Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2022
Summary
Part 1 of Report 117-607 of the 117th Congress, 2d Session, dated December 7, 2022, from the Committee on Education and Labor submitted by Mr. Scott of Virginia on H.R. 604, the Rebuild America's Schools Act of 2022, a bill to provide for the long-term improvement of public school facilities. The committee reports favorably with an amendment, together with minority views. In those views, Ranking Member Virginia Foxx and other members urge dropping what they call destructive legislation so the Committee can turn to expanding educational opportunities for children and making parents' interests the priority of schools.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Crpt Crpt 117Hrpt607 Crpt 117Hrpt607 Pt1
- Case
- Crpt Crpt 117Hrpt607 Crpt 117Hrpt607 Pt1
Cite this document
“Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2022.”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-117hrpt607-crpt-117hrpt607-pt1/
, SHA-256 09fe2344da10bc6d0a4a4ded86953c0685e05bcfa229035e0edc6eb7661e55bd.Full text
117TH CONGRESS REPT. 117–607
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
2d Session Part 1
REBUILD AMERICA’S SCHOOLS ACT OF 2022
DECEMBER 7, 2022.—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. 604]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 604) to provide for the long-term improvement of pub-
lic school facilities, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and rec-
ommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 21
Committee Action .................................................................................................... 23
Committee Views ..................................................................................................... 28
Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 44
Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 51
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 51
Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 51
Earmark Statement ................................................................................................. 51
Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 51
Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives .................................................. 58
Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 58
Hearings ................................................................................................................... 58
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 58
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate ................................................... 58
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 59
Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 75
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
39–006
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rebuild America’s Schools Act
of 2022’’.
(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—USES OF FUNDS
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.
TITLE IV—REPORTS AND OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 401. Comptroller general report.
Sec. 402. Study and report on physical condition of public schools.
Sec. 403. Office of School Infrastructure and Sustainability.
Sec. 404. Development of data standards.
Sec. 405. Information clearinghouse.
Sec. 406. Sense of congress on opportunity zones.
TITLE V—IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION
Sec. 501. Temporary increase in funding for impact aid construction.
TITLE VI—ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY PYRRHOTITE
Sec. 601. Allocations to States.
Sec. 602. Grants to local educational agencies.
Sec. 603. Definitions.
Sec. 604. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term ‘‘appropriate con-
gressional 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 sec-
tion 54E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as restored by section 201)).
(4) ESEA TERMS.—The terms ‘‘elementary school’’, ‘‘outlying area’’, and ‘‘sec-
ondary school’’ have the meanings given those terms in section 8101 of the Ele-
mentary 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 and grounds of a public elementary school or a public secondary school.
(7) QUALIFIED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘qualified local edu-
cational 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.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(10) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
3
(11) NET ZERO ENERGY SCHOOL.—The term ‘‘net 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 IM-
PROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILI-
TIES
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 2023 through 2027, 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 ac-
cordance 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 title III.
(B) SPECIAL RULES FOR BUREAU-FUNDED SCHOOLS.—
(i) APPLICABILITY.—The provisions of title III shall apply to a Bureau-
funded school that receives assistance under paragraph (1)(B) in the
same manner that such provisions 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 ap-
plication of such provisions.
(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 In-
terior shall provide assistance under such paragraph to the Indian
Tribe concerned.
(3) ALLOCATION TO OUTLYING AREAS.—From the amount reserved under para-
graph (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 re-
ceived by all outlying areas for such previous fiscal year.
SEC. 102. ALLOCATION TO STATES.
(a) ALLOCATION TO STATES.—
(1) STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATION.—
(A) FISCAL YEAR 2023.—Of the amount appropriated to carry out this title
for fiscal year 2023 and not reserved under section 101(b), not later than
30 days after such funds are appropriated, each State that provides an as-
surance to the Secretary that the State will comply with the requirements
of section 103(c) shall be allocated an amount in proportion to the amount
received by all local educational agencies in the State under part A of title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311
et seq.) for the previous fiscal year relative to the total amount received
under such part for such fiscal year by all local educational agencies in
every State that provides such an assurance to the Secretary.
(B) OTHER FISCAL YEARS.—Of the amount appropriated to carry out this
title for each fiscal year other than fiscal year 2023 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 re-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
ceived 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
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
4
et seq.) for the previous fiscal year relative to the total amount received
under such part for such fiscal year 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 5 percent of its
allocation under paragraph (1) to carry out its responsibilities under this Act,
which shall include—
(A) 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;
(B) in accordance with the guidance issued by the Secretary under section
404, developing an online, publicly searchable database that contains an in-
ventory of the infrastructure of all public school facilities in the State (in-
cluding the facilities of Bureau-funded schools, as appropriate), including,
with respect to each such facility, an identification of—
(i) the information described in clauses (i) through (vii) of subpara-
graph (F);
(ii) the age (including an identification of the date of any retrofits or
recent renovations) of—
(I) the facility;
(II) its roof;
(III) its electrical panels and lighting system;
(IV) its windows and any skylights;
(V) its cooking equipment and major appliances;
(VI) its plumbing; and
(VII) its heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, includ-
ing any energy management controls and systems;
(iii) fire safety inspection results;
(iv) the proximity of the facilities to toxic sites, including sites con-
taminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or the vulnerability
of the facilities to natural disasters, including the extent to which facili-
ties that are vulnerable to seismic natural disasters are seismically ret-
rofitted;
(v) any previous inspections showing the presence of toxic substances,
including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances;
(vi) any improvements that are needed to support indoor and outdoor
social distancing, personal hygiene, and building hygiene (including
with respect to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning usage) in
school facilities, consistent with guidance issued by the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention; and
(vii) any improvements that are needed to support energy and water
efficiency, resilience, and climate mitigation;
(C) updating the database developed under subparagraph (B) not less fre-
quently than once every 3 years;
(D) ensuring that the information in the database developed under sub-
paragraph (B)—
(i) is posted on a publicly accessible State website; and
(ii) is regularly distributed to local educational agencies and Tribal
governments in the State;
(E) issuing and reviewing regulations to ensure the health and safety of
students and staff during construction or renovation projects;
(F) issuing or reviewing regulations to ensure safe, healthy, and high-per-
forming school buildings, including regulations governing—
(i) indoor environmental quality and ventilation, including exposure
to carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, lead-based paint, and other com-
bustion 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—
(I) address the presence of lead and other contaminants, includ-
ing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, in such water; and
(II) require the regular testing of the potability of water at the
tap and testing for contaminants, including per- and
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
polyfluoroalkyl substances;
(iv) energy and water efficiency;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
5
(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 appli-
cable building codes;
(G) creating a plan to reduce or eliminate exposure to toxic substances,
including mercury, radon, PCBs, lead, vapor intrusions, per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, and asbestos; and
(H) creating a plan to increase the number of net zero energy schools in
the State, including professional development opportunities for State and
local educational agency staff involved in maintenance, operations, and
school facilities capital outlay projects related to energy and water effi-
ciency, resilience, climate mitigation, renewable energy, energy storage, and
building electrification.
(b) STATE PLAN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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 im-
provements 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 sub-
sections (b) through (d) of section 103, including how the State will consider
the impact that projects will have on student diversity and racial and socio-
economic isolation of students attending any current (as of the time of the
submission of the plan) or future public school facilities supported by such
projects;
(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) EXPEDITED PROCESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023.—
(A) ASSURANCE TO SECRETARY.—To be eligible to receive an allocation for
fiscal year 2023 under section 101(a)(1)(A), a State shall provide to the Sec-
retary an assurance that the State will comply with the requirements of
section 103(c).
(B) SUBMITTAL OF STATE PLAN.—A State shall not be required to submit
a State plan under paragraph (1) before receiving an allocation for fiscal
year 2023 under section subsection (a)(1)(A). A State that receives an allo-
cation under such subsection for such fiscal year shall submit to the Sec-
retary the State plan described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days
after the date on which such allocation is received.
(3) 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.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—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.
(B) DEADLINE.—The State shall provide any contribution required under
subparagraph (A) not later than September 30, 2030.
(C) CERTAIN FISCAL YEARS.—With respect to a fiscal year for which more
than $7,000,000,000 are appropriated to carry out this title, subparagraph
(A) shall be applied as if ‘‘, from non-Federal sources,’’ were struck.
(D) COMMITMENT TO PROPORTIONAL STATE INVESTMENT IN SCHOOL FACILI-
TIES.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The State shall provide an assurance to the Sec-
retary that for each fiscal year that the State receives an allocation
under this section, the State’s share of school facilities capital outlay
will be not less than 90 percent of the average of the State’s share of
school facilities capital outlay for the 5 years preceding the fiscal year
for which the allocation is received.
(ii) WAIVER.—Notwithstanding clause (i), in response to a request
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
from a State, the Secretary may modify or waive, in whole or in part,
the requirement of clause (i) if the Secretary determines that such
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
6
State demonstrates an exceptional or uncontrollable circumstance, such
as a natural disaster, pandemic, or precipitous decline in revenue.
(iii) STATE’S SHARE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES CAPITAL OUTLAY.—In this
subparagraph, the term ‘‘State’s share of school facilities capital outlay’’
means—
(I) the total State expenditures on school facilities capital outlay
projects; divided by
(II) the total school facilities capital expenditures in the State on
school facilities capital outlay projects.
(iv) TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES.—In this subparagraph, the term
‘‘total State expenditures’’ means the State’s total expenditures (from
funds other than an allocation under this section) on school facilities
capital outlay projects, including—
(I) any direct expenditures by the State for the purpose of school
facilities capital outlay projects; and
(II) funds provided by the State to local educational agencies for
the purpose of school facilities capital outlay projects.
(v) TOTAL SCHOOL FACILITIES CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN THE STATE.—
In this subparagraph, the term ‘‘total school facilities capital expendi-
tures in the State’’, means the sum of—
(I) the total state expenditures calculated under clause (iv); plus
(II) all additional expenditures (from funds other than an alloca-
tion under this section) on school facilities capital outlay projects
by local educational agencies in the State that were not included
in the calculation of total state expenditures under clause (iv).
(2) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—The State shall use an allocation under this
section only to supplement the level of State public funds that would, in absence
of the receipt of Federal funds under this section, be made available for the
State’s contribution to school facilities capital outlays, and not to supplant such
State public 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 com-
petitive 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 edu-
cational 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 quali-
fied 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) shall be among the local educational agencies in the State with the
most limited capacity to raise funds for the long-term improvement of pub-
lic 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) EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION.—
(A) NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF CERTAIN STUDENTS.—In making the
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
determination under paragraph (1)(A), the State shall ensure that grants
under this section are equitably distributed among—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
7
(i) qualified local educational agencies in the State with the highest
numbers of students counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)); and
(ii) qualified local educational agencies in the State with the highest
percentages of students counted under such section.
(B) GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY.—The State shall ensure that grants under
this section are awarded to qualified local educational agencies that rep-
resent 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 sec-
tion 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 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023.—In awarding grants under this
section for fiscal year 2023—
(1) the State shall first award grants to qualified local educational agencies
that meet the requirements of subsection (d)(1) that will use the grant to im-
prove the facilities of schools described in subsection (d)(1)(B) to support indoor
and outdoor social distancing, personal hygiene, and building hygiene (including
with respect to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning usage) in school facili-
ties, consistent with guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; and
(2) from any funds remaining after making grants to qualified local edu-
cational agencies that meet the requirements of paragraph (1), the State may
award grants to other qualified local agencies in accordance with the priorities
established under subsection (d).
(d) PRIORITY OF GRANTS FOR OTHER FISCAL YEARS.—Except as provided in sub-
section (c), in awarding grants under this section, the State shall give priority to
qualified local educational agencies that—
(1)(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, includ-
ing—
(i) the median age of facilities;
(ii) the extent to which student enrollment exceeds physical and instruc-
tional 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;
(B) will use the grant to improve the facilities of—
(i) elementary schools or middle schools that have an enrollment of stu-
dents 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 con-
stitutes 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 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; or
(2)(A) will use the grant to improve access to high-speed broadband sufficient
to support digital learning in 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).
(e) 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 applica-
tion shall include, at minimum—
(1) the information necessary for the State to make the determinations under
subsections (b) through (d);
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(2) a description of the projects that the agency plans to carry out with the
grant;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
8
(3) an explanation of how such projects will—
(A) improve conditions for the health and safety of staff and students at
schools served by the agency; and
(B) improve learning and reduce inequity for such students;
(4) an explanation of how such projects will improve school facilities’ perform-
ance with respect to energy and water efficiency, resilience, and climate mitiga-
tion;
(5) 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, ren-
ovation, 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; and
(6) an explanation of how the local educational agency plans to increase the
number of contracts such agency has with certified small businesses, minority-
owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, or women-owned businesses as of
the date of submission of the application by awarding such contracts under
projects supported by the grant.
(f) 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 edu-
cational 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, resilience, and climate mitigation;
(v) excessive classroom noise; and
(vi) other health, safety, and environmental conditions that would im-
pact the health, safety, and learning ability of students;
(D) how the local educational agency will address any conditions identi-
fied 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 facili-
ties, as well as the financial implications of such enrollment levels;
(F) the dollar amount and percentage of funds the local educational agen-
cy 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 re-
sult of a bond issue; and
(G) the dollar amount and percentage of funds the local educational agen-
cy 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, prin-
cipals and other school leaders, custodial and maintenance staff, emergency
first responders, school facilities directors, students and families, commu-
nity residents, and Indian Tribes; and
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(B) in addition to the consultation required under subparagraph (A), a
Bureau-funded school shall consult with the Bureau of Indian Education.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
9
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 avail-
able 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 pub-
lished by the National Center for Education Statistics;
(D) the demonstrable or expected benefits of the projects, including any
improvements—
(i) to conditions for health, safety, and learning; and
(ii) to school facilities with respect to energy and water efficiency, re-
silience, reduced carbon emissions, and climate mitigation;
(E) the square footage of the improvements made with covered funds;
(F) the total cost of each such project—
(i) in total; and
(ii) disaggregated by the costs of planning, design, construction, site
purchase, and improvements;
(G) the estimated number of jobs created by the projects;
(H) of the total number of contracts awarded under the project, the per-
centage of such contracts that were awarded to certified small businesses,
minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and women-owned
businesses; and
(I)(i) the total dollar value of contracts awarded under the project to cer-
tified small businesses, minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned busi-
nesses, and women-owned businesses, respectively; and
(ii) the total dollar value of contracts awarded under the project to all
such businesses combined.
(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 in-
formation 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 in-
formation on a publicly accessible State website; and
(3) regularly distribute the information to local educational agencies and Trib-
al governments in the State.
SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2023 through 2027 to carry out this title. Amounts so appropriated are authorized
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
to remain available through fiscal year 2032.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
10
TITLE II—SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
SEC. 201. RESTORATION OF CERTAIN QUALIFIED TAX CREDIT BONDS.
(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 54A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in ef-
fect on the day before repeal by Public Law 115–97, is revived.
(2) CREDIT LIMITED TO CERTAIN BONDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 54A(d)(1) of such Code, as revived by paragraph
(1), is amended by striking ‘‘means—’’ and all that follows through ‘‘which
is part’’ and inserting ‘‘means a qualified zone academy bond which is part’’.
(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 54A(c)(2)(C) of such Code, as re-
vived by paragraph (1), is amended by striking ‘‘means—’’ and all that fol-
lows and inserting ‘‘a purpose specified in section 54E(a)(1)’’.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(A) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before
section 54A (as revived by paragraph (1)) the following:
‘‘Subpart I—Qualified Tax Credit Bonds
‘‘Sec. 54A. Credit to holder of qualified tax credit bonds.’’.
(B) Section 6401(b)(1) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘and G’’ and
inserting ‘‘G, and I’’.
(C) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such
Code is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SUBPART I—QUALIFIED TAX CREDIT BONDS’’.
(b) CREDIT ALLOWED TO ISSUER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6431 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in
effect on the day before repeal by Public Law 115–97, is revived.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 6211(b)(4) of such Code is amended by
striking ‘‘and 6428A’’ and inserting ‘‘6428A, and 6431’’.
(c) QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 54E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in ef-
fect on the day before repeal by Public Law 115–97, is revived.
(2) EXTENSION OF LIMITATION.—Section 54(E)(c)(1) of such Code is amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘and $400,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$400,000,000’’, and
(B) by striking ‘‘and, except as provided’’ and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting ‘‘, and $1,400,000,000 for 2022 and each cal-
endar year thereafter.’’.
(3) REMOVAL OF PRIVATE BUSINESS CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT.—Section 54E
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as revived by paragraph (1) and amended
by paragraph (2), is amended—
(A) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph
(A), by striking subparagraph (B), and by redesignating subparagraph (C)
as subparagraph (B),
(B) by striking subsection (b), and
(C) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (b) and (c), re-
spectively.
(4) CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY.—Section 54E(c)(3)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as revived by paragraph (1) and redesignated
in paragraph (3)(C), is amended by striking ‘‘rehabilitating or repairing’’ and in-
serting ‘‘constructing, rehabilitating, retrofitting, or repairing’’.
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LABOR
STANDARDS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of the title 40, United States
Code, shall apply to projects financed with the proceeds of 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 the American Recovery and Reinvest-
ment Tax Act of 2009.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1601 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and redes-
ignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to obliga-
tions issued after December 31, 2022.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
11
SEC. 202. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
after subpart I (as revived by section 201) of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
the following new subpart:
‘‘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 sub-
section 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 of the taxpayer (as defined in sec-
tion 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 ap-
plication 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 Reopen and Rebuild
America’s Schools Act of 2021,
‘‘(B) the interest on such obligation would (but for this section) be exclud-
able 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 prin-
cipal 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 ex-
pects 100 percent of the available project proceeds to be spent for purposes
described in section 301 of the Reopen and Rebuild America’s Schools Act
of 2021 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 pur-
poses 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
under subsection (d)(1)(D) by any issuer shall not exceed the limitation amount allo-
cated under subsection (g) for such calendar year to such issuer.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
12
‘‘(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 2022,
‘‘(2) $10,000,000,000 for 2023, and
‘‘(3) $10,000,000,000 for 2024.
‘‘(g) ALLOCATION OF LIMITATION.—
‘‘(1) ALLOCATIONS.—
‘‘(A) STATES.—After application of subparagraph (B) and paragraph
(3)(A), the limitation applicable under subsection (f) for a 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 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 a calendar year shall be allo-
cated by the Secretary to possessions of the United States other than Puer-
to Rico for such calendar year.
‘‘(2) ALLOCATIONS TO SCHOOLS.—The limitation amount allocated to a State or
possession under paragraph (1) shall be allocated by the State educational agen-
cy (or such other agency as is authorized under State law to make such alloca-
tion) to issuers within such State or possession in accordance with the priorities
described in subsections (c) and (d) of section 103 of the Reopen and Rebuild
America’s Schools Act of 2021 and the eligibility requirements described in sec-
tion 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 Bu-
reau 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 Sec-
retary to issuers or schools funded as described in paragraph (2). In the
case of amounts allocated under the preceding sentence, Indian tribal gov-
ernments shall be treated as qualified issuers for purposes of this sub-
chapter.
‘‘(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 (in the case of an amount allocated under paragraph (1)) or by the
Secretary of the Interior to issuers or schools funded by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (in the case of an amount allocated under paragraph (3)(A)) to carry out
activities to improve digital learning in accordance with section 301(b) of the
Reopen and Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2021.
‘‘(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 infra-
structure bond is entitled to a payment of interest under such bond.
‘‘(i) SPECIAL RULES.—
‘‘(1) INTEREST ON SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS IN-
COME 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).’’.
(b) CREDIT ALLOWED TO ISSUER.—Section 6431(f)(3)(A) of such Code, as revived
by section 201(b)(1), is amended by striking ‘‘means any qualified tax credit bond’’
and all that follows through the end of subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘‘means any
bond if—
‘‘(A) such bond is—
‘‘(i) a qualified tax credit bond which is a qualified zone academy
bond (as defined in section 54E) determined without regard to any allo-
cation relating to the national zone academy bond limitation for years
after 2010 or any carryforward of any such allocation, or
‘‘(ii) any school infrastructure bond (as defined in section 54BB),
and’’.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(c) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LABOR STANDARDS.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of
the title 40, United States Code, shall apply to projects financed with the proceeds
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
13
of any qualified zone academy bond (as defined in section 54E of the Internal Rev-
enue Code of 1986) issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(1) Section 6401(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by
section 201(a), is amended by striking ‘‘and I’’ and inserting ‘‘I, and J’’.
(2) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such
Code, as amended by section 201(a), is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing:
‘‘SUBPART J—SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS’’.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to obliga-
tions issued after December 31, 2022.
SEC. 203. ANNUAL REPORT ON BOND 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 of the Treasury shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the amendments made by
sections 201 and 202.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to the
fiscal year preceding the year in which the report is submitted, the following:
(1) An identification of—
(A) each local educational agency (if any) that received an allocation
under section 54E(b)(2) or 54BB(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
and
(B) each local educational agency (if any) that was eligible to receive such
funds but did not receive such funds.
(2) With respect to each local educational agency described in paragraph (1)—
(A) an assessment of the capacity of the agency to raise funds for the
long-term improvement of public school facilities, as determined by an as-
sessment of—
(i) the current and historic ability of the agency to raise funds for
construction, renovation, modernization, and major repair projects for
schools, including the ability of the agency to raise funds through impo-
sition of property taxes,
(ii) whether the agency has been able to issue bonds to fund construc-
tion projects, including—
(I) qualified zone academy bonds under section 54E of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code of 1986, and
(II) school infrastructure bonds under section 54BB of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code of 1986, and
(iii) the bond rating of the agency,
(B) 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.),
(C) the population density of the geographic area served by the agency,
(D) a description of the projects carried out with funds received from
school infrastructure bonds,
(E) a description of the demonstrable or expected benefits of the projects,
and
(F) the estimated number of jobs created by the projects.
(3) The total dollar amount of all funds received by local educational agencies
from school infrastructure bonds.
(4) Any other factors that the Secretary of the Treasury determines to be ap-
propriate.
(c) INFORMATION COLLECTION.—A State or local educational agency that receives
an allocation under section 54E(b)(2) or 54BB(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall—
(1) annually compile the information necessary for the Secretary of the Treas-
ury to determine the elements described in subsection (b), and
(2) report the information to the Secretary of the Treasury at such time and
in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may require.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(d) SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Sec-
retary of the Treasury’’ includes the Secretary’s delegate.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
14
TITLE III—USES OF FUNDS
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, maintain, and update (as necessary) the facilities master plan re-
quired under section 103(f);
(2) construct, modernize, renovate, or retrofit public school facilities, which
may include seismic retrofitting for schools vulnerable to seismic natural disas-
ters;
(3) decarbonize public school facilities through the adoption of all-electric
space and water heating systems and cooking equipment, including other effi-
ciency improvements and on-site renewable energy installation;
(4) carry out major repairs of public school facilities, including deferred main-
tenance projects;
(5) install furniture or fixtures with at least a 10-year life in public school fa-
cilities;
(6) construct new public school facilities;
(7) acquire and prepare sites on which new public school facilities will be con-
structed;
(8) extend the life of basic systems and components of public school facilities;
(9) ensure current or anticipated enrollment does not exceed the physical and
instructional capacity of public school facilities;
(10) ensure the building envelopes and interiors of public school facilities pro-
tect occupants from natural elements and human threats, and are structurally
sound and secure;
(11) 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 teach-
ing environment;
(12) improve energy and water efficiency to lower the costs of energy and
water consumption in public school facilities;
(13) improve indoor air quality in public school facilities;
(14) reduce or eliminate the presence of—
(A) toxic substances, including mercury, radon, PCBs, lead, per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, and asbestos;
(B) mold and mildew; or
(C) rodents and pests;
(15) 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 pota-
bility of water at the tap for the presence of lead and other contaminants, in-
cluding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances;
(16) bring public school facilities into compliance with applicable fire, health,
and safety codes;
(17) 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);
(18) 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);
(19) improving the public school facilities of magnet schools, or other instruc-
tional programs, designed to increase student diversity and decrease racial or
socioeconomic isolation;
(20) increase the use of public school facilities for the purpose of community-
based partnerships that provide students with academic, health, and social
services;
(21) ensure the health of students and staff during the construction or mod-
ernization of public school facilities; or
(22) reduce or eliminate excessive classroom noise due to activities allowable
under this section.
(b) ALLOWANCE FOR DIGITAL LEARNING.—A local educational agency may use cov-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
ered funds to leverage existing public programs or public-private partnerships to ex-
pand access to high-speed broadband sufficient for digital learning.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
15
SEC. 302. PROHIBITED USES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—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.
(b) ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO CHARTER SCHOOLS.—No covered funds
may be used—
(1) for the facilities of a public charter school that is operated or managed by
a for-profit entity; or
(2) for the facilities of a public charter school if—
(A) the school leases the facilities from an individual or for-profit entity;
and
(B) such individual, or an individual with a direct or indirect financial in-
terest in such entity, has a management or governance role in such school.
SEC. 303. REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARD-RESISTANCE AND ENERGY AND WATER CONSERVA-
TION.
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 edi-
tion of a nationally recognized, consensus-based model building code.
(2) Requirements for such projects set forth in the most recent published edi-
tion 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.
(4) Indoor environmental air quality requirements applicable to such projects
as set forth in the most recent published edition of a nationally recognized, con-
sensus-based code or standard.
SEC. 304. GREEN PRACTICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A local educational agency that uses covered funds for a new
construction project shall ensure that such project for new construction is certified,
verified, or consistent with the applicable provisions of—
(1) the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Envi-
ronmental Design green building rating standard (commonly known as the
‘‘LEED Green Building Rating System’’);
(2) the Living Building Challenge developed by the International Living Fu-
ture 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 Green Building Initiative Green Globes rating system; 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 (4);
(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.
SEC. 305. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A local educational agency that receives covered funds shall en-
sure 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(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.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
16
(2) PUBLICATION.—Before issuing a waiver under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed written explanation of the waiv-
er determination.
(c) CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.—This section shall be ap-
plied in a manner consistent with the obligations of the United States under inter-
national 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, in-
cluding—
(A) electrical components; and
(B) nonferrous building materials, including, aluminum and
polyvinylchloride (PVC), glass, fiber optics, plastic, wood, masonry, rubber,
manufactured stone, any other nonferrous metals, and any unmanufactured
construction material.
TITLE IV—REPORTS AND OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 401. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date on which the majority of
States receiving allocations under section 102 have made subgrants to local edu-
cational agencies under section 103, 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) criteria used by each State to determine high-need students and fa-
cilities for purposes of the projects carried out with covered funds; and
(B) 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 costs of the project disaggregated by the costs for planning, de-
sign, construction, site purchase, and improvements;
(3) the geographic distribution of the projects;
(4) an assessment of the impact of selected projects (as identified by the Sec-
retary) on the health and safety of school staff and students; and
(5) 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 infra-
structure projects.
(c) UPDATES.—The Comptroller General shall update and resubmit the report
under this section to the appropriate congressional committees—
(1) on a date that is between 5 and 6 years after the date of the submittal
of the first report under this section; and
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(2) on a date that is between 10 and 11 years after the date of the submittal
of such first report.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
17
SEC. 402. STUDY AND REPORT ON PHYSICAL CONDITION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
(a) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not less frequently than once in each 5-year period be-
ginning 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 each State and outlying area; 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 re-
gion;
(D) the condition of school facilities for economically disadvantaged stu-
dents as well as students from major racial and ethnic subgroups;
(E) the accessibility of school facilities for students and staff with disabil-
ities;
(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 wrap-
around 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 de-
scribed in subparagraphs (A) through (I) of paragraph (1); and
(3) a cost estimate for bringing school facilities to a state of good repair, as
determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 403. OFFICE OF SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Department of Education an office to
be known as the ‘‘Office of School Infrastructure and Sustainability’’ (referred to in
this section as the ‘‘Office’’).
(b) HEAD OF OFFICE.—The head of the Office shall be an individual designated
by the Secretary.
(c) DUTIES.—The duties of the Office shall be—
(1) to advise the Secretary on State plans under section 102;
(2) to serve as a liaison with other departments and agencies of the Federal
Government on matters relating to public school facilities, including the Depart-
ment of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Depart-
ment of the Treasury, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency;
(3) to ensure the Department of Education is prepared to meet the require-
ments of this Act in a timely manner; and
(4) to manage such other programs or initiatives affecting public school facili-
ties as the Secretary determines appropriate.
SEC. 404. 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)(B);
(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;
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(3) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
(4) the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
18
SEC. 405. 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 404(b) to develop a list of
Federal programs and financing mechanisms to be included in the clearing-
house; and
(2) coordinate with such officials to develop a collaborative education and out-
reach 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 con-
tact 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. 406. 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,
Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
(3) Schools are integral parts of communities, and a key part of communities’
economic and workforce development efforts could be modernizing school facili-
ties.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—lt is the sense of the Congress that opportunity zones,
when combined with public infrastructure investment, can provide an innovative ap-
proach 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 V—IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 501. 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 au-
thorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through
2027.’’.
TITLE VI—ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF
SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AFFECTED BY
PYRRHOTITE
SEC. 601. ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning not later than 180 days after the date of the enact-
ment 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 602.
(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. 602. GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts allocated to a State under section 601(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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(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.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
19
(b) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.—
(1) ELIGIBILITY 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, nonprofit, or private entity author-
ized 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 allow-
able 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) ELIGIBILITY 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 deter-
mine if the local educational agency meets the eligibility criteria under sub-
section (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 reim-
bursement; 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 edu-
cational 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 deter-
mines 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
agency not later than 60 days after the date on which the State receives
an allocation under subparagraph (A).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
20
(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 reim-
bursement 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 reim-
bursement 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 activi-
ties 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 re-
placement 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. 603. 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 cri-
teria:
(A) The school has a concrete foundation.
(B) Pyrrhotite is present in the school’s concrete foundation, as dem-
onstrated 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 un-
safe 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 con-
tractor who is qualified under State law, or approved by any State agency or
other State-sanctioned independent or nonprofit entity, to repair or replace resi-
dential or commercial building foundations that are deteriorating due to the
presence of pyrrhotite.
SEC. 604. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal year 2023 and each fiscal year thereafter.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
21
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of H.R. 604, the Rebuild America’s Schools Act of
2022 is to support the efforts of states and local educational agen-
cies (LEAs) to achieve equity in school facilities infrastructure, as-
sist states in their role in creating safe and healthy schools, and
improve regulation of, and data collection on, the condition of pub-
lic school facilities and the impact of such conditions on health and
safety.
The Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2022, as amended, would
authorize a $130 billion federal investment in public school con-
struction and modernization, creating more than two million good-
paying jobs 1 over 10 years by addressing critical physical infra-
structure needs in communities nationwide.
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 90 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 reg-
ulations to ensure healthy, safe, and high-performing school build-
ings both during and after construction. The bill also directs par-
ticipating states to develop a comprehensive database on the condi-
tion 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, predict-
able or routine maintenance, vehicles, or athletic facilities for
which admission is charged to the public. It also prohibits the
funds from being spent on the facilities of a for-profit charter school
or a charter school that leases its facilities from a for-profit entity
with a financial interest in the school. Provisions in title III require
the use of green practices in new construction, and, with a few ex-
ceptions, require construction projects to use American iron, steel,
and manufactured products.
Title IV of 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
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 SUB-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
JECT 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).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
22
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
also directs the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to work across
agencies to identify the data states should collect on the condition
of their school facilities and develop standards and guidance to di-
rect such data collection and measurement. It also directs the Sec-
retary to establish an information clearinghouse to disseminate in-
formation on school facilities and an Office of School Infrastructure
and Sustainability to facilitate the grant program.
Title V of the bill authorizes five years of increased funding for
Impact Aid school construction. Finally, title VI 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 re-
imburse LEAs for past construction on crumbling school founda-
tions due to pyrrhotite impact. Grants distributed under title V re-
quire 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 2022 to address our na-
tion’s crumbling education infrastructure. Such stakeholders in-
clude educators, parents, school administrators, laborers, experts in
child development, health and safety experts, civil rights advocates,
and more.2 As of the filing of this report, supporters of H.R. 604
include 21st Century School Fund, The School Superintendents As-
sociation, American Federation of School Administrators, American
Federation of Teachers, Association of Education Service Agencies,
BlueGreen Alliance, Build America’s School Infrastructure Coali-
tion, Campaign for Environmental Literacy, Center for Green
Schools at USGB, Children & Nature Network, Children’s Defense
Fund-Ohio, Communication Workers of America, Congleton, Morris
& Thorpe Engineers, Inc., Cooperative Strategies, Education Mar-
ket Association, Green Building Initiative, Green Schools National
Network, Green Schoolyards America, Healthy Schools Campaign,
International WELL Building Institute, International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, KABOOM!, NAACP Legal De-
fense Fund, National Association for Music Education, National As-
sociation of Federally Impacted Schools, National Association of
Secondary School Principals, National Council on School Facilities,
National Education Association, National PTA, National Rural
Education Advocacy Consortium, National Summer Learning Asso-
ciation, National Wildlife Federation, North American Association
for Environmental Education, SEI: Building Leaders for a Resilient
World, SMART California Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 104, South-
ern Rural Black Women’s Initiative, and Treves.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
23
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 Edu-
cation to make grants and low-interest loans to LEAs for the con-
struction, modernization, or repair of public kindergarten, elemen-
tary, and secondary educational facilities, and for other purposes.
On February 13, 2008, the Committee held a hearing in Wash-
ington, 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 invest-
ment in public school buildings. Testifying before the full Com-
mittee 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 Facili-
ties Planning Division, California Department of Education (Sac-
ramento, 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 Com-
munications, Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions (Bowl-
ing 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 leg-
islative session, and reported the bill favorably, as amended, to the
House of Representatives by a vote of 28–19. The House of Rep-
resentatives 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 Pen-
sions. 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 Re-
lief Act of 2008, introduced by Rep. David Obey (D–WI), Chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 7110 appropriated $3 bil-
lion for public school modernization, renovation and repair, mod-
eled 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 Re-
covery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), introduced by Chairman
Obey. H.R. 1 appropriated $14 billion for public school moderniza-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
tion, renovation and repair, modeled after provisions in title I of
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
24
H.R. 3021 (110th Congress). On February 12, 2009, the House
passed the Conference Report to H.R. 1. While the Conference Re-
port did not include dedicated funds for public school moderniza-
tion, renovation and repair, title XIV of the Conference Report au-
thorized 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 Fa-
cilities 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, ren-
ovation, or repair of public early learning, kindergarten, elemen-
tary, and secondary educational facilities, and for other purposes.
On May 6, 2009, the Committee considered H.R. 2187 in a legis-
lative session, and reported the bill favorably, as amended, to the
House of Representatives by a vote of 31–14. The House of Rep-
resentatives 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 Pen-
sions. 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 To-
peka,4 Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D–VA) and Rep. Donald Nor-
cross (D–NJ) along with 57 other House colleagues (including nine
Committee members 5), introduced H.R. 2475, the Rebuild Amer-
ica’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 Chair-
woman Virginia Foxx (R–NC).
On January 17, 2018, Ranking Member Scott and House Com-
mittee 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 pack-
age 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.
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).
4 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
5 Reps. Sablan, Adriano Espaillat (D–NY), Suzanne Bonamici (D–OR), Alma Adams (D–NC),
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Frederica Wilson (D–FL), Marcia Fudge (D–OH), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D–DE), Mark Takano
(D–CA), and Mark DeSaulnier (D–CA).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
25
116TH CONGRESS
On January 30, 2019, Chairman Scott along with Rep. Norcross
and 151 other original co-sponsors (including all Democratic mem-
bers of the Committee), introduced H.R. 865, the Rebuild America’s
Schools Act of 2019. The bill’s authorization of a $100 billion in-
vestment in public school facilities in the form of grants and bonds
would leverage an additional $7 billion in state funding for an over-
all 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 Wash-
ington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling Schools:
How Underfunding Public Education Shortchanges America’s Stu-
dents.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to highlight the poor qual-
ity 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 stu-
dents. Such underfunding contributes to an average gap of $46 bil-
lion 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 Federa-
tion of Teachers, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Ben Scafidi, Professor
of Economics and Director, Education Economics Center, Kennesaw
State University, Kennesaw, Georgia.
On February 26, 2019, the Committee considered H.R. 865 in leg-
islative session, and reported the bill favorably, as amended, to the
House of Representatives by a vote of 26 20.
On June 11, 2020, Rep. Peter Defazio (D OR) introduced H.R. 2,
The Moving Forward Act, which provided over $1.5 trillion in fed-
eral spending to support infrastructure across the country. On,
July 1, 2020, the House passed H.R. 2 by a vote of 233–188. H.R.
865, Rebuild America’s Schools Act, as reported out of Committee,
was included in H.R. 2 in its entirety, as reported out of Committee
with additional revisions to address the COVID–19 pandemic.
Those revisions included:
• Increasing the authorization of funds for the grant pro-
gram from $70 billion to $100 billion ($20 billion per fiscal year
(FY) from FY2020 to FY2024);
• Allowing states ten years to spend down grant funds
(through FY2029);
• Allowing states ten years to make their total ten percent
match contribution requirement through FY2029;
• Allowing states to contribute federal sources toward the
match requirement in any fiscal year where program appro-
priations exceed $7 billion;
6 U.S. Green Building Council, 21st Century Schools Fund, & National Council on School Fa-
cilities, The State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 FACILITIES REPORT 26 (2016) available at
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
https://www.usgbc.org/articles/groundbreaking-schools-report-shows-systemic-inequity-
statebystate-analysis-investment-amer.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
26
• Requiring the U.S. Department of Education (Department)
to expedite allocation of FY2020 funds with assurance that
states will comply with prioritizing schools that need retrofits
for reopening (such as for HVAC) before state plans are sub-
mitted and approved;
• Requiring states, for FY2020 funds only, to prioritize sub-
grants to fund capital projects necessary to reopen buildings in
line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
public health guidelines, with mention of HVAC needs and so-
cial distancing; and,
• Specifying that program funds may be used to create out-
door instructional spaces for social distancing and health pur-
poses.
117TH CONGRESS
On January 28, 2021, Chairman Scott, Rep. Norcross and 145
other original co-sponsors (including the majority of Democratic
members of the Committee), introduced H.R. 604, the Reopen and
Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2021. The bill would invest $100
billion in direct grants and $30 billion in bond authority to help
high-poverty school districts rebuild, repair, and modernize their
public school facilities and would create over two million good pay-
ing jobs in the process.
On April 28, 2021, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Build-
ing Back Better: Investing in Improving Schools, Creating Jobs, and
Strengthening Families and our Economy.’’ The purpose of the
hearing was to examine the Biden Administration’s American Jobs
Plan and American Families Plan, proposals which outlined a
multi-year plan to transform the economy through infrastructure
investment, job training, and strategies to address climate change.
Among a variety of topics, the Committee heard testimony on the
poor quality of public school infrastructure across the country and
the need for increased federal investment to rebuild unsafe school
buildings, particularly in areas of greatest need. Testifying before
the Committee were: Mary W. Filardo, Founder and Executive Di-
rector, 21st Century School Fund, Washington, DC; Mr. Rasheed
Malik, M.P.P., Senior Policy Analyst, Early Childhood Policy, Cen-
ter for American Progress, Arlington, VA; Mr. Mark Mitsui, Presi-
dent, Portland Community College, Portland, OR; Mr. Brian Riedl,
Senior Fellow in Budget, Tax, and Economics, The Manhattan In-
stitute, Alexandria, VA; Mr. Neal McCluskey, Ph.D., Director, Cen-
ter for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute, Washington, DC; Mr.
Bob Lanter, Executive Director, California Workforce Association,
Sacramento, CA.
On May 18, 2022, the Committee considered H.R. 604 in legisla-
tive session and reported the bill favorably, as amended, to the
House of Representatives by a vote of 27–19. The Committee con-
sidered and adopted the following amendments to H.R. 604:
• Rep. Norcross offered a manager’s amendment, adopted by
voice vote, which made several improvements to H.R. 604, in-
cluding:
» Changing the title of the bill to ‘‘the Rebuild America’s
Schools Act of 2022’’;
» Clarifying that school facilities includes the sur-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
rounding grounds;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
27
» Clarifying that the term ‘‘zero energy school’’ means a
school that uses an equal amount of energy (or less) than
it generates;
» Increasing the state reservation from 1 percent of
grant funds to 5 percent to ensure states have capacity to
carry out the required activities;
» Adding electrical panels, skylights, cooking equipment
and major appliances, energy management control sys-
tems, and any improvements needed to support energy and
water efficiency, resilience, and climate mitigation to the
state inventory of school facility conditions;
» Requiring states to update their facilities inventory
every three years instead of two years;
» Requiring states to include a plan to increase net zero
schools in the state, rather than providing the option to in-
clude net zero school planning;
» Requiring that state education agency (SEA) plans in-
clude a description of how the SEA will use funds to in-
crease student diversity and decrease racial and socio-
economic isolation of students attending schools in LEAs
that receive a grant;
» Clarifying that LEA plans should include expla-
nations of how LEAs will use funds to improve school con-
ditions for both the health and safety of staff and students,
and student learning and equity; Additionally, LEA plans
must explain how funds will improve school building en-
ergy and water efficiency, resilience, and climate mitiga-
tion;
» Clarifying that LEA applications should also include
an explanation of how the LEA will increase the number
of certified small, woman-owned, minority-owned or vet-
eran-owned businesses it contracts with for construction
projects;
» Specifying that schools may use funds to decarbonize
through electrification and on-site renewable energy instal-
lation; o Including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) in the list of toxins LEAs can use bill funds to test
and eliminate;
» Specifying that LEAs may use funds to improve the
public school facilities of magnet schools or other programs
designed to increase student diversity and decrease racial
or socioeconomic isolation;
» Clarifying that indoor air quality requirements adopt-
ed by an LEA must meet a nationally-published or recog-
nized code or standard;
» Strengthening provisions related to green construction
practices by requiring LEAs to determine that all new con-
struction are certified, verified or consistent with the
standards previously listed in the bill (LEED, Living
Building Challenge, and CHPs) and adding a new stand-
ard system, the Green Building Initiatives Green Globes
system; and,
» Adding a new section which directs the Secretary to
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
establish an Office of School Infrastructure and Sustain-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
28
ability within 90 days of enactment to ensure the Depart-
ment of Education can implement RASA.
The Committee also considered the following amendments:
• Rep. Michelle Steel (R–CA) offered an amendment to re-
quire the Department to conduct a report on the impact the
bill would have on the cost and availability of construction sup-
plies and to prohibit expenditures of funds under the bill un-
less such report shows that the bill would not increase costs or
worsen supply chain shortages. The amendment was defeated
on a recorded vote of 26–19.
• Rep. Lisa McClain (R–MI) offered an amendment to strike
language requiring states to give priority in the first year of
the program to school districts that plan to use funds to facili-
tate social distancing, improve ventilation, and take other
steps consistent with CDC guidance. The amendment would
also strike similar language from the facilities database states
are required to develop and maintain under the bill. The
amendment was defeated on a recorded vote of 26–19.
• Rep. Glenn Grothman (R–WI) offered an amendment to re-
quire school districts to ensure that all employees, and the em-
ployees of contractors and subcontractors paid with funds
under the bill are legally authorized to work in the United
States. The amendment was defeated on a recorded vote of 26–
18.
• Rep. Bob Good (R–VA) offered an amendment to prohibit
school districts from receiving grant funds if they serve a sanc-
tuary jurisdiction. The amendment was defeated on a recorded
vote of 27–19.
• Rep. Christopher Jacobs (R–NY) offered an amendment to
prohibit school districts from receiving a grant under the bill
if they have not expended all funds allocated under the Ele-
mentary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER)
fund, as appropriated under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act, the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSA), and the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARP). The amendment was de-
feated on a recorded vote of 27–19.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
The federal government has played a pivotal role over the last
75 years in making our nation’s inherently inequitable public edu-
cation 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 op-
portunity and to promote economic stimulus. H.R. 604, the Rebuild
America’s Schools Act of 2022, is an opportunity to reaffirm the fed-
eral government’s position at the nexus of these two roles. If passed
and funded, the bill would provide resources to ensure that all pub-
lic school students have an opportunity to learn in a safe, healthy,
and high-quality school facility, while at the same time creating al-
most two million jobs.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
29
H.R. 604 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 main-
tenance 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 rightfully concluded that racially segregated schools in-
herently 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:
It is in a dilapidated building, once whitewashed, stand-
ing 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 ob-
serve 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
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 build-
ings whatsoever.10 Recognizing a constitutional duty to remedy in-
equality and inequity, President Lyndon Johnson and Congress so-
lidified 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 govern-
ment the power to enforce desegregation plans in local school dis-
tricts under threat of federal sanction, but also authorized grants
to support desegregation in communities that took voluntary ac-
tion.13 ESEA sought to close opportunity and achievement gaps in
public education through grants which targeted resources and serv-
ices to communities with high concentrations of poverty. This pov-
erty fueled low-quality schools and school buildings due to inequi-
table public education financing systems,14 many of which still per-
sist. Since most communities fund their public school systems via
7 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
8 Brown, 347 U.S. at 495.
9 PETER IRONS, JIM CROW’S CHILDREN 34 (1st ed. 2002).
10 E.g., CHARLES OGLETREE, ALL DELIBERATE SPEED: REFLECTIONS ON THE FIRST HALF-CEN-
TURY 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. § 2000a et seq. (2012)).
12 Pub. L. 89–10, 79 Stat. 27 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2012)).
13 42 U.S.C. § 2000c (2012).
14 E.g., Jeff Raikes & Linda Darling-Hammond, Money Matters: Why Our Education Funding
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
systems Are Derailing the American Dream, LPI BLOG (Feb. 18, 2019), https://learningpolicy
institute.org/blog/why-our-education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
30
property taxes,15 wealthier communities with higher property tax
bases invariably are able to provide more resources for their edu-
cational 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 poli-
cies 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
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 disproportion-
ately attend under-resourced schools. Studies show the highest pov-
erty school districts in the country spend about $1,000 (seven per-
cent) less per student than the lowest poverty school districts.17 Re-
search 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 trou-
bling 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 col-
lege.20 To make it that far, they must first have a strong K–12
foundation, and sadly the deck is stacked against them.
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 exist-
ing 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
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 Cre-
ate 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 gen-
erally RICHARD ROTHSTEIN, THE COLOR OF LAW: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY OF HOW OUR GOVERN-
MENT SEGREGATED AMERICA (2017) (describing the legacy of local, state, and federal policy in
creating segregated neighborhoods throughout the United States, including the systemic de-
struction of integrated neighborhoods, and the subsidization of suburbs which denied land sale
to African-Americans through restrictive covenants).
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.
21 U.S. COMM’N ON C.R., PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING INEQUITY IN AN ERA OF INCREASING
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY AND RESEGREGATION 14 (2018), available at https://www.usccr.gov/
pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-Inequity.pdf.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
31
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, including by
allocating COVID–19 relief funding using the ESEA Title I Part A
formula, it has not brought that same focus to ensuring that phys-
ical classrooms and schools themselves are equitable for all stu-
dents.
Decades after the Brown decision and the enactment of 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 ade-
quately accommodate growing student populations, relegating chil-
dren to outdated and sometimes hazardous public school facilities.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined resource
inequities and the physical condition of our nation’s public schools
in 1996, determining that poor school facility conditions were most
concentrated in high-poverty schools that serve students of color.23
Further, 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 stu-
dents spend nearly 50 percent more on capital construction than
those that predominantly serve students of color, and wealthy dis-
tricts spend nearly triple the amount their high-poverty counter-
parts do.25
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. As of 2021, only eight states
cover 50 percent or more of the cost of capital school construction.
Eleven states contribute nothing and ten states contribute between
one and nine percent of costs.26 Reexamining the issue resource eq-
uity in school facilities in 2020, GAO found that this chronic under-
investment disproportionately impacts high-poverty school districts,
which are more likely to rely on state funding and less likely to use
property taxes to fund school facilities improvements.27 Federally-
impacted schools, including schools on or near military bases, res-
ervation lands, and public housing facilities face a dire infrastruc-
ture need as well, with even fewer resources to rely on due to the
lack of taxable property to fund schools. According to a recent re-
port, these schools face a $13 billion backlog in school construction
needs, $4 billion of which is considered a ‘‘pressing need’’.28 Con-
22 42 U.S.C. § 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.’’).
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.
26 Mary Filardo, 2021 State of Our Schools: America’s PK–12 Public School Facilities, 21st
Century School Fund (2021), available at https://education.wellcertified.com/hubfs/IWBI%20-
%20State%20of%20Our%20Schools%202021.pdf.
27 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–20–494, K–12 EDUCATION: SCHOOL
DISTRICTS FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE BUILDING SYSTEMS NEEDING UP-
DATES OR REPLACEMENTS (2020).
28 Letter from National Association of Federally Impacted Schools to Rep. Bobby C. Scott and
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Sen. Jack Reed in support of the Rebuild America’s Schools Act, (Feb. 25, 2019) available at
Continued
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
32
gress has a responsibility to address these persistent critical gaps;
every day of inaction maintains a system that not only fails to pro-
vide quality education infrastructure for all students, but also dis-
proportionately impacts the quality of education for students of
color.
To fight the persistent inequity in school facilities, provisions of
H.R. 604 ensure that funds authorized for school construction, re-
habilitation, and modernization are allocated equitably. This begins
by allocating funds authorized by title I of the bill ($100 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 sub-
grants 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 fa-
cilities is relatively short-lived. A one-time investment in school
construction as envisioned by the Rebuild America’s Schools Act of
2022 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.29 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, Congress acted to create new bond authority specifically
for school construction. The American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act created Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs). The fed-
eral government issued up to $22 billion in bond authority to states
over two years.30 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 ad-
vantage of the bonds, communities with the least ability to raise
funds (the highest poverty LEAs) were not able to use the bonds
https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/NAFIS%20Mark%20up%20Support%20Rebuild%20Amer
icas%20Schools%20Act.pdf.
29 CASSANDRIA DORTCH, CONG. RESEARCH SERV. R41142, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVA-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
TION: A REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS 3 (2013).
30 26 U.S.C. § 54F (2012) (repealed 2017).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:42 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
33
due to their inability to raise the principal and repay the bond,
even though the interest would have been paid by the federal gov-
ernment. 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 dis-
tricts.
H.R. 604 recognizes that making investment in public school in-
frastructure more affordable through tax-friendly benefits can help
districts with the means to take advantage of such tools both de-
fray costs and budget for school construction more effectively. Title
II of the bill includes tax incentives designed to result in $30 bil-
lion for public school construction, modernization and rehabilita-
tion. This title is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways
and Means and was not considered by this Committee during legis-
lative session on H.R. 604.
Recognizing that it will take more than tax incentives to fix our
public school infrastructure gap, H.R. 604 authorizes $100 billion
in grant aid to states and LEAs. The scope of investment envi-
sioned in H.R. 604 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) reha-
bilitated or constructed 30,000 schools.31 While local labor was em-
ployed 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. Dur-
ing that time, the WPA constructed more than 5,900 school build-
ings and over 2,100 additions to existing school buildings. The
WPA also constructed over 1,800 (and improved over 8,200) public
school playgrounds,32 and renovated or modernized over 31,000
public school buildings.33 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 dur-
ing 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 there were at least 30 school facilities still open and operating
in districts represented by members of the Committee at the end
of the 116th Congress.34
31 FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, FINAL REPORT ON THE WPA PROGRAM, 1935–1943 4 (1946).
32 Id. at 50. H.R. 604 includes as allowable uses of grant funds the construction, moderniza-
tion, 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.
33 Id. at 52.
34 H.R. Rep. No. 116–684, pt. 1, at 35 (2020). No official record currently exists of schools built
using New Deal funds that are still in use as schools. The list of facilities cited here does not
include New Deal projects that were solely renovations or improvements to existing buildings,
like murals or athletic fields. There are also many New Deal school buildings that are still in
use but not for educational purposes; this list also excludes New Deal schools in Committee
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
member districts that are still in use, but have been converted to local government buildings,
Continued
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
34
An $130 billion investment in public school facilities is long over-
due. 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 mil-
lion for public school construction, modernization and repair in the
1994 reauthorization of ESEA, but never appropriated money to
the program.35 In 2001, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for pub-
lic school facility renovation and repairs and ensured distribution
to low-wealth, rural, and federally-connected schools.36 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 Con-
ference with the Senate. This same thing occurred in the 116th
Congress, when H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, the comprehen-
sive infrastructure bill of that Congress, passed the House with the
inclusion of the Reopen and Rebuild America’s Schools Act, only to
be stripped out in negotiation with the Senate. As H.R. 2 was the
starting point for negotiation of H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure In-
vestment and Jobs Act, school infrastructure was once again ex-
cluded from a generational federal investment in infrastructure.37
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.
Since 2009, as states have slowly recovered from the Great Re-
cession, the need for federal investment in public school construc-
tion has only grown. Half of states spend less on education now
than they did before the Recession.38 As Mary Filardo noted in her
testimony before the Committee this Congress, ‘‘States provided
only 18 percent toward district capital construction projects over 20
years from 1994 to 2013, resulting in nearly half a trillion in long-
term debt for local school districts.’’ 39 A recent report, authored by
Ms. Filardo, finds that states continue to underinvest in public
school facilities. From 2017 to 2019, states and districts spent $110
billion annually, on average, on preK–12 facilities—leaving an an-
nual gap of $85 billion.40 Of note, this spending gap has nearly
doubled since the report was first published in 2016, due in part
to the rising cost of school construction and a decline in school fa-
cilities expenditures after the great recession.
The state of school infrastructure was one of many issues facing
Congress when attempting to provide funds to fight the COVID–19
global pandemic. Over the last two years, Congress has authorized
additional funds in the form of COVID–19 emergency relief, which
senior living facilities, and town halls. THE LIVING NEW DEAL, http://livingnewdeal.org (last vis-
ited Jul. 21, 2019).
35 CASSANDRIA DORTCH, CONG. RESEARCH SERV. R41142, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVA-
TION: A REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS 3–4 (2013).
36 Id. at 4.
37 Pub. L. No. 117–58, 135 Stat. 429, (2021).
38 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.
39 Building Back Better: Investing in Improving Schools, Creating Jobs, and Strengthening
Families and our Economy: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 117th Cong. (2021)
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
(statement of Mary Filardo, Executive Director, 21st Century School Fund).
40 Filardo, supra note 26, at 14.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
35
can be leveraged for certain school facility repairs. On March 27,
2020, Congress provided $13.2 billion for K–12 schools to respond
to and recover from the COVID–19 pandemic through the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of
2021 via the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
(ESSER) fund.41 Congress provided an additional $54.3 billion via
the ESSER fund under the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021,and an historic $122 billion for the ESSER fund under the
American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021.42 SEAs and LEAs can
use ESSER funds for a wide range of activities to respond to and
recover from the pandemic, including for school construction, as
this construction is authorized in title VII of ESEA. The definition
of ‘‘construction’’ in title VII includes new construction, as well as
remodeling, alterations, renovations, and repairs.43 In May of 2021,
the Department released guidance, which clarifies that renovation
or remodeling activities necessary for an LEA to prevent, prepare
for, or respond to COVID–19 are permissible uses of ESSER
funds.44 This includes renovations that support effective cleaning,
social distancing, or ventilation. However, the guidance dissuades
LEAs from using ESSER funds for new construction, given the ex-
tended timing and costly nature of such projects and the likelihood
that such spending would limit school districts from supporting
other necessary needs or initiatives.
An analysis of LEA spending plans from FutureEd, a think tank
at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, indi-
cates that over half of school districts intend to spend ESSER
funds to improve or replace heating, ventilation, and air condi-
tioning (HVAC) systems.45 This includes purchasing new filters for
pre-existing units or replacing faulty HVAC systems entirely. For
example, Los Angeles Unified School District has budgeted $50 mil-
lion in ARP ESSER funds to purchase 55,000 portable air puri-
fiers.46 Likewise, St. Joseph’s School District in Missouri has budg-
eted $25 million for HVAC upgrades.47 Of note, these expenditures
are among the most expensive priorities for school districts, aver-
aging approximately $400 per student.48 The report additionally
finds that 31 percent of school districts plan to invest in facilities
repairs to prevent illness, while approximately 10 percent of school
districts plan to invest in additions to existing school buildings.49
While ARP ESSER funds have provided districts with critical re-
sources to reopen school buildings safely in the COVID–19 pan-
demic, including by improving indoor air quality and enabling so-
41 Pub. L. No. 116–136, § § 18001, 18003, 134 Stat. 281, 564–567.
42 Pub. L. No. 116–260, § § 311, 313, 134 Stat. 1924, 1929–32 (Division M of this law may be
referred to as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA)
of 2021); Pub. L. No. 117–2, § 2001, 135 Stat. 4,19.
43 20 U.S.C. § 7713(c).
44 U.S. Dept. of Educ., Frequently Asked Questions, Elementary and Secondary School Emer-
gency Relief Programs, Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Programs, (May 2021), https://
oese.ed.gov/files/2021/05/ESSER.GEER_.FAQs_5.26.21_745AM_FINALb0cd6833f6f46e03ba2d97d
30aff953260028045f9ef3b18ea602db4b32b1d99.pdf.
45 Phyllis W. Jordan & Bella DiMarco, National, Regional Trends in Educators’ Covid-Relief
Spending, FutureEd (March 1, 2022), https://www.future-ed.org/national-reading-trends-covid-
relief-spending/. The FutureEd study analyzed approximately 72% of districts and about 2,364
districts planned to use ESSER funds on HVAC. This study could only assess plans as reporting
on actual expenditures at the district level is not yet available.
46 Id.
47 Id.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
48 Id.
49 Id.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
36
cial distancing, there remains significant need with regard to
school construction generally. As Ms. Filardo noted in her testi-
mony before the Committee, based on analysis of 12 states with fa-
cilities maintenance backlogs, if districts in those 12 states dedi-
cated 15 percent of their ARP allocation to school facilities improve-
ments, such an investment would only cover three percent of the
total school facilities needs in those states.50 She explained,
‘‘So it’s fantastic what we’re getting from the [American]
Rescue Plan for our school districts, but it just in no way
makes progress against the really long-term issues we’re
facing for resilient schools, for energy efficient schools, for
you know, schools that we really need to meet the work-
force and early childhood requirements that we know are
a part of the responsibilities of our communities.’’ 51
Despite the size and scope of the unmet need for capital invest-
ments, Committee Republicans sought to prevent school districts
from accessing direct funding for school construction, proposed
under H.R. 604, until all ESSER funds have been expended. An
amendment proposing such, introduced by Rep. Christopher Jacobs
(R–NY), was defeated on a recorded vote of 27–19.
This amendment is just one example of efforts minority Members
of the Committee advocated to delay or otherwise obstruct H.R.
604’s provisions from providing schools with needed funding. In
statements during the markup of H.R. 604, Republican members of
the Committee expressed fundamental concerns with spending fed-
eral funds on school infrastructure. However, the unmet need for
capital investments is not merely a philosophical debate about fed-
eralism. As long as states maintain these inequitable funding sys-
tems, 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.52 In-
creasingly, citizens are holding their state governments account-
able; there are currently 12 states facing lawsuits for inadequate
or inequitable education funding.53
Inequitable school funding is not simply a question of fairness on
paper. It creates life-long consequences that bar individual eco-
nomic 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’s view that Congress must keep its promise to close the
gap in educational quality and equality. School funding makes a
marked difference in the quality of education a student receives—
50 Building Back Better: Investing in Improving Schools, Creating Jobs, and Strengthening
Families and our Economy: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 117th Cong. (2021)
(statement of Mary Filardo, Executive Director, 21st Century School Fund).
51 Id.
52 Morgan & Amerikaner, supra note 17, at 4.
53 Ctr. for Educational Equity, Teachers College, School Funding.info (last visited Oct. 25,
2022), http://www.schoolfunding.info/litigation-map/. The states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Dela-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
ware, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
37
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. 604 addresses unsafe learning and working conditions and
other deficits caused by inadequate school infrastructure fund-
ing
On any given school day, nearly one-sixth of Americans spend
time in one of our country’s approximately 100,000 public K–12
school facilities.54 On average these facilities are nearly 50 years
old.55 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 stu-
dent and staff absences, and reduce suspensions.56 As the setting
for learning, public school facility conditions either hinder or help
student performance.57 Despite the positive effects of adequate fa-
cilities, far too many children and adults continue to learn and
work in public schools that are unsafe and unhealthy.
It is well-documented that our nation’s public school facilities
pose significant health and safety threats to many of the more than
49 million students 58 and 3 million teachers.59 Despite an expand-
ing 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.60 Low air circulation has been linked to missed school
days for respiratory infections and asthma exacerbation and in-
creased student visits to the nurse.61 Time has not significantly im-
proved such deplorable conditions. More than 20 years later, re-
ports of poor air quality in schools persist.62 The GAO report on
school facilities released in June of 2020, found that four in 10
school districts need to update or replace HVAC systems in at least
54 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/infra
structure-priority-actions-report.pdf.
55 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.
56 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.
57 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.
58 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Inst. of Educ. Scis, Report on the Condition of Education in 2022, (2022)
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022144.pdf.
59 LINDSAY BAKER & HARVEY BERNSTEIN, THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON STU-
DENT HEALTH AND PERFORMANCE (2012) available at http://centerforgreenschools.org/sites/
default/files/resource-files/McGrawHill_ImpactOnHealth.pdf.
60 See AMERICA’S SCHOOLS REPORT DIFFERING CONDITIONS, supra note 22, at 43.
61 Oluyemi Toyinbo, et al., Modeling Associations between Principals’ Reported Indoor Environ-
mental 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.
62 Courtney Vaughn and Nick Budnick, Portland teacher fights to fix school’s air quality,
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
PORTLAND TRIB., June 27, 2019, available at https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/432100-
340532-portland-teacher-fights-to-fix-schools-air-quality.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
38
half their schools—this represents 36,000 schools nationwide.63
This latest GAO report included visits to schools in Rhode Island
and Michigan where they found some HVAC systems over a cen-
tury old.64 Research also shows a correlation between test scores
and air temperature,65 yet due to financial constraints, many
schools across the country cannot afford to replace or even main-
tain HVAC units. There have been multiple documented accounts
in the last ten years of public schools in the United States that
have either been forced to close due to rising summer tempera-
tures 66 or have had students and teachers ‘‘bundled up’’ to with-
stand winter weather indoors.67
Moreover, the COVID–19 pandemic has made properly func-
tioning HVAC systems even more critical. To prevent the spread of
COVID–19 in schools, the Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion (CDC) has recommended that schools ‘‘optimize ventilation and
improve indoor air quality.’’ 68 To achieve this objective, the CDC
suggests bringing outdoor air inside by safely opening windows and
doors, ensuring that HVAC systems are serviced and set to maxi-
mize ventilation, and filtering or cleaning air through the use of
portable air cleaners.69 For reintroduction in the 117th Congress,
changes were made to Rebuild America’s Schools Act to address the
significant barrier that outdated school facilities posed to improv-
ing ventilation and safely reopening classrooms for in-person learn-
ing. Specifically, in the first fiscal year, the bill would require that
states prioritize subgrants to fund capital projects that are in line
with CDC guidance, with mention of activities to improve indoor
air quality. Additionally, the bill would require that states collect
data on facility improvements needed to support COVID–19 mitiga-
tion strategies, consistent with CDC guidance, for each public
school facility in the state’s jurisdiction.
During markup, Rep. McClain introduced an amendment to
strike these provisions from the bill, arguing without evidence that
the COVID–19 prevention strategies recommended by the CDC are
no longer necessary to keep students and staff. Currently, the CDC
recommends that improving ventilation is an important strategy to
safely maintain operations—particularly in communities with me-
dium to high COVID–19 levels.70 Further, if a school experiences
a COVID–19 outbreak, the CDC advises adding prevention strate-
gies regardless of COVID–19 levels within the community. While
99 percent of schools were open for in-person learning as of April
2022,71 new highly infectious coronavirus variants continue to de-
63 GAO–20–494, supra note 27, at 8.
64 Id. at 9.
65 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_pro
duction_-_j_park_-_2-26-17.pdf.
66 Lillian Reed, About 35 Baltimore-area schools without air conditioning dismiss early amid
June heat wave, BALTIMORE SUN (June 7, 2021), available at https://www.baltimoresun.com/
education/bs-md-schools-close-heat-20210607-20210607-2big6ph46nct3ftc435zvdfdr4-story.html.
68 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Operational Guidance for K-12 Schools and Early
Care and Education Programs to Support Safe In-Person Learning, (May 27, 2022) available at
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-childcare-guidance.
html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fcommu
nity%2Fschools-childcare%2Fk-12-guidance.html.
69 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Ventilation in Schools and Childcare Programs,
(February 26, 2021) available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-
childcare/ventilation.html.
70 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, supra note 67.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
71 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Inst. of Educ. Scis, School Pulse Panel: Key Findings from April 2022,
(April 2022) available at https://ies.ed.gov/schoolsurvey/.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
39
velop, and experts note that widespread infections caused by the
delta and omicron variants resulted in an increased number of
cases in children—including uncommon severe infections and
death.72 Instead of playing politics with the health and safety of
students, teachers, and school staff, Congress should follow the evi-
dence offered by leading public health experts and continue to sup-
port schools in mitigating the spread of COVID–19. Accordingly,
the Committee defeated the McClain amendment on a recorded
vote of 26–19.
The 1996 GAO report also found that 21 percent of schools re-
sponding 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.73 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.74 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 ini-
tiative between January 1, 2016 and February 28, 2018.75 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,76 is endemic of the
state of our school infrastructure crisis.77 H.R. 604 would require
states to review and issue regulations to encourage safe construc-
tion practices and healthy school facilities, thereby ensuring the
most effective use of the funding provided by the bill.
H.R. 604 also addresses specific dangerous conditions that im-
pact public schools, such as crumbling building foundations.
Pyrrhotite, a naturally-occurring mineral, can cause the rapid dete-
rioration of building foundations when it is found in the concrete
used to pour the foundation. New England generally, and North-
east 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.78 Engi-
72 Johns Hopkins Medicine, COVID Variants: What You Should Know, (April 8, 2022) avail-
able at https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-
strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know.
73 AMERICA’S SCHOOLS REPORT DIFFERING CONDITIONS, supra note 22, at 5–6.
74 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.
75 ANGIE CRADOCK, ET AL., EARLY ADOPTERS: STATE APPROACHES TO TESTING SCHOOL DRINK-
ING 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.
76 Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 91–695, 84 Stat. 2078 (1971).
77 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.
78 George Colli, Courtney Tours Crumbling School in Tolland, WTNH NEWS 8, Mar. 5, 2019,
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
available at https://www.wtnh.com/news/news-8-investigators/courtney-tours-crumbling-school-
in-tolland/1829040015.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
40
neers 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.
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 pre-
caution of moving students to temporary classroom sites while
LEAs consider or acquire the financial means to rebuild.79 Repairs
can cost a school community millions of dollars and take up to two
years for each affected school. Title VI 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.
There are other issues caused by the lack of investment in edu-
cational infrastructure addressed in H.R. 604. The Committee rec-
ognizes the overcrowding problem schools face as student popu-
lations 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. 604 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 en-
ergy 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. 604 funds can be used to ensure safe drink-
ing 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 Re-
habilitation Act of 1973. And, recognizing the classroom of yester-
day and the classroom of tomorrow are not the same, grants and
bonds under H.R. 604 may be used to build appropriate instruc-
tional 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 facili-
ties that house or support school-provided services is also covered
under the bill.
79 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-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
wide-meeting-held-to-discuss-crumbling-foundation-at-tolland/article_e5842d46-3f43-11e9-ae92-bf
d158ac6ff5.html.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
41
H.R. 604 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 nat-
ural disasters. H.R. 604 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 con-
struction budgets. The Impact Aid program, which provides funds
for the operations of these school districts, also includes a line item
specifically for school construction.80 While support for school con-
struction via Impact Aid has been a longstanding federal invest-
ment, the amount authorized and appropriated is relatively low in
the face of the outsized need.81 H.R. 604 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.
The federal government also provides grant funding via the Fed-
eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to public entities for
school repair or new school construction in the wake of a federally
declared disaster. H.R. 604 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 nat-
ural disasters. In 2018, thirteen federal agencies 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.82 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 hurri-
canes, and schools in inland areas are impacted by record-setting
seasonal flooding.83 According to a CRS report of federal disaster
relief funds, the U.S. has spent approximately $5.7 billion just be-
tween fiscal years 2005 and 2017 repairing public school facilities
that have not withstood major natural disasters.
H.R. 604 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. 604 can be used to mitigate threats
80 20 U.S.C. § 7714(d)(2012).
81 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.
82 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/.
83 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, avail-
able 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Climate Change, WIRED, May 4, 2019, available at https://www.wired.com/story/for-the-midwest-
epic-flooding-is-the-face-of-climate-change/.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
42
posed by climate change and natural disasters before they occur,
allowing communities to proactively prepare for coming disasters.
This is particularly important for low-wealth communities. A 2022
report from the GAO found that low-income school districts can be
denied FEMA funds or receive less FEMA funds to cover recovery
costs after a natural disaster due to issues with deferred mainte-
nance.84 Poorer districts often do not have sufficient staffing to
maintain the necessary records to prove that damage was caused
by the disaster, rather than neglect. Second, FEMA funds are pro-
vided only to restore facilities to pre-disaster conditions. This res-
toration 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,85 destroyed public
schools with tin roofs in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mar-
iana Islands.86 In a time of increasingly volatile global tempera-
tures that, will result in more frequent and more powerful natural
disasters,87 mandating that these destroyed tin roofs be replaced
with new tin roofs and not with more resilient roofs is shortsighted.
Under H.R. 604, grant funds could be used for seismic retrofitting,
protecting existing buildings from the elements, hazard resistance,
and decarbonization. And to ensure that new construction with fed-
eral dollars does not exacerbate climate change, all construction
projects funded under H.R. 604 must be certified, verified, or con-
sistent with green building standards or rating systems, including
the LEED Green Building Rating System, the Living Building
Challenge, a green building rating system developed by the Col-
laborative for High-Performance Schools (CHPS), the Green Build-
ing Initiative Green Globes rating system, or a more stringent
standard or rating system.
H.R. 604 promotes effective school safety design
The Committee recognizes all public school facilities must be
safe, secure, and welcoming for students and staff. H.R. 604 allows
for funding to be used on creating building designs that address se-
curity. The Committee believes the best way to address a school
building’s physical security issuesis as part of a modernization and
rehabilitation program. Secure and intentional building design con-
siders student health, productivity, and sense of safety. Architects
were able to design a safer school campus for Sandy Hook Elemen-
tary School in Newtown, Connecticut by using best design practices
such as creating more visibility and using a layered strategic ap-
proach to mitigate threats.88 For example, the newly designed
84 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO–22–104606, Disaster Recovery: School Districts in So-
cially Vulnerable Communities Faced Heightened Challenges after Recent Natural Disasters,
22, (2022), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104606.pdf.
85 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/.
86 This is Not a Drill: Education-Related Response and Recovery in the Wake of Natural Disas-
ters: Hearing Before H. Subcomm. on Early Childhood, Elem. & Sec. Educ. of the H. Comm. on
Educ. & Lab., 116th Cong. (2019) (statement of Glenn Muña, Commissioner, CNMI Public
School System) available at https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Muna%20Testimony
%20060519.pdf.
87 See sources cited supra note 58.
88 Tom Dobbins, Sandy Hook School Architect Testifies in Front of Congress About School Safe-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
ty, ARCH DAILY, (8:00 am, Aug. 25, 2018) available at https://www.archdaily.com/900588/speak
ing-to-congress-jay-brotman-outlines-how-the-profession-intends-to-improve-school-safety; But see
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
43
school allows for more natural light, which has been shown to in-
crease productivity, not necessarily more physical barriers that
make students feel barricaded as they are learning.
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. 604. The research failed to conclude
that hardening—such as in the form of fewer windows, metal de-
tectors, intrusive surveillance systems, physical traits evident in
prisons—actually makes schools safer.89 On the contrary, studies
show students feel less safe because of the presence of such hard-
ening, so its use is not authorized here.90
H.R. 604 provides transparency to hold government accountable for
state of school facilities
Local, state, and federal law created our nation’s universal sys-
tem of free public education. Its goal is to provide all children, re-
gardless of family wealth or zip code, quality schooling in a safe
learning environment. Sadly, the government at all levels has bro-
ken this promise to many communities. Children are compelled to
learn in decrepit facilities that not only deny them equity of edu-
cational opportunity but are also making them sick. Mary Filardo
pointed out in her testimony that her life’s work was inspired by
‘‘Seeing that [her] children and so many others were spending their
school days in classrooms that were baking hot, or too cold, and
buildings with leaky roofs, fire code violations, asbestos, and poor
air quality.’’ 91 Government must act boldly to remedy this injustice
and make good on its promise of a safe and healthy public school
for every child.
The Committee notes that H.R. 604 proposes a comprehensive so-
lution that brings all levels of government together to close our
education infrastructure gap. Under H.R. 604, the federal govern-
ment 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 comprehen-
sive, 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
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).
89 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/.
90 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/
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
464445/smart-investments-safer-schools/.
91 Building Back Better, supra note 38.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
44
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 regula-
tions and issue updated regulations if necessary to ensure safe con-
struction practices and healthy school environments.
Conclusion
H.R. 604 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. 604 will bring public edu-
cation closer to achieving the equality promised in Brown, and help
ensure that every student, regardless of his or her zip code or fam-
ily 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 2022.’’
Section 2. Definitions
This section provides definitions for the terms ‘‘appropriate con-
gressional committees,’’ ‘‘Bureau-funded school,’’ ‘‘covered funds,’’
‘‘elementary school,’’ ‘‘local educational agency,’’ ‘‘outlying area,’’
‘‘secondary school,’’ ‘‘public school facilities,’’ ‘‘qualified local edu-
cational agency,’’ ‘‘school infrastructure bond,’’ ‘‘Secretary’’, ‘‘State’’,
and ‘‘net 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 re-
serves 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 Edu-
cation (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-per-
forming buildings and develop an online, publicly searchable data-
base that outlines the condition of all public school facilities in the
state. Other state requirements include a 10 percent matching re-
quirement, a maintenance of effort assurance, and a supplement-
not-supplant assurance. The matching requirement additionally al-
lows States to use federal sources in fiscal years when appropria-
tions exceed $7 billion. This section also requires that states sub-
mit a plan to the Secretary of Education for approval to carry out
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
the competitive grant program described in section 103.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
45
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 mul-
tiple eligibility criteria.
All qualified LEAs in the state with the highest numbers of stu-
dents counted under section 1124(c) of ESEA must be considered
eligible for a need-based grant. All LEAs in the state with the high-
est 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 num-
ber and a high percentage of ESEA Title I-counted students.
The state is expected to set both number and percentage thresh-
olds 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 dem-
onstrating the highest number of ESEA Title I-counted students
and those agencies demonstrating the highest percentage of ESEA
Title I-counted students respectively.
Additionally, the state shall 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 eli-
gible for the free and reduced priced lunch program.
For fiscal year (FY) 2023, the state will give priority in awarding
funds to qualified LEAs that will use the funds to improve the fa-
cilities of schools to mitigate the spread of the COVID–19 virus in
line with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention (CDC). Once the state prioritizes these projects, the state
may use any remining funds to award grants to other qualified
LEAs.
In all other fiscal years, and for any grants the state makes with
remaining funds in FY2023, 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 stu-
dents (both for numbers and for percentages), specific facility im-
provement needs such as proximity to toxic hazards or natural dis-
aster vulnerability, as well as other indicators of need including
age of facilities, over enrollment, condition of major building sys-
tems, 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 op-
erating under a severe health or safety threat. States may also give
priority to eligible LEAs that serve schools that lack access to high-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
speed broadband, including from rural areas, to improve such ac-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:42 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
46
cess, 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 pub-
lic funds or public-private partnerships to increase broadband ac-
cess. The state also must ensure that grants are awarded to quali-
fied LEAs that represent the geographic diversity of the state.
This section also outlines application requirements for qualified
LEAs to compete for need-based grants. LEA applications must in-
clude the information necessary for states to determine if an LEA
is qualified to receive a grant, as described above. LEA applications
must also include a description of the projects the agency will carry
out with the grant, along with an explanation of how such projects
will improve the health and safety of staff, learning and equity for
students, energy and water efficiency, and climate mitigation.
No later than 180 days after receiving a need-based grant, LEAs
are required to submit a comprehensive 10-year facilities master
plan to the state. In developing the facilities master plan, LEAs
must consult with key stakeholders, including teachers, principals,
and other school leaders. Bureau funded schools are also required
to consult with the Bureau of Indian Education.
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 stu-
dents attending schools that used funds from the grant program.
Section 105. Authorization of appropriations
$100 billion total is authorized for title I of this Act from FY2023
through FY2032.
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 add-
ing ‘‘Section 54BB. School Infrastructure Bonds.’’ Section 202 des-
ignates a total national bond limitation of $30 billion for qualified
school infrastructure bonds (QSIBs), $10 billion each for FY2022,
FY2023, and FY2024. 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-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
speed broadband sufficient for digital learning.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
47
Section 202 also allocates bond authority to states based on the
proportion of funds that states receive under ESEA Title I. It re-
quires that the federal government provide a tax credit of 100 per-
cent 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 out-
lined in section 103 in distribution of bond authority to LEAs, ex-
cluding 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 pro-
gram 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, maintain, or update the facilities
master plan required under section 103(e) and generally to con-
struct, 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 ret-
rofitting to bring facilities up to code to withstand other natural
disasters, or otherwise bring facilities to compliance for fire, safety,
and other health codes. Funds may also be used to decarbonize
public school facilities through the adoption of all-electric space and
water hearing systems and kitchen equipment, in addition to other
energy efficiency improvements.
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 improve-
ment of public playgrounds. Allowable uses also include: improve-
ments to building exteriors and interiors to ensure they are well-
protected and secure; major repairs or new investments in HVAC
systems, which may include deferred maintenance costs; improve-
ments to energy and water efficiency to lower costs and energy con-
sumption 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 stu-
dents 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 serv-
ices; and any construction to expand or support facilities that house
or support school-provided services. LEAs may also use funds to le-
verage existing public programs or public private partnerships to
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
increase broadband access.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
48
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. Ad-
ditionally, funds may not be used for the facilities of for-profit char-
ter schools or self-dealing charter schools in which the school leases
the facilities from a for-profit entity or from an individual who has
a management or governance role and indirect or direct financial
interest in the school.
Section 303. Requirements for hazard-resistance and energy and
water conservation
Section 303 requires LEAs that receive funds for new construc-
tion 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 Conserva-
tion Act, 42 U.S.C. 6294b. New construction must meet or exceed
indoor environmental air quality requirements as set forth in a na-
tionally-published or recognized code or standard.
Section 304. Green practices
Section 304 requires LEAs that receive funds for new construc-
tion to ensure that projects are certified, verified, or consistent with
the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design green building rating standard, the Liv-
ing Building Challenge, a green building rating program developed
by the Collaborative for High-Performance Schools, the Green
Building Initiative Green Globes rating system, or a program with
more stringent standards.
Section 305. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured prod-
ucts
This section includes a ‘‘Buy America’’ provision for iron, steel,
and manufactured products.
TITLE IV—REPORTS AND OTHER MATTERS
Section 401. Comptroller General
This section requires the Comptroller General to submit to Con-
gress 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 ac-
cessible to high-poverty schools and those with fiscal capacities.
Section 402. 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 pub-
lic 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
wealth schools.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
49
Section 403. Office of School Infrastructure and Sustainability
This section requires that the Secretary of Education establish
an Office of School Infrastructure and Sustainability within the De-
partment of Education.
Section 404. Development of data standards
This section requires that the Secretary of Education, in con-
sultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Cen-
ters 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 405. Information clearinghouse
The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the officials in
section 307, must disseminate information to schools on financing
for green projects.
Section 406. Sense of Congress on opportunity zones
This section expresses a sense of Congress that opportunity
zones, when combined with public infrastructure investment, can
provide an innovative approach to rebuild local schools and econo-
mies.
TITLE V—IMPACT AID CONSTRUCTION
Section 501. Temporary increase in funding for Impact Aid Con-
struction
This title temporarily increases funding for the Impact Aid Con-
struction program under ESEA by $500 million over fiscal years
2023 through 2027.
TITLE VI—ASSISTANCE FOR REPAIR OF SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS
AFFECTED BY PYRRHOTITE
Section 601. Allocations to states
The Secretary of Education is directed to create a program, with-
in 180 days of the bill’s enactment into law, that would provide fed-
eral funding to states to distribute grants to LEAs for the repair
or replacement of crumbling foundations due to pyrrhotite. It re-
quires 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 602. 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 pro-
vision becoming law. LEAs must demonstrate that the school con-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
tains pyrrhotite in the foundation through proper laboratory, core,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
50
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 require-
ments, 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 in-
curred 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 receiv-
ing the application from the state, the Secretary must either ap-
prove or deny the application. If the Secretary approves the appli-
cation, 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 reimburse-
ment 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 integ-
rity of the school to the health and safety standards outlined by the
project’s architect or engineer, and to restore the school to the con-
dition 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 fund-
ing 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. Pro-
hibited items include desks, chairs, electronics, sports equipment,
or other school supplies. Any other activities not explicitly de-
scribed in the ‘‘allowable uses’’’ section are also prohibited. LEAs
may not use funds under this title and title I for the same project.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
51
Section 603. Definitions
This section defines the terms ‘‘Pyrrhotite-affected school’’ and
‘‘qualified contractor’’.
Section 604. Authorization of appropriations
This section requires funds to be authorized to carry out the pro-
gram for fiscal year 2023 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. 604, as amended, does not apply to terms and conditions of
employment or to access to public services or accommodations with-
in the legislative branch.
UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Im-
poundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Un-
funded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. L. 104–4), the Committee tradi-
tionally adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Direc-
tor of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974. The Committee reports that because this cost estimate was
not timely submitted to the Committee before the filing of this re-
port, the Committee is not in a position to make a cost estimate
for H.R. 604, as amended..
EARMARK STATEMENT
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, H.R. 604 does not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as de-
scribed 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. 604:
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
52
Date: 05/18/2022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE
Roll Call:1 Bill: H,R.604 Amendment Numhcr:2
Disposition: Defeated by a roll call vote of 19-26
Sponsor/Amendment: Steel I HR604_RAMD_05
;\iame&Starn Aye N"o v~'.;,, Name&State No Vmmg
l'vfr. SCOTT (VA) (Chairman) X Mrs. FOXX (NC) (Ranking) X
Mr.GRIJALVA(AZ) X Mr. W!LSON (SC) X
Mr. COURNTEY (CT) X i Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X
Mr. SABLAN (MP) X Mr. WALBERG (Ml) X
Ms. WILSON (FL) X Mr. GROTHMAN (WI) X
Ms. BONAMICI (OR) X Ms. STEFANIK (NY) X
Mr. TAKANO (CA) X Mr. ALLEN (GA) X
Ms. ADAMS (NC) X Mr. BANKS (IN) X
Mr. DESAULNIER (CA) X Mr. COMER (KY) X
Mr. NORCROSS (NJ) X I Mr. FULCHER (ID) X
Ms. JAYAPAL (WA) X I Mr. KELLER (PA) X
Mr. MORELLE (NY) X I Mr. MURPHY (NC) X
Ms. WILD (PA) X Ms. MILLER-MEEKS (IA) X
Mrs. MCBATH (GA) X Mr. OWENS (UT) X
Mrs. HA YES (CT) X Mr.GOOD(VA) X
Mr. LEVIN (Ml) X :Vlrs. MCCLAIN (Ml) X
Ms. OMAR (MN) X Mrs. HARSHBARGER (TN) X
Ms. STEVENS (Ml) X :Vlrs, MILLER (IL) X
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ (NM) X Mrs. SPARTZ (IN) X
Mr. JONES (NY) X 'Mr. FITZGERALD (WI) X
Ms, MANNING (NC) X Mr. CAWTHORN (NC) X
Mr.MRVAN(!N) X Mrs. STEEL (CA) ~
Mr. BOWMAN (NY) X Mr. JACOBS (NY) X
Mrs. SHERFlUJS-MCCORMICK (FL) X Vacancy
Mr. POCAN (WI) X Vacancy
Mr. CASTRO (TX) X
Ms, SHERRILL (NJ) X
Mr. ESPAILLAT (NY) X
Mr. KWEISI MFUME (MD) X
TOTALS: Ayes: 19 Nos:26 NmVoting:6
Total: 53 / Quorum: / Report:
(29 D-24 R)
A Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted AYE if present at time of vote.
*Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted NO If present at time of vote.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Insert graphic folio 53 here HR607.001
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
53
Date: 0511812022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR RECORD 01' COMMITTEE VOTE
Roll Call:2 Bill:H.R.604 Amendment Number:3
Disposition: Defeated by a roll call vote. of 19-26
Sponsor/Amendment: McClain/ HR604_RAMD_02
:Jrnrn,&St:ite Aye No v~'.;, Name&St:ite No J;,::g
Mr SCOTT (VA) (Chairman) X Mrs. FOXX (NC) (Ranking) X
Mr.GRIJALVA (AZ) X Mr. WILSON (SC) X
Mr. COURNTEY (CT) X Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X
Mr. SABLAN (MP) X Mr WALBERG(Ml) X
Ms. WILSON (FL) X Mr. GROTHMAN (WI) X
Ms. BONAM!Cl (OR) X Ms. STEFANIK (NY) X
Mr. TAKANO (CA) X Mr. ALLEN (GA) X
Ms. ADMlS (NC) X Mr. BANKS (IN) X
Mr. DESAULNIER (CA) X Mr. COMER (KY) X
Mr. NORCROSS (NJ) X Mr FULCHER (ID) X
Ms. JAYAPAL (WA) X Mr KELLER (PA) X
Mr MORELLE (NY) X Mr MURPHY (NC) X
Ms. WILD (PA) X Ms. MILLER-MEEKS (IA) X
Mrs. MCBATH (GA) X Mr OWENS (UT) X
Mrs. HAYES (CT) X MrGOOD(VA) X
Mr. LEVIN (Ml) X Mrs. MCCLAIN (Ml) X
Ms. OMAR (/VIN) X Mrs. HARSHBARGER (TN) X
'.Is. STEVENS (Ml) X Mrs. MILLER (IL) X
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ (NM) X Mrs. SPARTZ (IN) X
Mr JONES (NY) X Mr FITZGERALD (WI) X
Ms. MANNING (NC) X Mr. CAWTHORN (NC) X
Mr. MRVAN (IN) X Mrs. STEEL (CA) X
Mr. BOWMAN (NY) X Mr. JACOBS (NY) X
Mrs. SHERFfLUS-MCCORMICK (FL) X Vacancy
Mr. POCAN (WI) X Vacancy
Mr. CASTRO (TX) X
Ms. SHERRILL (NJ) X
Mr. ESPAILLAT (NY) X
Mr. KWEISI MFUME (MD) X
TOTALS: Ayes: 19 Nos:26 Not Voting:6
Total: 53 / Quorum: / R.!port:
(29D · 24 R)
''Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted AYE if present at time of vote,
"Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted NO if present at time of vote,
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Insert graphic folio 54 here HR607.002
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
54
Date: 05/18/2022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE
Roll Call:3 Bill: H.R.604 Amendment Number:4
Disposition: Defeated by a roll call vote of 18-26
Sponsor/Amendment: Grothman I HR604_RAMD_04
Ayc:> :\o v~,'.;g Namc&Stah:, '\io
Vo,mg
Mr. SCOTT (VA) (Chainnan) X Mrs. FOXX (NC) (Ranking) X
Mr. GRIJALVA (AZ) X Mr. WILSON (SC) X
Mr. COLRNTEY (CT) X Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X
Mr. SABLAN (MP) X Mr. WALBERG (Ml) X
Ms. WILSON (FL) X ! Mr. GROTHMAN (WI) X
Ms. BONAMICI (OR) X Ms. STEFANIK (NY) X
Mr. TAKANO (CA) X Mr. ALLEN (GA) X
Ms. ADAMS (NC) X Mr. BANKS (TN) X
Mr. DESAULNIER (CA) X Mr. COMER (KY) X
Mr. NORCROSS (NJ) X Mr. FULCHER (ID) X
Ms. JAYAPAL (WA) X Mr. KELLER (PA) X
Mr. MORELLE (NY) X Mr. MURPHY (NC) X
Ms. WILD (PA) X Ms. MILLER-MEEKS (IA) X
Mrs. MCBATH (GA) X Mr. OWENS (UT) X
Mrs. HAYES (CT) X Mr.GOOD(VA) X
Mr. LEVfN (Ml) X Mrs. MCCLAIN (MI) X
Ms. OMAR (MN) X Mrs. HARSHBARGER (TN) X
Ms. STEVENS (Ml) X Mrs. MILLER (IL) X
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ (NM) X Mrs. SPARTZ (ll\) X
Mr. JONES (NY) X Mr. FITZGERALD (Wl) X
Ms. MANNING (NC) X Mr. CAWTHORN (NC) X
Mr. MRVAN (TN) X i Mrs. STEEL (CA) ~
Mr. BOWMAN (NY) X Mr. JACOBS (NY) X
Mrs, SHERFILUS-MCCORMICK (FL) X Vacancy
Mr. POCAN (WI) X J,'acan(v
Mr. CASTRO (TX) X
Ms. SHERRILL (NJ) X
Mr. ESPAILLAT (NY) X
Mr. KWE!Sl MFUME (MD) X
TOTALS: Ayes: 18 Nos:26 NotVoting:7
rota!: 53 I Quorum: I Report:
(29D-24R)
"Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she woufd have voted AYE if present at time of vote.
*Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted NO if present at time of vote,
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Insert graphic folio 55 here HR607.003
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
55
Date: 0511812G;
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE
Roll Call=4 Bill:H.R.604 Amendment Nmnber:5
Disposition: Defeated by a roll call vote of 19-27
Sponsor/ Amendment: Good I HR604_RAMD_06
Ave
Name&State Aye
Vmmg I Nmue&Stute
Vmmg
Mr. SCOTT (VA) (Chairman) X IMrs. FOXX (NC) (Ranking) X
Mr. GRJJALVA (AZ) X Mr. WILSON (SC) X
Mr. COlJRNTEY (CT) X Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X
Mr. SABLAN (MP) X Mr. WALBERG (Ml) X
Ms. WILSON (FL) X Mr. GROTHl'vlAN (WI) X
Ms. BONAMICI (OR) X Ms. STEFANIK(NY) X
Mr. TAKANO (CA) X Mr. ALLEN (GA) X
Ms. ADAMS (NC) X Mr. BANKS (IN) X
Mr. DESAULN[ER(CA) X Mr. COMER (KY) X
Mr. NORCROSS (NJ) X Mr. Fl'LCHER (ID) X
Ms. JAYAPAL (WA) X Mr. KELLER (PA) X
Mr. MORELLE (NY) X Mr. MURPHY (NC) X
Ms. WILD (PA) X Ms. MILLER-MEEKS (IA) X
Mrs. MCBATH (GA) X Mr. OWENS (UT) X
Mrs. HAYES (CT) X Mr.GOOD(VA) X
Mr. LEVIN (Ml) X Mrs. MCCLAIN (Ml) X
Ms. OMAR(l'v!N) X Mrs. HARSHBARGER (TN) X
Ms. STEVENS (Ml) X Mrs. MILLER (IL) X
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ (NM) X Mrs. SPARTZ (IN) X
Mr. JONES (NY) X Mr. FITZGERALD (WI) X
Ms. MANNING (NC) X Mr. CAWTHORN (NC) X
Mr. MRVAN (IN) X Mrs. STEEL (CA) )(
Mr. BOWMAN (NY) X Mr. JACOBS (NY) X
Mrs. SHERFH.US-MCCORivUCK (FL) X vacancy
Mr. POC:AN (WI) X Vacancy
Mr. CASTRO (TX) X
Ms. SHERRILL (NJ) X
Mr. ESPAILLAT (NY) X I
Mr. KWE!Sl MFUME (MD) X
TOTALS: Ayes: 19 Nos:27 Not Voting: 5
Total: 53 / Quorum: / Report:
(29D-24 R)
'Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted AYE if present at time of vote.
*Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she woutd have voted NO if present at time of vote.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Insert graphic folio 56 here HR607.004
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
56
Date: 05/18/2022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE
Roll Call:5 Bill: H.R.604 Amendment Number:6
Disposition: Defeated by a roll call vote of 19-28
Sponsor/Amendment: Jacobs I HR604_RAMD_03
No v~;;, Name&State No v~'.;,
Mr. SCOTT (VA) (Chairman) X Mrs. FOXX (NC) (Ranking) X
Mr. GRIJALVA (AZ) X Mr. WfLSON (SC) X
Mr. COURNTEY (CT) X Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X
Mr. SABLAN (MP) X Mr. WALBERG (MI) X
Ms. WILSON (FL) X I Mr.GROTHMAN(WI) X
Ms. BONAMIC:I (OR) X Ms. STEF ANfK (NY) X
Mr. TAKANO (CA) X Mr. ALLEN (GA) X
Ms. ADAMS (NC) X Mr. BANKS (IN) X
Mr. DESAULNIER (CA) X Mr. COMER (KY) X
Mr. NORCROSS (NJ) X Mr. FULCHER (ID) X
Ms. JAYAPAL (WA) X Mr. KELLER (PA) X
Mr. MORELLE (NY) X Mr. MURPHY (NC) X
Ms. WILD (PA) X Ms. MILLER-MEEKS (IA) X
Mrs. MCBATH (GA) X Mr. OWENS (UT) X
Mrs. HA YES (CT) X Mr.GOOD(VA) X
Mr. LEVIN (Ml) X Mrs. MCCLAIN (MI) X
Ms. OMAR (MN) X Mrs. HARSHBARGER (TN) X
Ms. STEVENS (Ml) X Mrs. MILLER (IL) X
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ (NM) X Mrs. SPARTZ (IN) X
Mr. JONES (NY) X Mr. FITZGERALD (WI) X
Ms. MANNING (NC) X Mr. CAWTHORN (NC) X
Mr. MRVAN (IN) X Mrs. STEEL (CA) K
Mr. BOWMAN (NY) X Mr. JACOBS (NY) X
Mrs. SHERFILUS-MCCORMTCK (FL) X Vacancy
Mr. POCAN (WI) X Vacancy
Mr. CASTRO (TX) X
Ms. SHERRILL (NJ) X
Mr. ESPAILLAT (NY) X I
Mr. KWE!Sl MFUME (MD) X
TOTALS: Ayes: 19 Nos:28 Not Voting:4
Tota!: 53 / Quorum: / Report:
(29D-24 R)
AAJthough not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted AYE if present at time of vote.
*Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted NO if present at time of vote,
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Insert graphic folio 57 here HR607.005
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
57
Date: 5/18/22
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE
Roll Call:5 Bill:604 Amendment Nmnber:
Disposition: Adopted by Full Committee Roll Call Vote 27-19
Sponsor/Amendment: Courtney motion to report H.R. 604 to the House with an amendment and with the
recommendation that the amendment be agreed to,and the bill do pass
Namc&State Ayo No v~i;g Name&State Aye No V,><mg
Mr. SCOTT (VA) (Chairman) X I:Vlrs. FOXX (NC) (Ranking)
Mr. GR!JALV A (AZ) X I Mr. WILSON (SC) X
Mr. COURNTEY (CT) X Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X
Mr. SABLAN (MP) X Mr. WALBERG (Ml) X
Ms. WILSON (FL) X Mr. GROTHl'vlAN (WI) X
Ms. BONA.MIC! (OR) X Ms. STEFANJK (NY) X
Mr. TA.KANO (CA) X Mr. ALLEN (GA) X
Ms. ADAlMS (NC) X Mr. BANKS (IN) X
Mr. DESAULNIER (CA) X Mr. COMER (KY)
Mr. NORCROSS (NJ) X Mr. FULCHER (ID) X
Ms. JAYAPAL (WA) X Mr. KELLER (PA) X
l'v1r. MORELLE (NY) Mr. MURPHY (NC) X
Ms. WILD (PA) X Ms. MILLER-MEEKS (IA) X
Mrs. MCBATH (GA) X I Mr. OWENS (UT) X
Mrs. HA YES (CT) X Mr.GOOD(VA) X
Mr. LEVIN (Ml) X Mrs. MCCLAIN (Ml) X
Ms. OMAR (MN) X Mrs. HARSHBARGER (TN) X
Ms. STEVENS (Ml) X Mrs. MILLER (IL) X
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ (NM) X Mrs. SPARTZ (IN) X
Mr. JONES (NY) Mr. FITZGERALD (WI) X
Ms. MANNING (NC) X I Mr. CAWTHORN (NC)
Mr.MRVAN (IN) X Mrs. STEEL (CA) X
Mr. BOWMAN (NY) X Mr. JACOBS (NY) X
Mrs. SHERF!lUS-MCCORlvHCK (Fl) X Vacancy
Mr. POCAN (WI) X Vacancy
Mr. CASTRO (TX) X
Ms. SHERRILL (NJ) X
Mr. ESPAILLAT (NY) X
Mr. KWEISI MFUME (MD) X
TOTALS: Ayes: 27 Nos: 19 Not Voting:
Total: 53 I Quorum: / Report:
(29 D-24 R)
"Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted AYE if present at time of vote.
*Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted NO if present at time of vote.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Insert graphic folio 58 here HR607.006
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
58
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. 604 are to ensure equity in
school facilities, 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 con-
ditions 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.
604 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Govern-
ment known to be duplicative of another federal program, a pro-
gram that was included in any report from the Government Ac-
countability 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 April 28, 2021 entitled ‘‘Building Back
Better: Investing in Improving Schools, Creating Jobs, and
Strengthening Families and Our Economy’’ as the legislative hear-
ing that was used to develop or consider H.R. 604. The Committee
heard testimony on a variety of topics in President Biden’s Amer-
ican Jobs Plan, including the poor quality of public school infra-
structure across the country and the need for increased federal in-
vestment to rebuild unsafe school buildings, particularly in areas
of greatest need. Testimony was received from Ms. Mary Filardo,
Founder and Executive Director, 21st Century School Fund, Wash-
ington, DC; Mr. Rasheed Malik, M.P.P., Senior Policy Analyst,
Early Childhood Policy, Center for American Progress, Arlington,
VA; Mr. Mark Mitsui, College President, Portland Community Col-
lege, Portland, OR; Mr. Brian Riedl, Senior Fellow in Budget, Tax,
and Economics, The Manhattan Institute, Alexandria, VA; Mr.
Neal McCluskey, Ph.D., Director, Center for Educational Freedom,
Cato Institute, Washington, DC; Mr. Bob Lanter, Executive Direc-
tor, California Workforce Association, Sacramento, CA.
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 Commit-
tee’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 Congres-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
sional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested but not re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
59
ceived a cost estimate for the bill from the Director of the Congres-
sional Budget Office.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of Representatives re-
quires an estimate and a comparison of the costs that would be in-
curred in carrying out H.R. 604. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that
rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the com-
mittee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate
of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Of-
fice under section 402 of Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974. The Committee reports that because this cost
estimate was not timely submitted to the Committee before the fil-
ing of this report, the Committee is not in a position to make a cost
estimate for H.R. XXXX, as amended.]
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. 604, 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 omit-
ted 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
SUBPART J—SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
* * * * * * *
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
60
Subpart I—QUALIFIED TAX CREDIT BONDS
Sec. 54A Credit to holder of qualified tax credit bonds.
[Title II of H.R. 604 (as reported) provides for language to revive
sections 54A and 54E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ‘‘as in
effect on the day before repeal by Public Law 115–97’’. Sections
54A and 54E, as so restored and further amended by H.R. 604 (as
reported), reads as follows:]
§ 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 dur-
ing 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 re-
spect 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 de-
termined with respect to such bond.
(2) ANNUAL CREDIT.—The annual credit determined with re-
spect 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 esti-
mates 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 end-
ing on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit deter-
mined under this subsection with respect to such credit allow-
ance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit otherwise de-
termined 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 sec-
tion 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 para-
graph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be carried to
the succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
under subsection (a) for such taxable year (determined before
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
61
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’’ ømeans—¿ means a qualified zone academy bond
which is part of an issue that meets requirements of para-
graphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).
ø(A) a qualified forestry conservation bond,
ø(B) a new clean renewable energy bond,
ø(C) a qualified energy conservation bond,
ø(D) a qualified zone academy bond, or
ø(E) a qualified school construction bond,
which is part¿
(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 pro-
ceeds will be incurred within the 6-month period be-
ginning on such date of issuance.
(B) FAILURE TO SPEND REQUIRED AMOUNT OF BOND PRO-
CEEDS 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 re-
deemed shall be determined in the same manner as
under section 142.
(ii) EXPENDITURE PERIOD.—For purposes of this sub-
part, the term ‘‘expenditure period’’ means, with re-
spect to any issue, the 3-year period beginning on the
date of issuance. Such term shall include any exten-
sion of such period under clause (iii).
(iii) EXTENSION OF PERIOD.—Upon submission of a
request prior to the expiration of the expenditure pe-
riod (determined without regard to any extension
under this clause), the Secretary may extend such pe-
riod 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 para-
graph, 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
bond, a purpose specified in section 54C(a)(1),
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
62
(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 pur-
pose 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 ex-
penditure with the proceeds of a qualified tax credit
bond,
(ii) not later than 60 days after payment of the origi-
nal expenditure, the issuer adopts an official intent to
reimburse the original expenditure with such pro-
ceeds, 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 re-
quirements of this paragraph if the issuer of qualified tax cred-
it 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 pro-
ceeds of the issue.
(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR INVESTMENTS DURING EXPENDI-
TURE 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 ex-
penditure period.
(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR RESERVE FUNDS.—An issue shall
not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of sub-
paragraph (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 ex-
pected 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 max-
imum term determined by the Secretary under subpara-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
graph (B).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
63
(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 dis-
count 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 gov-
erning conflicts of interest are satisfied with respect to
such issue, and
(B) if the Secretary prescribes additional conflicts of in-
terest rules governing the appropriate Members of Con-
gress, 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 out-
standing.
(2) BOND.—The term ‘‘bond’’ includes any obligation.
(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Colum-
bia 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 de-
scribed in subparagraph (A).
(f) CREDIT TREATED AS INTEREST.—For purposes of this subtitle,
the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be treated as in-
terest 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 cor-
poration or partners of such partnership shall be treated as a dis-
tribution.
(h) BONDS HELD BY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS.—If any
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
qualified tax credit bond is held by a real estate investment trust,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
64
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 allow-
ance 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 de-
scribed 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 cou-
pon.
* * * * * * *
§ 54E. Qualified zone academy bonds
(a) QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.—For purposes of this sub-
chapter, 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 quali-
fied 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
ø(B) certifies that it has written assurances that the pri-
vate business contribution requirement of subsection (b)
will be met with respect to such academy, and¿
ø(C)¿ (B) certifies that it has the written approval of the
eligible local education agency for such bond issuance.
ø(b) PRIVATE BUSINESS CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT.—For pur-
poses of subsection (a), the private business contribution require-
ment of this subsection is met with respect to any issue if the eligi-
ble local education agency that established the qualified zone acad-
emy has written commitments from private entities to make quali-
fied 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.¿
ø(c)¿ (b) 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,
øand¿ $400,000,000 for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
øand, except as provided in paragraph (4), zero thereafter.¿,
and $1,400,000,000 for 2022 and each calendar year thereafter.
(2) ALLOCATION OF LIMITATION.—The national zone academy
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
bond limitation for a calendar year shall be allocated by the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
65
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 allo-
cated by the State education agency to qualified zone acad-
emies within such State.
(3) DESIGNATION SUBJECT TO LIMITATION AMOUNT.—The max-
imum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any cal-
endar year which may be designated under subsection (a) with
respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed the lim-
itation 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 re-
spect to qualified zone academies within such State,
the limitation amount for such State for the following cal-
endar year shall be increased by the amount of such ex-
cess.
(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 carry-
over of unused limitation) with respect to any State to cal-
endar 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 limi-
tation of subparagraph (B) shall apply to such carryover
taking into account the calendar years to which such car-
ryover relates.
ø(d)¿ (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY.—The term ‘‘qualified zone
academy’’ means any public school (or academic program with-
in 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 stand-
ards 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 edu-
cation agency, and
(D)(i) such public school is located in an empowerment
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
zone or enterprise community (including any such zone or
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
66
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 stu-
dents attending such school or participating in such pro-
gram (as the case may be) will be eligible for free or re-
duced-cost lunches under the school lunch program estab-
lished 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) ørehabilitating or repairing¿ constructing, rehabili-
tating, 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 pro-
vided at such academy, and
(D) training teachers and other school personnel in such
academy.
(4) QUALIFIED CONTRIBUTIONS.—The term ‘‘qualified con-
tribution’’ means any contribution (of a type and quality ac-
ceptable to the eligible local education agency) of—
(A) equipment for use in the qualified zone academy (in-
cluding state-of-the-art technology and vocational equip-
ment),
(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 opportu-
nities 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 tax-
able 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
67
(A) the sum of the regular tax liability of the taxpayer (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 para-
graph (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 Reopen and Rebuild America’s Schools Act of
2021,
(B) the interest on such obligation would (but for this sec-
tion) 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 in-
frastructure 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 Reopen and Rebuild America’s Schools
Act of 2021 within the 6-year period beginning on such
date of issuance.
(B) FAILURE TO SPEND REQUIRED AMOUNT OF BOND PRO-
CEEDS WITHIN 6 YEARS.—To the extent that less than 100
percent of the available project proceeds of the issue are ex-
pended 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
such period. For purposes of this paragraph, the amount of
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
68
the nonqualified bonds required to be redeemed shall be de-
termined in the same manner as under section 142.
(e) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF BONDS DESIGNATED.—The max-
imum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any calendar
year which may be designated under subsection (d)(1)(D) by any
issuer shall not exceed the limitation amount allocated under sub-
section (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 2022,
(2) $10,000,000,000 for 2023, and
(3) $10,000,000,000 for 2024.
(g) ALLOCATION OF LIMITATION.—
(1) ALLOCATIONS.—
(A) STATES.—After application of subparagraph (B) and
paragraph (3)(A), the limitation applicable under sub-
section (f) for a calendar year shall be allocated by the Sec-
retary 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 Sec-
ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for
the previous fiscal year relative to the total such amount re-
ceived by all local educational agencies 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
a calendar year shall be allocated by the Secretary to pos-
sessions of the United States other than Puerto Rico for
such calendar year.
(2) ALLOCATIONS TO SCHOOLS.—The limitation amount allo-
cated to a State or possession under paragraph (1) shall be allo-
cated 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 subsections (c) and (d) of section 103 of
the Reopen and Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2021 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 cal-
endar year shall be allocated by the Secretary to the Sec-
retary of the Interior for schools funded by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for such calendar year.
(B) ALLOCATION TO SCHOOLS.—The limitation amount al-
located 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 shall be treated as qualified issuers for
purposes of this subchapter.
(4) DIGITAL LEARNING.—Up to 10 percent of the limitation
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
amount allocated under paragraph (1) or (3)(A) may be allo-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
69
cated by the State to issuers within such State (in the case of
an amount allocated under paragraph (1)) or by the Secretary
of the Interior to issuers or schools funded by the Bureau of In-
dian Affairs (in the case of an amount allocated under para-
graph (3)(A)) to carry out activities to improve digital learning
in accordance with section 301(b) of the Reopen and Rebuild
America’s Schools Act of 2021.
(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 INCLUD-
IBLE 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 63—ASSESSMENT
* * * * * * *
Subchapter B—DEFICIENCY PROCEDURES IN
THE CASE OF INCOME, ESTATE, GIFT, AND
CERTAIN EXCISE TAXES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 6211. DEFINITION OF A DEFICIENCY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title in the case of income,
estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise
taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term ‘‘deficiency’’
means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B,
or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 exceeds the excess of—
(1) the sum of
(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon
his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer and an
amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon,
plus
(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected with-
out assessment) as a deficiency, over—
(2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2),
made.
(b) RULES FOR APPLICATION OF SUBSECTION (A).—For purposes of
this section—
(1) The tax imposed by subtitle A and the tax shown on the
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
return shall both be determined without regard to payments on
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
70
account of estimated tax, without regard to the credit under
section 31, without regard to the credit under section 33, and
without regard to any credits resulting from the collection of
amounts assessed under section 6851 or 6852 (relating to ter-
mination assessments).
(2) The term ‘‘rebate’’ means so much of an abatement, cred-
it, refund, or other repayment, as was made on the ground that
the tax imposed by subtitle A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or
44 was less than the excess of the amount specified in sub-
section (a)(1) over the rebates previously made.
(3) The computation by the Secretary, pursuant to section
6014, of the tax imposed by chapter 1 shall be considered as
having been made by the taxpayer and the tax so computed
considered as shown by the taxpayer upon his return.
(4) For purposes of subsection (a)—
(A) any excess of the sum of the credits allowable under
sections 21 by reason of subsection (g) thereof, 24 by rea-
son of subsections (d) and (i)(1) thereof, 25A by reason of
subsection (i) thereof, 32, 34, 35, 36, 36B, 6428, 6428A,
6428B, and 7527A over the tax imposed by subtitle A (de-
termined without regard to such credits), and
(B) any excess of the sum of such credits as shown by
the taxpayer on his return over the amount shown as the
tax by the taxpayer on such return (determined without
regard to such credits),
shall be taken into account as negative amounts of tax.
(c) COORDINATION WITH SUBCHAPTER C.—In determining the
amount of any deficiency for purposes of this subchapter, adjust-
ments to partnership-related items shall be made only as provided
in subchapter C.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 65—ABATEMENTS, CREDITS, AND
REFUNDS
* * * * * * *
Subchapter A—PROCEDURE IN GENERAL
* * * * * * *
[Title II of H.R. 604 (as reported) provides for language to revive
section 6431 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ‘‘as in effect on
the day before repeal by Public Law 115–97’’. Section 6431, as so
restored and further amended by H.R. 604 (as reported), reads as
follows:]
SEC. 6401. AMOUNTS TREATED AS OVERPAYMENTS.
(a) ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION AFTER LIMITATION PERIOD..—
The term ‘‘overpayment’’ includes that part of the amount of the
payment of any internal revenue tax which is assessed or collected
after the expiration of the period of limitation properly applicable
thereto.
(b) EXCESSIVE CREDITS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If the amount allowable as credits under
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
71
refundable credits) exceeds the tax imposed by subtitle A (re-
duced by the credits allowable under subparts A, B, D, øand
G¿ G, I, and J of such part IV), the amount of such excess
shall be considered an overpayment.
(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR CREDIT UNDER SECTION 33.—For pur-
poses of paragraph (1), any credit allowed under section 33 (re-
lating to withholding of tax on nonresident aliens and on for-
eign corporations) for any taxable year shall be treated as a
credit allowable under subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 only if an election under subsection (g) or (h) of sec-
tion 6013 is in effect for such taxable year. The preceding sen-
tence shall not apply to any credit so allowed by reason of sec-
tion 1446.
(c) RULE WHERE NO TAX LIABILITY.—An amount paid as tax shall
not be considered not to constitute an overpayment solely by reason
of the fact that there was no tax liability in respect of which such
amount was paid.
* * * * * * *
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 (contempora-
neously with each interest payment date under such bond) to the
issuer of such bond (or to any person who makes such interest pay-
ments 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 inter-
est 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 Janu-
ary 1, 2011,
(C) the amount of the payment determined under sub-
section (b) with respect to any interest payment due under
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
such bond shall be equal to the lesser of—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
72
(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 deter-
mined 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 re-
spect 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 with-
out regard to this paragraph and sections 54C(b) and 54D(b).
(3) SPECIFIED TAX CREDIT BOND.—For purposes of this sub-
section, the term ‘‘specified tax credit bond’’ ømeans any quali-
fied tax credit bond (as defined in section 54A(d)) if—¿ means
any bond if—
ø(A) such bond is—
ø(i) a new clean renewable energy bond (as defined
in section 54C),
ø(ii) a qualified energy conservation bond (as defined
in section 54D),
ø(iii) a qualified zone academy bond (as defined in
section 54E) determined without regard to any alloca-
tion relating to the national zone academy bond limi-
tation for years after 2010 or any carryforward of any
such allocation, or
ø(iv) a qualified school construction bond (as defined
in section 54F), and¿
(A) such bond is—
(i) a qualified tax credit bond which is a qualified
zone academy bond (as defined in section 54E) deter-
mined 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
(ii) any school infrastructure bond (as defined in sec-
tion 54BB), and
(B) the issuer of such bond makes an irrevocable election
to have this subsection apply.
* * * * * * *
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
73
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 sec-
tion 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 sec-
tion 54D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) issued after
the date of the enactment of this Act,
ø(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, ¿
ø(4)¿ (3) any qualified school construction bond (as defined
in section 54F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), and
ø(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 pur-
pose of making payments under section 7003(d), there are author-
ized to be appropriated $48,316,000 for each of fiscal years 2017
through 2019, and $52,065,487 for fiscal year 2020.
ø(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 fis-
cal years 2023 through 2027.
(e) FACILITIES MAINTENANCE.—For the purpose of carrying out
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
section 7008, there are authorized to be appropriated $4,835,000
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
74
for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, and $5,210,213 for fiscal
year 2020.
* * * * * * *
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
MINORITY VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
All students deserve access to an excellent education that pre-
pares them for postsecondary success. This includes attending
schools with adequate facilities to support teaching and learning.
The majority has argued that H.R. 604 is necessary because Amer-
ica’s school facilities are in crisis. That is debatable. While many
schools across our country may be ready for upgrades and replace-
ment, the last time federal data was collected, only 3 percent of the
nation’s permanent school buildings were rated as poor.1
However, it is beyond debate that the nation desperately needs
expanded educational opportunities for families and students. Re-
publicans are working alongside parents to defend students against
left-wing ideologues that prioritize politics and a radical cultural
agenda over the health, safety, and educational achievement of the
nation’s children. Securing opportunities for students should be the
focus of the Committee’s efforts. Instead, the majority took precious
time to mark up this bill, a bill which has already been rejected
once this Congress and that would, if enacted, exacerbate the his-
toric inflation already crippling the economy. In addition, passing
this bill ignores the tens of billions of dollars in COVID relief aid
school districts are currently sitting on due to Democrats’ so-called
‘‘American Rescue Plan.’’
H.R. 604 has been rejected already
Committee Republicans oppose H.R. 604, and we are joined in
our opposition by House Democrats and the American people. As
the majority knows, this bill has already been rejected once. H.R.
604 was voted out of this Committee in September of last year as
part of the Committee’s package to be included in the so-called
Build Back Better plan. Build Back Better has been famously re-
jected in total by Democrats in the Senate and by the American
people. But, before that rejection, this bill did not even survive the
scrutiny of House Democrats, who dropped it from the Build Back
Better bill that passed the House in November last year.2 Given
that reality, it is clear this bill was marked up only for political
theater. Committee Republicans believe we should listen to the
American people: they have rejected this bill once already, and we
should join them.
H.R. 604 would exacerbate already-historic inflation
The American people know the Democrats’ inflationary policies
are hurting hard-working American families, and they know this
1 https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014022.pdf.
2 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-167/issue-201/house-section/article/
H6375-4.
(75)
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
76
bill would only make their lives worse. Americans are not enjoying
learning—or for many people relearning—the basics of inflation.
But the majority appears unwilling to learn those lessons at all.
A review of basic facts is necessary. First, the construction busi-
ness is suffering many of the same supply challenges we have seen
throughout the economy. The result of that has been rising costs.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the cost of construction
materials. Their index tracking those costs increased 34 percent be-
tween January 2021 and March 2022.3 The prices of individual
construction materials have also risen. The price of concrete in-
creased 11 percent between January 2001 and March 2022.4 Pro-
ducer prices for painting and coating manufacturing rose 15.7 per-
cent in 2021.5
This is the basic economic truth: too few resources chased by too
much money causes inflation. And, unfortunately, this has very
real impacts on real people. Because of supply shortages and in-
creasing construction costs, home prices jumped 37 percent from
spring 2020 to the spring of this year.6 Even with the housing mar-
ket softening as a result of the Federal Reserve’s efforts to rein in
inflation, home prices are still projected to increase 5 percent na-
tionally over the next year.7 This means fewer low-income families
will be able to afford homes.
Democrats are responding to these economic realities by doing
the opposite of what sound economic policy tells us. Last year, Con-
gress enacted a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. Once spending
under that bill begins in the coming months, supply shortages will
likely get worse, causing prices to increase even further. Democrats
want to compound these problems by passing a school construction
bill to pump another $100 billion or more into the construction
market. This is insanity. We should all know that the first thing
to do when in a hole is to stop digging. Committee Republicans
urge the majority to avoid doing further harm to the economy and
to hard-working Americans suffering under these soaring prices.
H.R. 604 ignores school districts’ unspent COVID money
H.R. 604 also ignores that school districts are already flush with
hardworking taxpayers’ money. School districts received more than
$120 billion through the American Rescue Plan last year. Those
funds can be used for facility upgrades, and so Democrats are faced
with three challenges in trying to convince the American people
that yet more taxpayer funds are needed.
First, very little of that $120 billion has been spent. In the most
recent data provided to Congress by the Department of Education,
only 13 percent of the funds have been spent as of July 15th. Sec-
ond, we know from press reports that some school districts are
frivolously using those funds to upgrade their athletic facilities, not
to upgrade key buildings related to instruction.8 While H.R. 604
3 https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-worst-possible-timing-for-an-infrastruct
ure-spending-spree/.
4 Ibid.
5 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/08/why-the-us-is-facing-a-paint-shortage.html.
6 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA.
7 https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/u-s-home-price-insights/.
8 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-school-funding-sports-5b468b260ebd2593e53
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
f03f9104d9bca.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
77
has a limited prohibition that would provide some guardrails, the
track record for legislation like this is not promising. It is more
than likely that this legislation will continue to allow taxpayer
funds to be misspent on frivolous projects that will not improve
students’ education. Third, the week before H.R. 604 was marked
up, the Department of Education informed school districts of its
willingness to extend the period by which school districts can spend
American Rescue Plan funds.9 This was in response to school dis-
tricts’ concerns that they could not spend their funds by the dead-
line that is still more than two years away.
Committee consideration of H.R. 604
On May 18, 2022, the House Committee on Education and Labor
met to mark up H.R. 604.
REJECTED AMENDMENTS
During consideration of H.R. 604, Committee Republicans offered
several amendments to improve the bill. Unfortunately, the amend-
ments were rejected by the Democrats. Those amendments were as
follows:
• Rep. Michelle Steel (R–CA) offered an amendment to re-
quire the Department of Education to conduct a report on the
impact of the bill on the cost and availability of construction
supplies and to prohibit expenditures of funds under the bill
unless the report shows that the bill will not increase costs or
worsen supply shortages. As discussed above, H.R. 604 will
likely exacerbate the already-crippling inflation our country is
experiencing. This amendment would have ensured expendi-
tures under the bill could not begin until the Department of
Education provided evidence the bill would not worsen infla-
tion.
• Rep. Lisa McClain (R–MI) offered an amendment to strike
language requiring states to track in perpetuity the degree to
which school facilities are in compliance with COVID–era guid-
ance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The
amendment also struck language giving priority in the first
year of the program to school districts that will use the funds
to improve school facilities to facilitate physical distancing, im-
prove ventilation, and take other steps to mitigate COVID–19.
As discussed above, school districts are already sitting on tens
of billions of dollars in COVID aid that can already be used for
COVID mitigation. In addition, these provisions show Demo-
crats’ unwillingness to let go of their permanent pandemic
mentality.
• Rep. Glenn Grothman (R–WI) offered an amendment to re-
quire school districts to ensure that all employees, and the em-
ployees of contractors and subcontractors, paid with funds re-
ceived under the bill be legally authorized to work in the
United States. This amendment would expand on other provi-
sions in the bill intended to protect American interests by en-
suring that taxpayer funds go only to those who respect our
nation’s laws and play by the rules.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
9 https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/05/Late-Liquidation-Letter.pdf.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
78
• Rep. Bob Good (R–VA) offered an amendment to ensure
school districts are ineligible for funds if they serve a sanc-
tuary jurisdiction. The amendment would expand on other pro-
visions in the bill intended to protect American interests by en-
suring that communities that refuse to enforce the laws of our
country do not benefit from taxpayer funds.
• Rep. Chris Jacobs (R–NY) offered an amendment to pro-
hibit school districts from receiving grants under the bill if
they have not expended all funds allocated to the district under
the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund
as appropriated under the CARES Act, the Coronavirus Re-
sponse and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021, and
the American Rescue Plan Act. The amendment would ensure
that H.R. 604 would not dump additional taxpayer funds into
school districts that already have large amounts of federal dol-
lars they are struggling to spend.
CONCLUSION
As outlined in these Minority Views, marking up H.R. 604 was
an act of political theater. Considering it on the House floor would
be a further waste of time. This bill has already been rejected by
the American people and by the majority’s colleagues in the House
Democrat caucus. Worse, inflation in June was more than 9 per-
cent, establishing a new forty-year-high.10 Committee Republicans
urge the majority to drop this destructive legislation so the Com-
mittee can address the challenges taxpayers want addressed: ex-
panding educational opportunities for children and ensuring that
parents’ interests are the priority of America’s schools.
VIRGINIA FOXX, Ranking
Member.
GLENN ‘‘GT’’ THOMPSON.
TIM WALBERG.
GLENN GROTHMAN.
JIM BANKS.
JAMES COMER.
RUSS FULCHER.
FRED KELLER.
MARIANNETTE MILLER MEEKS,
M.D.
BURGESS OWENS.
BOB GOOD.
LISA C. MCCLAIN.
DIANA HARSHBARGER.
MARY E. MILLER.
SCOTT FITZGERALD.
MADISON CAWTHORN.
CHRIS JACOBS.
Æ
10 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-13/us-inflation-accelerates-to-9-1-once-
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
again-exceeding-forecasts.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 08, 2023 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\HR607P1.XXX HR607P1
File and source
- File
- CRPT_crpt-117hrpt607_crpt-117hrpt607-pt1.pdf
- Size
- 1,297,521 bytes
- SHA-256
- 09fe2344da10bc6d0a4a4ded86953c0685e05bcfa229035e0edc6eb7661e55bd
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov