal share of the total cost would be 
$23 million in 2020. CBO estimates that implementing this 
provision would cost $66 million over the 2020-2024 period and 
an additional $114 million through 2029.

Uncertainty

    JCT's estimate of the provisions related to tax credit 
bonds are closely tied to CBO's projections of interest rates 
over the next decade. Those projections are inherently 
uncertain. The estimate also depends on anticipated behavioral 
responses including taxpayers' willingness to purchase the 
bonds of state and local governments and those governments' 
willingness to incur such debt.
    CBO has identified two additional areas of significant 
uncertainty regarding its estimates of spending subject to 
appropriation in H.R. 865:
           The bill's language regarding the 
        comprehensive survey of the physical condition of all 
        U.S. public schools is broad enough that CBO expects 
        the Department of Education could exercise considerable 
        judgment in designing and conducting the study of 
        school buildings. The cost would depend in part on how 
        the department structured the required study. CBO based 
        its estimate on information from discussions with 
        experts in this area.
           The number of public schools that are 
        affected by pyrrhotite is quite uncertain and little 
        information to identify such schools is currently 
        available; testing is under way in only a few places. 
        If the number of affected schools is larger than 
        current data indicate, the cost may be greater and more 
        funds may be necessary.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in outlays and revenues that are 
subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 3.

                                              TABLE 3.--CBO's ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2019     2020     2021     2022     2023     2024     2025     2026     2027     2028     2029   2019-2024  2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net Increase in the Deficit
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effect.        0       56      286      674    1,048    1,222    1,242    1,253    1,258    1,264    1,275      3,285      9,576
Memorandum:
    Changes in Outlays.........        0       54      273      635      968    1,100    1,089    1,078    1,067    1,057    1,046      3,030      8,367
    Changes in Revenues........        0       -2      -13      -39      -80     -122     -153     -174     -191     -207     -228       -255     -1,209
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    Increase in long-term deficits: JCT estimates that enacting 
H.R. 865 would increase on-budget deficits by more than $5 
billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods 
beginning in 2030.
    Mandates: None
    Estimate prepared by: Spending Subject to Appropriation: 
Leah Koestner; Direct Spending and Revenues: Staff of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation; Mandates: Zachary Byrum.
    Estimate reviewed by: Sheila Dacey, Chief, Income Security 
and Education Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII requires an estimate and 
a comparison of the costs that would be incurred in carrying 
out H.R. 865. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, H.R. 865, as reported, are shown as follows:

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                     INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                        Subtitle A--Income Taxes

                  CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

              Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability

                      PART IV--CREDITS AGAINST TAX


                 Subpart I--Qualified Tax Credit Bonds

[Section 201 of H.R. 865 (as reported) restores sections 54A, 
54E, and 6431 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The 
following reflects a version of the provisions as so restored 
prior to its repeal by Public Law 115-97 and is further amended 
by the bill.]

SEC. 54A. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED TAX CREDIT BONDS.

  (a) Allowance of Credit.--If a taxpayer holds a qualified tax 
credit bond on one or more credit allowance dates of the bond 
during any taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit 
against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an 
amount equal to the sum of the credits determined under 
subsection (b) with respect to such dates.
  (b) Amount of Credit.--
          (1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined 
        under this subsection with respect to any credit 
        allowance date for a qualified tax credit bond is 25 
        percent of the annual credit determined with respect to 
        such bond.
          (2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with 
        respect to any qualified tax credit bond is the product 
        of--
                  (A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
                  (B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
          (3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (2), the applicable credit rate is the rate 
        which the Secretary estimates will permit the issuance 
        of qualified tax credit bonds with a specified maturity 
        or redemption date without discount and without 
        interest cost to the qualified issuer. The applicable 
        credit rate with respect to any qualified tax credit 
        bond shall be determined as of the first day on which 
        there is a binding, written contract for the sale or 
        exchange of the bond.
          (4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the 
        case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month 
        period ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of 
        the credit determined under this subsection with 
        respect to such credit allowance date shall be a 
        ratable portion of the credit otherwise determined 
        based on the portion of the 3-month period during which 
        the bond is outstanding. A similar rule shall apply 
        when the bond is redeemed or matures.
  (c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
          (1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection 
        (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess 
        of--
                  (A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as 
                defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed 
                by section 55, over
                  (B) the sum of the credits allowable under 
                this part (other than subparts C and J and this 
                subpart).
          (2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit 
        allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation 
        imposed by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such 
        excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year 
        and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) 
        for such taxable year (determined before the 
        application of paragraph (1) for such succeeding 
        taxable year).
  (d) Qualified Tax Credit Bond.--For purposes of this 
section--
          (1) Qualified tax credit bond.--The term ``qualified 
        tax credit bond'' means--
                  [(A) a qualified forestry conservation bond,
                  [(B) a new clean renewable energy bond,
                  [(C) a qualified energy conservation bond,]
                  (D) a qualified zone academy bond, or
                  (E) a qualified school construction bond, 
                which is part of an issue that meets 
                requirements of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), 
                and (6).
          (2) Special rules relating to expenditures.--
                  (A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as 
                meeting the requirements of this paragraph if, 
                as of the date of issuance, the issuer 
                reasonably expects--
                          (i) 100 percent of the available 
                        project proceeds to be spent for 1 or 
                        more qualified purposes within the 3-
                        year period beginning on such date of 
                        issuance, and
                          (ii) a binding commitment with a 
                        third party to spend at least 10 
                        percent of such available project 
                        proceeds will be incurred within the 6-
                        month period beginning on such date of 
                        issuance.
                  (B) Failure to spend required amount of bond 
                proceeds within 3 years.--
                          (i) In general.--To the extent that 
                        less than 100 percent of the available 
                        project proceeds of the issue are 
                        expended by the close of the 
                        expenditure period for 1 or more 
                        qualified purposes, the issuer shall 
                        redeem all of the nonqualified bonds 
                        within 90 days after the end of such 
                        period. For purposes of this paragraph, 
                        the amount of the nonqualified bonds 
                        required to be redeemed shall be 
                        determined in the same manner as under 
                        section 142.
                          (ii) Expenditure period.--For 
                        purposes of this subpart, the term 
                        ``expenditure period'' means, with 
                        respect to any issue, the 3-year period 
                        beginning on the date of issuance. Such 
                        term shall include any extension of 
                        such period under clause (iii).
                          (iii) Extension of period.--Upon 
                        submission of a request prior to the 
                        expiration of the expenditure period 
                        (determined without regard to any 
                        extension under this clause), the 
                        Secretary may extend such period if the 
                        issuer establishes that the failure to 
                        expend the proceeds within the original 
                        expenditure period is due to reasonable 
                        cause and the expenditures for 
                        qualified purposes will continue to 
                        proceed with due diligence.
                  (C) Qualified purpose.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term ``qualified purpose'' 
                means--
                          (i) in the case of a qualified 
                        forestry conservation bond, a purpose 
                        specified in section 54B(e),
                          (ii) in the case of a new clean 
                        renewable energy bond, a purpose 
                        specified in section 54C(a)(1),
                          (iii) in the case of a qualified 
                        energy conservation bond, a purpose 
                        specified in section 54D(a)(1),
                          (iv) in the case of a qualified zone 
                        academy bond, a purpose specified in 
                        section 54E(a)(1), and
                          (v) in the case of a qualified school 
                        construction bond, a purpose specified 
                        in section 54F(a)(1).
                  (D) Reimbursement.--For purposes of this 
                subtitle, available project proceeds of an 
                issue shall be treated as spent for a qualified 
                purpose if such proceeds are used to reimburse 
                the issuer for amounts paid for a qualified 
                purpose after the date that the Secretary makes 
                an allocation of bond limitation with respect 
                to such issue, but only if--
                          (i) prior to the payment of the 
                        original expenditure, the issuer 
                        declared its intent to reimburse such 
                        expenditure with the proceeds of a 
                        qualified tax credit bond,
                          (ii) not later than 60 days after 
                        payment of the original expenditure, 
                        the issuer adopts an official intent to 
                        reimburse the original expenditure with 
                        such proceeds, and
                          (iii) the reimbursement is made not 
                        later than 18 months after the date the 
                        original expenditure is paid.
          (3) Reporting.--An issue shall be treated as meeting 
        the requirements of this paragraph if the issuer of 
        qualified tax credit bonds submits reports similar to 
        the reports required under section 149(e).
          (4) Special rules relating to arbitrage.--
                  (A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as 
                meeting the requirements of this paragraph if 
                the issuer satisfies the requirements of 
                section 148 with respect to the proceeds of the 
                issue.
                  (B) Special rule for investments during 
                expenditure period.--An issue shall not be 
                treated as failing to meet the requirements of 
                subparagraph (A) by reason of any investment of 
                available project proceeds during the 
                expenditure period.
                  (C) Special rule for reserve funds.--An issue 
                shall not be treated as failing to meet the 
                requirements of subparagraph (A) by reason of 
                any fund which is expected to be used to repay 
                such issue if--
                          (i) such fund is funded at a rate not 
                        more rapid than equal annual 
                        installments,
                          (ii) such fund is funded in a manner 
                        reasonably expected to result in an 
                        amount not greater than an amount 
                        necessary to repay the issue, and
                          (iii) the yield on such fund is not 
                        greater than the discount rate 
                        determined under paragraph (5)(B) with 
                        respect to the issue.
          (5) Maturity limitation.--
                  (A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as 
                meeting the requirements of this paragraph if 
                the maturity of any bond which is part of such 
                issue does not exceed the maximum term 
                determined by the Secretary under subparagraph 
                (B).
                  (B) Maximum term.--During each calendar 
                month, the Secretary shall determine the 
                maximum term permitted under this paragraph for 
                bonds issued during the following calendar 
                month. Such maximum term shall be the term 
                which the Secretary estimates will result in 
                the present value of the obligation to repay 
                the principal on the bond being equal to 50 
                percent of the face amount of such bond. Such 
                present value shall be determined using as a 
                discount rate the average annual interest rate 
                of tax-exempt obligations having a term of 10 
                years or more which are issued during the 
                month. If the term as so determined is not a 
                multiple of a whole year, such term shall be 
                rounded to the next highest whole year.
          (6) Prohibition on financial conflicts of interest.--
        An issue shall be treated as meeting the requirements 
        of this paragraph if the issuer certifies that--
                  (A) applicable State and local law 
                requirements governing conflicts of interest 
                are satisfied with respect to such issue, and
                  (B) if the Secretary prescribes additional 
                conflicts of interest rules governing the 
                appropriate Members of Congress, Federal, 
                State, and local officials, and their spouses, 
                such additional rules are satisfied with 
                respect to such issue.
  (e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
          (1) Credit allowance date.--The term ``credit 
        allowance date'' means--
                  (A) March 15,
                  (B) June 15,
                  (C) September 15, and
                  (D) December 15.
        Such term includes the last day on which the bond is 
        outstanding.
          (2) Bond.--The term ``bond'' includes any obligation.
          (3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District 
        of Columbia and any possession of the United States.
          (4) Available project proceeds.--The term ``available 
        project proceeds'' means--
                  (A) the excess of--
                          (i) the proceeds from the sale of an 
                        issue, over
                          (ii) the issuance costs financed by 
                        the issue (to the extent that such 
                        costs do not exceed 2 percent of such 
                        proceeds), and
                  (B) the proceeds from any investment of the 
                excess described in subparagraph (A).
  (f) Credit Treated as Interest.--For purposes of this 
subtitle, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be 
treated as interest which is includible in gross income.
  (g) S Corporations and Partnerships.--In the case of a tax 
credit bond held by an S corporation or partnership, the 
allocation of the credit allowed by this section to the 
shareholders of such corporation or partners of such 
partnership shall be treated as a distribution.
  (h) Bonds Held by Real Estate Investment Trusts.--If any 
qualified tax credit bond is held by a real estate investment 
trust, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be 
allowed to beneficiaries of such trust (and any gross income 
included under subsection (f) with respect to such credit shall 
be distributed to such beneficiaries) under procedures 
prescribed by the Secretary.
  (i) Credits May be Stripped.--Under regulations prescribed by 
the Secretary--
          (1) In general.--There may be a separation (including 
        at issuance) of the ownership of a qualified tax credit 
        bond and the entitlement to the credit under this 
        section with respect to such bond. In case of any such 
        separation, the credit under this section shall be 
        allowed to the person who on the credit allowance date 
        holds the instrument evidencing the entitlement to the 
        credit and not to the holder of the bond.
          (2) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a 
        separation described in paragraph (1), the rules of 
        section 1286 shall apply to the qualified tax credit 
        bond as if it were a stripped bond and to the credit 
        under this section as if it were a stripped coupon.

SEC. 54E. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

  (a) Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.--For purposes of this 
subchapter, the term ``qualified zone academy bond'' means any 
bond issued as part of an issue if--
          (1) 100 percent of the available project proceeds of 
        such issue are to be used for a qualified purpose with 
        respect to a qualified zone academy established by an 
        eligible local education agency,
          (2) the bond is issued by a State or local government 
        within the jurisdiction of which such academy is 
        located, and
          (3) the issuer--
                  (A) designates such bond for purposes of this 
                section, and
                  [(B) certifies that it has written assurances 
                that the private business contribution 
                requirement of subsection (b) will be met with 
                respect to such academy, and]
                  [(C)] (B) certifies that it has the written 
                approval of the eligible local education agency 
                for such bond issuance.
  [(b) Private Business Contribution Requirement.--For purposes 
of subsection (a), the private business contribution 
requirement of this subsection is met with respect to any issue 
if the eligible local education agency that established the 
qualified zone academy has written commitments from private 
entities to make qualified contributions having a present value 
(as of the date of issuance of the issue) of not less than 10 
percent of the proceeds of the issue.]
  (c) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
          (1) National limitation.--There is a national zone 
        academy bond limitation for each calendar year. Such 
        limitation is $400,000,000 for 2008, $1,400,000,000 for 
        2009 and 2010, [and $400,000,000] $400,000,000 for 
        2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 [and, except as 
        provided in paragraph (4), zero thereafter.], and 
        $1,400,000,000 for 2020 and each year thereafter.
          (2) Allocation of limitation.--The national zone 
        academy bond limitation for a calendar year shall be 
        allocated by the Secretary among the States on the 
        basis of their respective populations of individuals 
        below the poverty line (as defined by the Office of 
        Management and Budget). The limitation amount allocated 
        to a State under the preceding sentence shall be 
        allocated by the State education agency to qualified 
        zone academies within such State.
          (3) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The 
        maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during 
        any calendar year which may be designated under 
        subsection (a) with respect to any qualified zone 
        academy shall not exceed the limitation amount 
        allocated to such academy under paragraph (2) for such 
        calendar year.
          (4) Carryover of unused limitation.--
                  (A) In general.--If for any calendar year--
                          (i) the limitation amount for any 
                        State, exceeds
                          (ii) the amount of bonds issued 
                        during such year which are designated 
                        under subsection (a) with respect to 
                        qualified zone academies within such 
                        State,
                the limitation amount for such State for the 
                following calendar year shall be increased by 
                the amount of such excess.
                  (B) Limitation on carryover.--Any 
                carryforward of a limitation amount may be 
                carried only to the first 2 years following the 
                unused limitation year. For purposes of the 
                preceding sentence, a limitation amount shall 
                be treated as used on a first-in first-out 
                basis.
                  (C) Coordination with section 1397E.--Any 
                carryover determined under section 1397E(e)(4) 
                (relating to carryover of unused limitation) 
                with respect to any State to calendar year 2008 
                or 2009 shall be treated for purposes of this 
                section as a carryover with respect to such 
                State for such calendar year under subparagraph 
                (A), and the limitation of subparagraph (B) 
                shall apply to such carryover taking into 
                account the calendar years to which such 
                carryover relates.
  (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
          (1) Qualified zone academy.--The term ``qualified 
        zone academy'' means any public school (or academic 
        program within a public school) which is established by 
        and operated under the supervision of an eligible local 
        education agency to provide education or training below 
        the postsecondary level if--
                  (A) such public school or program (as the 
                case may be) is designed in cooperation with 
                business to enhance the academic curriculum, 
                increase graduation and employment rates, and 
                better prepare students for the rigors of 
                college and the increasingly complex workforce,
                  (B) students in such public school or program 
                (as the case may be) will be subject to the 
                same academic standards and assessments as 
                other students educated by the eligible local 
                education agency,
                  (C) the comprehensive education plan of such 
                public school or program is approved by the 
                eligible local education agency, and
                  (D)(i) such public school is located in an 
                empowerment zone or enterprise community 
                (including any such zone or community 
                designated after the date of the enactment of 
                this section), or
                          (ii) there is a reasonable 
                        expectation (as of the date of issuance 
                        of the bonds) that at least 35 percent 
                        of the students attending such school 
                        or participating in such program (as 
                        the case may be) will be eligible for 
                        free or reduced-cost lunches under the 
                        school lunch program established under 
                        the National School Lunch Act.
          (2) Eligible local education agency.--For purposes of 
        this section, the term ``eligible local education 
        agency'' means any local educational agency as defined 
        in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act of 1965.
          (3) Qualified purpose.--The term ``qualified 
        purpose'' means, with respect to any qualified zone 
        academy--
                  (A) [rehabilitating or repairing] 
                constructing, rehabilitating, retrofitting, or 
                repairing the public school facility in which 
                the academy is established,
                  (B) providing equipment for use at such 
                academy,
                  (C) developing course materials for education 
                to be provided at such academy, and
                  (D) training teachers and other school 
                personnel in such academy.
          (4) Qualified contributions.--The term ``qualified 
        contribution'' means any contribution (of a type and 
        quality acceptable to the eligible local education 
        agency) of--
                  (A) equipment for use in the qualified zone 
                academy (including state-of-the-art technology 
                and vocational equipment),
                  (B) technical assistance in developing 
                curriculum or in training teachers in order to 
                promote appropriate market driven technology in 
                the classroom,
                  (C) services of employees as volunteer 
                mentors,
                  (D) internships, field trips, or other 
                educational opportunities outside the academy 
                for students, or
                  (E) any other property or service specified 
                by the eligible local education agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 Subpart J--School Infrastructure Bonds

Sec. 54BB. School infrastructure bonds.

SEC. 54BB. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS.

  (a) In General.--If a taxpayer holds a school infrastructure 
bond on one or more interest payment dates of the bond during 
any taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against 
the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount 
equal to the sum of the credits determined under subsection (b) 
with respect to such dates.
  (b) Amount of Credit.--The amount of the credit determined 
under this subsection with respect to any interest payment date 
for a school infrastructure bond is 100 percent of the amount 
of interest payable by the issuer with respect to such date.
  (c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
          (1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection 
        (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess 
        of--
                  (A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as 
                defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed 
                by section 55, over
                  (B) the sum of the credits allowable under 
                this part (other than subpart C and this 
                subpart).
          (2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit 
        allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation 
        imposed by paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such 
        excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year 
        and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) 
        for such taxable year (determined before the 
        application of paragraph (1) for such succeeding 
        taxable year).
  (d) School Infrastructure Bond.--
          (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
        term ``school infrastructure bond'' means any bond 
        issued as part of an issue if--
                  (A) 100 percent of the available project 
                proceeds of such issue are to be used for the 
                purposes described in section 301 of the 
                Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019,
                  (B) the interest on such obligation would 
                (but for this section) be excludable from gross 
                income under section 103,
                  (C) the issue meets the requirements of 
                paragraph (3), and
                  (D) the issuer designates such bond for 
                purposes of this section.
          (2) Applicable rules.--For purposes of applying 
        paragraph (1)--
                  (A) for purposes of section 149(b), a school 
                infrastructure bond shall not be treated as 
                federally guaranteed by reason of the credit 
                allowed under section 6431(a),
                  (B) for purposes of section 148, the yield on 
                a school infrastructure bond shall be 
                determined without regard to the credit allowed 
                under subsection (a), and
                  (C) a bond shall not be treated as a school 
                infrastructure bond if the issue price has more 
                than a de minimis amount (determined under 
                rules similar to the rules of section 
                1273(a)(3)) of premium over the stated 
                principal amount of the bond.
          (3) 6-year expenditure period.--
                  (A) In general.--An issue shall be treated as 
                meeting the requirements of this paragraph if, 
                as of the date of issuance, the issuer 
                reasonably expects 100 percent of the available 
                project proceeds to be spent for purposes 
                described in section 301 of the Rebuild 
                America's Schools Act of 2019 within the 6-year 
                period beginning on such date of issuance.
                  (B) Failure to spend required amount of bond 
                proceeds within 6 years.--To the extent that 
                less than 100 percent of the available project 
                proceeds of the issue are expended at the close 
                of the period described in subparagraph (A) 
                with respect to such issue, the issuer shall 
                redeem all of the nonqualified bonds within 90 
                days after the end of such period. For purposes 
                of this paragraph, the amount of the 
                nonqualified bonds required to be redeemed 
                shall be determined in the same manner as under 
                section 142.
  (e) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The maximum 
aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any calendar year 
which may be designated under subsection (d) by any issuer 
shall not exceed the limitation amount allocated under 
subsection (g) for such calendar year to such issuer.
  (f) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The 
national qualified school infrastructure bond limitation for 
each calendar year is--
          (1) $10,000,000,000 for 2020,
          (2) $10,000,000,000 for 2021, and
          (3) $10,000,000,000 for 2022.
  (g) Allocation of Limitation.--
          (1) Allocations.--
                  (A) States.--After application of 
                subparagraph (B) and paragraph (3)(A), the 
                limitation applicable under subsection (f) for 
                any calendar year shall be allocated by the 
                Secretary among the States in proportion to the 
                respective amounts received by all local 
                educational agencies in each State under part A 
                of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
                Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) 
                for the previous fiscal year relative to the 
                total such amount received by all local 
                educational agencies in for the most recent 
                fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
                  (B) Certain possessions.--One-half of 1 
                percent of the amount of the limitation 
                applicable under subsection (f) for any 
                calendar year shall be allocated by the 
                Secretary to possessions of the United States 
                other than Puerto Rico for such calendar year 
                shall be one-half of 1 percent.
          (2) Allocations to schools.--The limitation amount 
        allocated to a State or possession under paragraph (1) 
        shall be allocated by the State educational agency (or 
        such other agency as is authorized under State law to 
        make such allocation) to issuers within such State or 
        possession in accordance with the priorities described 
        in section 103(c) the of the Rebuild America's Schools 
        Act of 2019 and the eligibility requirements described 
        in section 103(b) of such Act, except that paragraph 
        (1)(C) of such section shall not apply to the 
        determination of eligibility for such allocation.
          (3) Allocations for indian schools.--
                  (A) In general.--One-half of 1 percent of the 
                amount of the limitation applicable under 
                subsection (f) for any calendar year shall be 
                allocated by the Secretary to the Secretary of 
                the Interior for schools funded by the Bureau 
                of Indian Affairs for such calendar year.
                  (B) Allocation to schools.--The limitation 
                amount allocated to the Secretary of the 
                Interior under paragraph (1) shall be allocated 
                by such Secretary to issuers or schools funded 
                as described in paragraph (2). In the case of 
                amounts allocated under the preceding sentence, 
                Indian tribal governments (as defined in 
                section 7701(a)(40)) shall be treated as 
                qualified issuers for purposes of this 
                subchapter.
          (4) Digital learning.--Up to 10 percent of the 
        limitation amount allocated under paragraph (1) or 
        (3)(A) may be allocated by the State to issuers within 
        such State to carry out activities to improve digital 
        learning in accordance with section 301(b) of the 
        Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2019.
  (h) Interest Payment Date.--For purposes of this section, the 
term ``interest payment date'' means any date on which the 
holder of record of the school infrastructure bond is entitled 
to a payment of interest under such bond.
  (i) Special Rules.--
          (1) Interest on school infrastructure bonds 
        includible in gross income for federal income tax 
        purposes.--For purposes of this title, interest on any 
        school infrastructure bond shall be includible in gross 
        income.
          (2) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to 
        the rules of subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) of 
        section 54A shall apply for purposes of the credit 
        allowed under subsection (a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle F--Procedure and Administration

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 65--ABATEMENTS, CREDITS, AND REFUND

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               Subchapter B--Rules of Special Application

SEC. 6431. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED BONDS ALLOWED TO ISSUER.

  (a) In General.--In the case of a qualified bond issued 
before January 1, 2011, the issuer of such bond shall be 
allowed a credit with respect to each interest payment under 
such bond which shall be payable by the Secretary as provided 
in subsection (b).
  (b) Payment of Credit.--The Secretary shall pay 
(contemporaneously with each interest payment date under such 
bond) to the issuer of such bond (or to any person who makes 
such interest payments on behalf of the issuer) 35 percent of 
the interest payable under such bond on such date.
  (c) Application of Arbitrage Rules.--For purposes of section 
148, the yield on a qualified bond shall be reduced by the 
credit allowed under this section.
  (d) Interest Payment Date.--For purposes of this subsection, 
the term ``interest payment date'' means each date on which 
interest is payable by the issuer under the terms of the bond.
  (e) Qualified Bond.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
term ``qualified bond'' has the meaning given such term in 
section 54AA(g).
  (f) Application of Section to Certain Qualified Tax Credit 
Bonds.--
          (1) In general.--In the case of any specified tax 
        credit bond--
                  (A) such bond shall be treated as a qualified 
                bond for purposes of this section,
                  (B) subsection (a) shall be applied without 
                regard to the requirement that the qualified 
                bond be issued before January 1, 2011,
                  (C) the amount of the payment determined 
                under subsection (b) with respect to any 
                interest payment due under such bond shall be 
                equal to the lesser of--
                          (i) the amount of interest payable 
                        under such bond on such date, or
                          (ii) the amount of interest which 
                        would have been payable under such bond 
                        on such date if such interest were 
                        determined at the applicable credit 
                        rate determined under section 
                        54A(b)(3),
                  (D) interest on any such bond shall be 
                includible in gross income for purposes of this 
                title,
                  (E) no credit shall be allowed under section 
                54A with respect to such bond,
                  (F) any payment made under subsection (b) 
                shall not be includible as income for purposes 
                of this title, and
                  (G) the deduction otherwise allowed under 
                this title to the issuer of such bond with 
                respect to interest paid under such bond shall 
                be reduced by the amount of the payment made 
                under this section with respect to such 
                interest.
          (2) Special rule for new clean renewable energy bonds 
        and qualified energy conservation bonds.--In the case 
        of any specified tax credit bond described in clause 
        (i) or (ii) of paragraph (3)(A), the amount determined 
        under paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall be 70 percent of the 
        amount so determined without regard to this paragraph 
        and sections 54C(b) and 54D(b).
          (3) Specified tax credit bond.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term ``specified tax credit bond'' 
        means any school infrastructure bond (as defined in 
        section 54BB) or  any qualified tax credit bond (as 
        defined in section 54A(d)) if--
                  (A) such bond is--
                          (i) a new clean renewable energy bond 
                        (as defined in section 54C),
                          (ii) a qualified energy conservation 
                        bond (as defined in section 54D),
                          (iii) a qualified zone academy bond 
                        (as defined in section 54E) determined 
                        without regard to any allocation 
                        relating to the national zone academy 
                        bond limitation for years after 2010 or 
                        any carryforward of any such 
                        allocation, or
                          (iv) a qualified school construction 
                        bond (as defined in section 54F), and
                  (B) the issuer of such bond makes an 
                irrevocable election to have this subsection 
                apply.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


 SECTION 1601 OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT TAX ACT OF 2009

SEC. 1601. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LABOR STANDARDS TO PROJECTS FINANCED 
                    WITH CERTAIN TAX-FAVORED BONDS

  Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of the title 40, United States 
Code, shall apply to projects financed with the proceeds of--
          (1) any new clean renewable energy bond (as defined 
        in section 54C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
        issued after the date of the enactment of this Act,
          (2) any qualified energy conservation bond (as 
        defined in section 54D of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986) issued after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act,
          [(3) any qualified zone academy bond (as defined in 
        section 54E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
        issued after the date of the enactment of this Act,]
          [(4)] (3) any qualified school construction bond (as 
        defined in section 54F of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986), and
          [(5)] (4) any recovery zone economic development bond 
        (as defined in section 1400U-2 of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986).
                              ----------                              


             ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE VII--IMPACT AID

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 7014. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Payments for Federal Acquisition of Real Property.--For 
the purpose of making payments under section 7002, there are 
authorized to be appropriated $66,813,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2017 through 2019, and $71,997,917 for fiscal year 2020.
  (b) Basic Payments; Payments for Heavily Impacted Local 
Educational Agencies.--For the purpose of making payments under 
section 7003(b), there are authorized to be appropriated 
$1,151,233,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, and 
$1,240,572,618 for fiscal year 2020.
  (c) Payments for Children With Disabilities.--For the purpose 
of making payments under section 7003(d), there are authorized 
to be appropriated $48,316,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 
through 2019, and $52,065,487 for fiscal year 2020.
  [(d) Construction.--For the purpose of carrying out section 
7007, there are authorized to be appropriated $17,406,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, and $18,756,765 for 
fiscal year 2020.]
  (d) Construction For the purpose of carrying out section 
7007, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024.
  (e) Facilities Maintenance.--For the purpose of carrying out 
section 7008, there are authorized to be appropriated 
$4,835,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, and 
$5,210,213 for fiscal year 2020.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              INTRODUCTION

    All students deserve access to an excellent education that 
prepares them for postsecondary success. This includes 
attending schools with adequate facilities to support teaching 
and learning. The condition of America's public school 
facilities appears mixed. A 2014 study from NCES surveyed local 
school districts and found that 53 percent of public schools 
needed repairs, renovations, and modernizations, and that an 
estimated $197 billion would be needed to bring all public 
schools into good condition.\1\ However, that same report 
indicated that only 3 percent of public school buildings were 
described as being in poor condition while 76 percent were 
described as being in excellent or good condition.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 2012-2013, page 
3. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf
    \2\Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 2012-2013, page 
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal government funds the Impact Aid Construction 
program, which provides funding to school districts to build 
and repair schools impacted by the loss of tax revenue because 
of the presence of the federal government. In most cases, the 
federal government also exempts interest income from municipal 
bonds, including municipal bonds used to finance school 
construction projects, from federal income tax. A handful of 
small funding streams in specialized programs in various 
agencies throughout the federal government can also be used to 
build, repair, or modernize facilities. Otherwise, the federal 
government has traditionally played a very limited role in 
school construction.
    This is because building and repairing public school 
facilities has appropriately been primarily a state and local 
responsibility. H.R. 865, the Rebuild America's Schools Act, 
would, in theory, dramatically expand the federal government's 
financial and regulatory role in school construction. In 
reality, it would amount to another broken promise from the 
federal government.

                            BROKEN PROMISES

    Congress has made promises regarding school construction 
before. Twenty-five years ago, Congress enacted H.R. 6, the 
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), to reauthorize 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Included 
within the IASA was the Education Infrastructure Act of 1994, 
which authorized the Secretary to award grants to school 
districts ``to ensure the health and safety of students through 
the repair, renovation, alteration, and construction of a 
public elementary or secondary school library, media center, or 
facility, used for academic or vocational instruction.''\3\ 
School districts were eligible for grants based on their 
population of low-income students, a lack of local fiscal 
capacity, and the current state of the public school facilities 
in the district. In other words, while some of the details were 
different, the program authorized by Congress 25 years ago was 
almost identical in effect to the program proposed in the 
Rebuild America's Schools Act. What effect did the 1994 program 
have on school district facilities and student achievement? 
None. No school district ever saw a dime, because the program 
was never appropriated a single dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the 
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. Section 12007(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sadly, this is the not the only commitment Congress has 
failed to keep. In 1975, Congress enacted the predecessor to 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In that 
law, Congress promised a maximum grant to every state equal to 
40 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure 
(APPE). When Republicans took over the House in 1995 for the 
first time in more than 40 years, and nearly 20 years after 
IDEA was originally enacted, the federal government was funding 
IDEA at 8 percent of the national APPE and Republicans more 
than doubled that contribution. When Democrats regained the 
majority in 2007, the federal government was funding IDEA at 17 
percent of the national APPE. Unfortunately, the federal 
government's contribution has steadily declined since then. In 
fiscal year (FY) 2019 the federal government is funding IDEA at 
about 14 percent of the national APPE.
    Why has funding progress on this core program stalled? 
Because Democrats have pursued other agendas. For example, in 
FYs 2012 and 2013, Republicans controlled the House, but 
Democrats controlled the Senate and the White House. In FY 
2012, IDEA was funded at $11.578 billion. The Republican House 
proposal for FY 2013 was $12.078 billion while President Obama 
proposed flat funding and Senate Democrats proposed a modest 
increase to $11.678 billion. The President's level-funding 
proposal was enacted.
    Where did funding increases for the Department of Education 
go? Among other places, Democrats in Congress and the White 
House spent nearly $6 billion on Race to the Top, a program 
used to coerce states into sweeping policy changes, but which 
provided actual funding to only a lucky few school districts 
nationwide. Republicans have consistently prioritized IDEA 
while Democrats have shortchanged this core program to fund 
their own pet projects.
    Now here we are again. The Democrats are advancing H.R. 
865, yet another federal program at the Department of Education 
to address a local challenge. This story will end in one of two 
ways. One, this school construction program will follow in the 
footsteps of its predecessor and never receive funding. Or two, 
this program will receive some funding and some community 
somewhere will benefit, while special education students 
everywhere else continue to be shortchanged.

                      INCREASED COSTS AND BURDENS

    In the unlikely event this bill is enacted and funded, 
states and school districts will face a sobering reality. As 
with so many other programs, the federal government offers 
money then hides within the bill regulatory and compliance 
burdens that will increase costs and make it harder for states 
and school districts to take necessary steps to improve their 
public school facilities.
    This bill contains numerous regulatory burdens that will 
increase costs to states and school districts, including the 
following:
       States are required to create, maintain, and 
update every two years a database containing detailed 
information on every public school facility in the state. It is 
unlikely any current state meets this requirement.
            The database must comply with national data 
        standards established by the Secretary.
            The database must include information on 31 
        elements for every public school in the state.
       States must develop regulations on 28 different 
elements of a state's school renovation and construction work.
       States must submit a state plan for how funds 
will be spent.
            The Secretary is authorized to request any 
        information he or she chooses in the state plan, 
        whether or not the information is relevant to the 
        state's school construction and renovation work.
       States are required to maintain at least 90 
percent of the average fiscal effort for capital expenditures 
over the previous five years.
       School districts receiving grants are required 
to create a 10-year facilities master plan that includes 52 
elements for every public school facility in the district.
       States and school districts are required to 
submit information for separate reports by the Secretary, the 
Government Accountability Office, and the Institute of 
Education Sciences.
            A precise count of the reporting elements 
        collectively required in these reports is impossible 
        because there would be some variation between school 
        districts, but for most school districts the number of 
        elements would easily exceed 50.
       School districts would be required to ensure 
that projects are certified ``green'' and meet national 
building, water conservation, and energy conservation codes 
(that might not match the state's regulations also required in 
the bill).
    Again, H.R. 865 is the wrong answer. This bill will, under 
a best case scenario, provide funding to a handful of school 
districts in exchange for increased costs and regulatory 
burdens for everyone. Committee Republicans believe there is a 
better way.

                           OPPORTUNITY ZONES

    In the 115th Congress, Republicans enacted, as part of the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, historic bipartisan reforms to 
potentially unleash trillions of dollars in private capital 
into communities left behind during the current economic 
expansion. Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) 
championed the provision they and many others saw as an 
innovative way to break the cycle of failed government programs 
by using the energy and ingenuity of the private sector to 
revitalize communities.
    Under the program, governors nominate, and the Internal 
Revenue Service certifies, communities as Opportunity Zones. To 
be nominated and certified, a community must have a poverty 
rate of 20 percent or higher or a median household income that 
is less than 80 percent of the surrounding area. Governors are 
allowed to designate 25 percent of a state's eligible 
communities as Opportunity Zones. As of December 2018, 8,763 
low-income communities had been designated as Opportunity 
Zones, representing all 50 States, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. An 
estimated $6.1 trillion of paper profits currently rests on 
American corporate balance sheets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\``An Unlikely Group of Billionaires and Politicians Has Created 
the Most Unbelievable Tax Break Ever.'' Forbes. July 18, 2018. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/17/an-unlikely-group-
of-billionaires-and-politicians-has-created-the-most-unbelievable-tax-
break-ever/#29f02e941485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Opportunity Zones provision would provide tax 
incentives for much of that capital to be reinvested in 
Opportunity Funds that would in turn invest in communities 
designated as Opportunity Zones. Investments in so-called vice 
businesses (e.g., liquor stores) are prohibited, but beyond 
that, investment opportunities are open-ended.
    Decades of top-down mandates from Washington have failed to 
revitalize communities, and those communities are desperate for 
new solutions driven by local leaders working with local 
citizens to address local needs. Schools are integral parts of 
communities, and a key part of communities' economic and 
workforce development efforts could be modernizing school 
facilities through the Opportunity Zones provision of the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act.

                  COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 865

    On February 26, 2019, the House Committee on Education and 
Labor met to mark up H.R. 865.

         REJECTED AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE BILL

    During consideration of H.R. 865, Committee Republicans 
offered several amendments to improve the bill. Unfortunately, 
the amendments were rejected by the Democrats. Those amendments 
were as follows:
     Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) offered an amendment 
that would have ensured rural school districts received a fair 
share of funds under the program. Rural school districts are 
often at a disadvantage when states award grants competitively. 
Rural districts lack the capacity to dedicate staff resources 
to comply with application processes. Unfortunately, the 
majority chose not to protect these districts and rejected the 
amendment by a vote of 20-26.
     Rep. James Comer (R-KY) offered an amendment to 
ensure funds would only be awarded under the bill after an 
independent auditor certifies the bill will not raise costs on 
states and school districts. As outlined before, the bill 
contains numerous provisions that will increase the regulatory 
burden on states and districts and increase the costs of 
construction projects. Rep. Comer's amendment would have 
provided vital protection against these increased costs for 
states and school districts but was rejected by the majority by 
a vote of 20-26.
     Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) offered an amendment to 
ensure no funds under the bill could be used for lobbying 
activities. If this bill is ever funded, then those funds 
should be used by school districts to renovate or construct 
schools. This amendment would have protected taxpayers from the 
misuse of federal funds, but the majority rejected the 
amendment by voice vote.
     Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) offered an amendment 
that would have prohibited funds from being awarded under the 
bill until the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the 
Environmental Protection Agency, certifies the bill's green 
requirements would not add to states' and school districts' 
costs. The majority rejected this effort to protect states and 
school districts from a portion of the regulatory burdens in 
this bill by a vote of 20-26.
     Ranking Member Virginia Foxx (R-NC) offered an 
amendment to rename the bill the Trojan Horse Act. Too often, 
Congress enacts bills with promises of new funding while 
downplaying the ways it would increase costs. This amendment 
would have ensured states and school districts understand that 
the bill's promised funding also brings hidden costs and 
regulatory burdens that would overwhelm them with red tape.

Unprecedented Attack on Minority Rights

    The majority also took unprecedented steps to stifle debate 
and trample on the rights of the minority. Two amendments were 
ruled non-germane that were demonstrably germane; both were 
offered by Republicans.
    First, Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) offered an amendment to 
ensure no state or school district could be denied funding 
under the bill based on the state's or school district's 
decision to permit teachers or other school personnel from 
possessing firearms on school grounds. Second, Rep. Ron Wright 
(R-TX) offered an amendment to prohibit school districts from 
receiving funds under the bill unless the school district has 
and follows a policy that prohibits the hiring of any 
individual required to register as a sex offender. Based on 
conversations with the House parliamentarians and on the long 
precedents of this Committee, Committee Republicans believe 
ruling these amendments non-germane was and remains 
indefensible.
    With respect to Rep. Allen's amendment, negative rules of 
construction have a long history of being considered germane, 
regardless of topic, as they by nature construe the text of the 
underlying legislation. In addition, the amendment addresses a 
specific weakness in the underlying bill. In section 
102(b)(1)(E) of the manager's amendment offered by Chairman 
Bobby Scott (D-VA), the Secretary is given authority to request 
in state plans ``such other information as the Secretary may 
require.'' This language gives the Secretary open-ended 
authority to add state plan requirements. A Secretary would be 
well within her or his authority to demand a state include in 
its state plan a description of how the state will avoid 
awarding grants to school districts that choose to permit 
teachers or other school personnel to possess firearms on 
school grounds.
    With respect to Rep. Wright's amendment, additional plan 
and eligibility requirements for federal grants also have a 
long history of being considered germane as conditions and 
qualifications. Here, too, the amendment addresses specific 
provisions of the underlying bill. The amendment adds a new 
state plan requirement and school district eligibility 
criterion that is related to the purpose of the bill, which is 
ensuring the safety of children in facilities under 
construction from those performing the work. The underlying 
bill does not limit its requirements only to those related 
specifically to the authorized activities under the bill. The 
aforementioned provision in section 102(b)(1)(E) does not limit 
the Secretary's open-ended authority to add requirements to the 
plan only to those that would be specifically related to school 
construction.
    The rulings of these amendments as non-germane represent an 
abuse of the majority's power. We urge the majority to return 
to Committee precedent.
    In addition, Rep. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson (R-PA) offered an 
amendment that would have forced Congress to live up to its 
commitment under IDEA before funds could be awarded under this 
bill. Committee Republicans note that the substance of this 
amendment and a similar amendment related to Title I of the 
ESEA were offered and voted on during consideration of another 
school construction bill, H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green 
High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, during the 111th 
Congress. During this markup though, the majority ruled this 
amendment not germane. Given Congress's long record of broken 
promises, Committee Republicans believe any bill proposing 
massive new spending and regulatory burdens should include a 
debate about existing unfulfilled obligations.
    Our Committee has always been willing to debate difficult 
issues. We have understood that an open debate and amendment 
process gives every Member a chance for his or her voice to be 
heard and strengthens legislation before it is reported for 
consideration by the whole House. We urge the majority to 
respect this tradition.

             ADOPTED AMENDMENTS THAT WILL IMPROVE THE BILL

    Multiple worthwhile amendments were adopted, including one 
offered by Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT). Her amendment will ensure 
that no funds will be awarded to a charter school if the 
building is owned by an individual or private sector entity 
with a management or governance role in the charter school. The 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote. Committee Republicans 
agree that conflicts of interest should be avoided. We do note, 
however, that charter schools often struggle to support 
construction and renovation of facilities because they do not 
possess the same capacity for raising capital as traditional 
school districts. While it is unlikely this program will ever 
be funded, if funds are appropriated and grants awarded, 
Committee Republicans urge school districts to consult with 
charter schools and include charter schools in their plans.

                               CONCLUSION

    As outlined in these Minority Views, H.R. 865 presents us a 
choice. We can try the same old approach that has failed 
literally for decades. That approach demands more sacrifice 
from taxpayers, offers more regulations from Washington, and 
makes promises we know will not be kept. That is the Democrat 
way.
    The Republican way is to give communities the tools they 
need to unleash innovation, investment, and revitalization, 
with the flexibility to tailor local solutions for local 
challenges. For this reason, Congress should reject H.R. 865, 
so that Democrats and Republicans can work across the aisle to 
pursue strategies that will work.
                                   Virginia Foxx,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   David P. Roe, M.D.
                                   Glenn ``GT'' Thompson.
                                   Tim Walberg.
                                   Brett Guthrie.
                                   Bradley Byrne.
                                   Glenn Grothman.
                                   Elise M. Stefanik.
                                   Rick W. Allen.
                                   Jim Banks.
                                   Lloyd Smucker.
                                   James Comer.
                                   Mark Walker.
                                   Russ Fulcher.
                                   Ron Wright.
                                   Daniel Meuser.
                                   Dusty Johnson.
                                   Fred Keller.
                                   Gregory F. Murphy.

                                  [all]