79–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–100 

21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-PERFORMING PUBLIC 

SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT 

MAY 11, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, from the Committee on 

Education and Labor, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2187] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 2187) to direct the Secretary of Education to make 

grants to State educational agencies for the modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions. 

TITLE I—GRANTS FOR MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, OR REPAIR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES 

Sec. 101. Purpose. 

Sec. 102. Allocation of funds. 

Sec. 103. Allowable uses of funds. 

TITLE II—SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA 

Sec. 201. Purpose. 

Sec. 202. Allocation to local educational agencies. 

Sec. 203. Allowable uses of funds. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 301. Impermissible uses of funds. 

Sec. 302. Supplement, not supplant. 

Sec. 303. Prohibition regarding State aid. 

Sec. 304. Maintenance of effort. 

Sec. 305. Special rule on contracting. 

Sec. 306. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods. 

Sec. 307. Labor standards. 

Sec. 308. Charter schools. 

Sec. 309. Green schools. 

Sec. 310. Reporting. 

Sec. 311. Authorization of appropriations. 

Sec. 312. Special rules. 

Sec. 313. YouthBuild programs. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘Bureau-funded school’’ has the meaning given to such term in 

section 1141 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2021). 

(2) The term ‘‘charter school’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

5210 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7221). 

(3) The term ‘‘CHPS Criteria’’ means the green building rating program developed by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools. 

(4) The term ‘‘Energy Star’’ means the Energy Star program of the United 

States Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

(5) The term ‘‘Green Globes’’ means the Green Building Initiative environmental design and rating system referred to as Green Globes. 

(6) The term ‘‘LEED Green Building Rating System’’ means the United States 

Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green 

building rating standard referred to as LEED Green Building Rating System. 

(7) The term ‘‘local educational agency’’— 

(A) has the meaning given to that term in section 9101 of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801), and shall also include the Recovery School District of Louisiana and the New Orleans Public 

Schools; and 

(B) includes any public charter school that constitutes a local educational 

agency under State law. 

(8) The term ‘‘outlying area’’— 

(A) means the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and 

(B) includes the freely associated states of the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. 

(9) The term ‘‘public school facilities’’ means an existing public school facility, 

including a public charter school facility, or another existing facility planned for 

adaptive reuse as such a school facility. 

(10) The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

TITLE I—GRANTS FOR MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, OR REPAIR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL 

FACILITIES 

SEC. 101. PURPOSE. 

Grants under this title shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, or repairing public school facilities, based on their need for such improvements, to be 

safe, healthy, high-performing, and up-to-date technologically. 

SEC. 102. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS. 

(a) RESERVATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—From the amount appropriated to carry out this title for 

each fiscal year pursuant to section 311(a), the Secretary shall reserve 1 percent 

of such amount, consistent with the purpose described in section 101— 

(A) to provide assistance to the outlying areas; and 

(B) for payments to the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to 

Bureau-funded schools. 

(2) USE OF RESERVED FUNDS.—In each fiscal year, the amount reserved under 

paragraph (1) shall be divided between the uses described in subparagraphs (A) 

and (B) of such paragraph in the same proportion as the amount reserved under 

section 1121(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

U.S.C. 6331(a)) is divided between the uses described in paragraphs (1) and (2) 

of such section 1121(a) in such fiscal year. 

(b) ALLOCATION TO STATES.— 

(1) STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATION.—Of the amount appropriated to carry out 

this title for each fiscal year pursuant to section 311(a), and not reserved under 

subsection (a), each State shall be allocated an amount in proportion to the 

amount received by all local educational agencies in the State under part A of 

title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 

et seq.) for the previous fiscal year relative to the total amount received by all 

local educational agencies in every State under such part for such fiscal year. 

(2) STATE ADMINISTRATION.—A State may reserve up to 1 percent of its allocation under paragraph (1) to carry out its responsibilities under this title, which 

include— 

(A) providing technical assistance to local educational agencies; 

(B) developing an online, publicly searchable database that includes an 

inventory of public school facilities in the State, including for each, its design, condition, modernization, renovation and repair needs, usage, utilization, energy use, and carbon footprint; and 

(C) creating voluntary guidelines for high-performing school buildings, including guidelines concerning the following: 

(i) Site location, storm water management, outdoor surfaces, outdoor 

lighting, and transportation (location near public transit and easy access for pedestrians and bicycles). 

(ii) Outdoor water systems, landscaping to minimize water use, including elimination of irrigation systems for landscaping, and indoor 

water use reduction. 

(iii) Energy efficiency (including minimum and superior standards, 

such as for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems), use of 

alternative energy sources, commissioning, and training. 

(iv) Use of durable, sustainable materials and waste reduction. 

(v) Indoor environmental quality, such as day lighting in classrooms, 

lighting quality, indoor air quality, acoustics, and thermal comfort. 

(vi) Operations and management, such as use of energy efficient 

equipment, indoor environmental management plan, maintenance plan, 

and pest management. 

(3) GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—From the amount allocated to a State under paragraph 

(1), each eligible local educational agency in the State shall receive an 

amount in proportion to the amount received by such local educational 

agency under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the previous fiscal year relative to 

the total amount received by all local educational agencies in the State 

under such part for such fiscal year, except that no local educational agency 

that received funds under title I of that Act for such fiscal year shall receive 

a grant of less than $5,000 in any fiscal year under this title. 

(B) ELIGIBLE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term ‘‘eligible local educational agency’’ means a local educational agency that— 

(i) meets the requirements of section 1112(a) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.); and 

(ii) conducts an independent audit by a third-party entity, and is certified by the State, substantiating the overall condition of the public 

school facilities and the need for modernization, renovation, or repair. 

(4) SPECIAL RULE.—Section 1122(c)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6332(c)(3)) shall not apply to paragraph (1) or (3). 

(c) SPECIAL RULES.— 

(1) DISTRIBUTIONS BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall make and distribute 

the reservations and allocations described in subsections (a) and (b) not later 

than 30 days after an appropriation of funds for this title is made. 

(2) DISTRIBUTIONS BY STATES.—A State shall make and distribute the allocations described in subsection (b)(3) within 30 days of receiving such funds from 

the Secretary. 

SEC. 103. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS. 

A local educational agency receiving a grant under this title shall use the grant 

for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities, including, where 

applicable, early learning facilities— 

(1) repairing, replacing, or installing roofs, including extensive, intensive or 

semi-intensive green roofs, electrical wiring, plumbing systems, sewage systems, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

storm water runoff systems, lighting systems, or components of such systems, 

windows, ceilings, flooring, or doors, including security doors; 

(2) repairing, replacing, or installing heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, or components of such systems (including insulation), including indoor air 

quality assessments; 

(3) bringing public schools into compliance with fire, health, seismic, and safety codes, including professional installation of fire/life safety alarms, including 

modernizations, renovations, and repairs that ensure that schools are prepared 

for emergencies, such as improving building infrastructure to accommodate security measures; 

(4) modifications necessary to make public school facilities accessible to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) 

and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794); 

(5) abatement, removal, or interim controls of asbestos, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, mold, mildew, or lead-based hazards, including lead-based paint hazards; 

(6) measures designed to reduce or eliminate human exposure to classroom 

noise and environmental noise pollution; 

(7) modernizations, renovations, or repairs necessary to reduce the consumption of coal, electricity, land, natural gas, oil, or water; 

(8) upgrading or installing educational technology infrastructure to ensure 

that students have access to up-to-date educational technology; 

(9) modernization, renovation, or repair of science and engineering laboratory 

facilities, libraries, and career and technical education facilities, including those 

related to energy efficiency and renewable energy, and improvements to building infrastructure to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access; 

(10) renewable energy generation and heating systems, including solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, or biomass, including wood pellet, woody biomass, 

waste-to-energy, and solar-thermal systems or components of such systems, and 

energy audits; 

(11) other modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities to— 

(A) improve teachers’ ability to teach and students’ ability to learn; 

(B) ensure the health and safety of students and staff; 

(C) make them more energy efficient; or 

(D) reduce class size; and 

(12) required environmental remediation related to public school modernization, renovation, or repair described in paragraphs (1) through (11). 

TITLE II—SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR 

LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA 

SEC. 201. PURPOSE. 

Grants under this title shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, repairing, or constructing public school facilities, including, where applicable, early learning facilities, based on their need for such improvements, to be safe, healthy, highperforming, and up-to-date technologically. 

SEC. 202. ALLOCATION TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Of the amount appropriated to carry out this title for each fiscal 

year pursuant to section 311(b), the Secretary shall allocate to local educational 

agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama an amount equal to the infrastructure damage inflicted on public school facilities in each such district by Hurricane 

Katrina or Hurricane Rita in 2005 relative to the total of such infrastructure damage so inflicted in all such districts, combined. 

(b) DISTRIBUTION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall determine and distribute 

the allocations described in subsection (a) not later than 60 days after an appropriation of funds for this title is made. 

SEC. 203. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS. 

A local educational agency receiving a grant under this title shall use the grant 

for one or more of the activities described in section 103, except that an agency receiving a grant under this title also may use the grant for the construction of new 

public school facilities. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 301. IMPERMISSIBLE USES OF FUNDS. 

No funds received under this Act may be used for— 

(1) payment of maintenance costs; 

(2) stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; 

(3) improvement or construction of facilities the purpose of which is not the 

education of children, including central office administration or operations or 

logistical support facilities; or 

(4) purchasing carbon offsets. 

SEC. 302. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT. 

A local educational agency receiving a grant under this Act shall use such Federal 

funds only to supplement and not supplant the amount of funds that would, in the 

absence of such Federal funds, be available for modernization, renovation, repair, 

and construction of public school facilities. 

SEC. 303. PROHIBITION REGARDING STATE AID. 

A State shall not take into consideration payments under this Act in determining 

the eligibility of any local educational agency in that State for State aid, or the 

amount of State aid, with respect to free public education of children. 

SEC. 304. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—A local educational agency may receive a grant under this Act 

for any fiscal year only if either the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the agency and the State involved with respect to the provision 

of free public education by the agency for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 

90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year. 

(b) REDUCTION IN CASE OF FAILURE TO MEET MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The State educational agency shall reduce the amount of a 

local educational agency’s grant in any fiscal year in the exact proportion by 

which a local educational agency fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) 

by falling below 90 percent of both the combined fiscal effort per student and 

aggregate expenditures (using the measure most favorable to the local agency). 

(2) SPECIAL RULE.—No such lesser amount shall be used for computing the 

effort required under subsection (a) for subsequent years. 

(c) WAIVER.—The Secretary shall waive the requirements of this section if the Secretary determines that a waiver would be equitable due to— 

(1) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a natural disaster; or 

(2) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of the local educational 

agency. 

SEC. 305. SPECIAL RULE ON CONTRACTING. 

Each local educational agency receiving a grant under this Act shall ensure that, 

if the agency carries out modernization, renovation, repair, or construction through 

a contract, the process for any such contract ensures the maximum number of qualified bidders, including local, small, minority, and women- and veteran-owned businesses, through full and open competition. 

SEC. 306. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 

this Act may be used for a project for the modernization, renovation, repair or construction of a public school facility unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured 

goods used in the project are produced in the United States. 

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or category of cases 

in which the Secretary finds that— 

(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest; 

(2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the 

United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or 

(3) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United 

States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. 

(c) PUBLICATION OF JUSTIFICATION.—If the Secretary determines that it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding under subsection 

(b), the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed written justification of the determination. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
6 

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with 

United States obligations under international agreements. 

SEC. 307. LABOR STANDARDS. 

The grant programs under this Act are applicable programs (as that term is defined in section 400 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221)) subject to section 439 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b). 

SEC. 308. CHARTER SCHOOLS. 

A local educational agency receiving an allocation under this Act shall distribute 

an amount of that allocation to charter schools within its jurisdiction. The total 

amount to be distributed under the preceding sentence shall be determined based 

on the percentage of students eligible under part A of title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) in the schools of the agency who are enrolled in charter schools. Of such total, individual charter schools shall 

receive a share based on the needs of the schools, as determined by the agency in 

consultation with the charter school community. Funds shall be used only for allowable activities in accordance with this Act. 

SEC. 309. GREEN SCHOOLS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In a given fiscal year, a local educational agency shall use not 

less than the applicable percentage (described in subsection (b)) of funds received 

under this Act for public school modernization, renovation, repairs, or construction 

that are certified, verified, or consistent with any applicable provisions of— 

(1) the LEED Green Building Rating System; 

(2) Energy Star; 

(3) the CHPS Criteria; 

(4) Green Globes; or 

(5) an equivalent program adopted by the State or another jurisdiction with 

authority over the local educational agency, which shall include a verifiable 

method to demonstrate compliance with such program. 

(b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGES.—The applicable percentage described in subsection 

(a) is— 

(1) in fiscal year 2010, 50 percent; 

(2) in fiscal year 2011, 60 percent; 

(3) in fiscal year 2012, 70 percent; 

(4) in fiscal year 2013, 80 percent; 

(5) in fiscal year 2014, 90 percent; and 

(6) in fiscal year 2015, 100 percent. 

(c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall provide outreach and technical assistance to States and local educational agencies concerning the best practices in school modernization, renovation, repair, and construction, including those related to student academic achievement, student and staff 

health, energy efficiency, and environmental protection. 

SEC. 310. REPORTING. 

(a) REPORTS BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—Local educational agencies receiving a grant under this Act shall annually compile a report describing the 

projects for which such funds were used, including— 

(1) the number of public schools in the agency, including the number of charter schools, and for each, in the aggregate, the number of students from lowincome families; 

(2) the total amount of funds received by the local educational agency under 

this Act and the amount of such funds expended, including the amount expended for modernization, renovation, repair, or construction of charter schools; 

(3) the number of public schools in the agency with a metro-centric locale code 

of 41, 42, or 43 as determined by the National Center for Education Statistics 

and the percentage of funds received by the agency under title I or title II of 

this Act that were used for projects at such schools; 

(4) the number of public schools in the agency that are eligible for schoolwide 

programs under section 1114 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6314) and the percentage of funds received by the agency 

under title I or title II of this Act that were used for projects at such schools; 

(5) for each project— 

(A) the cost; 

(B) the standard described in section 309(a) with which the use of the 

funds complied or, if the use of funds did not comply with a standard described in section 309(a), the reason such funds were not able to be used 

in compliance with such standards and the agency’s efforts to use such 

funds in an environmentally sound manner; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
7 

(C) if flooring was installed, whether— 

(i) it was low- or no-VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) flooring; 

(ii) it was made from sustainable materials; and 

(iii) use of flooring described in clause (i) or (ii) was cost-effective; and 

(D) any demonstrable or expected benefits as a result of the project (such 

as energy savings, improved indoor environmental quality, improved climate for teaching and learning, etc.); and 

(6) the total number and amount of contracts awarded, and the number and 

amount of contracts awarded to local, small, minority, women, and veteranowned businesses. 

(b) AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.—A local educational agency shall— 

(1) submit the report described in subsection (a) to the State educational 

agency, which shall compile such information and report it annually to the Secretary; and 

(2) make the report described in subsection (a) publicly available, including 

on the agency’s website. 

(c) REPORTS BY SECRETARY.—Not later than December 31 of each fiscal year, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 

the Senate, and make available on the Department of Education’s website, a report 

on grants made under this Act, including the information described in subsection 

(b)(1), the types of modernization, renovation, repair, and construction funded, and 

the number of students impacted, including the number of students counted under 

section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)). 

SEC. 311. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) TITLE I.—To carry out title I, there are authorized to be appropriated 

$6,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as may be necessary for each of 

fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 

(b) TITLE II.—To carry out title II, there are authorized to be appropriated 

$100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

SEC. 312. SPECIAL RULES. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds authorized by 

this Act may be— 

(1) used to employ workers in violation of section 274A of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a); or 

(2) distributed to a local educational agency that does not have a policy that 

requires a criminal background check on all employees of the agency. 

SEC. 313. YOUTHBUILD PROGRAMS. 

The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall 

work with recipients of funds under this Act to promote appropriate opportunities 

for participants in a YouthBuild program (as defined in section 173A of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918a)) to gain employment experience on 

modernization, renovation, repair, and construction projects funded under this Act. 

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, is to support states’ and local 

educational agencies’ efforts to provide public school students with 

schools that are safe, healthy, high-performing, and up-to-date 

technologically, and to promote green building principles. 

II. COMMITTEE ACTION

110th Congress 

Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Modern Public School Facilities: 

Investing in the Future’’ 

On Wednesday, February 13, 2008, the Committee on Education 

and Labor held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Modern Public 

School Facilities: Investing in the Future.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to highlight the poor quality of public school buildings frequently found throughout the United States, particularly in low-inVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:18 May 12, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR100.XXX HR100

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
8 

come areas, and the importance of federal investment in public 

school buildings. Testifying before the full Committee were, on the 

first panel, Representatives Ben Chandler (D–KY), Michael N. Castle (R–DE), Bob Etheridge (D–NC), David Loebsack (D–IA), 

Charles Boustany (R–LA), Darlene Hooley (D–OR), Steve King (R– 

IA) and Rush Holt (D–NJ), and on the second panel, Kathleen J. 

Moore, Director, School Facilities Planning Division, California Department of Education (Sacramento, California); Judi Caddick, 

Teacher, Memorial Junior High School, Illinois Education Association (Lansing, Illinois); Mary Cullinane, Director, Innovation and 

Business Development Team, Microsoft Corporation (New York, 

New York); Dr. Paula Vincent, Superintendent, Clear Creek 

Amana School District (Oxford, Iowa); Paul Vallas, Superintendent, 

Louisiana Recovery School District (New Orleans, Louisiana); Jim 

Waters, Director, Policy and Communications, Bluegrass Institute 

for Public Policy Solutions (Bowling Green, Kentucky); Neal 

McCluskey, Associate Director, Center for Educational Freedom, 

CATO Institute (Washington, D.C.). 

Introduction of the ‘‘21st Century High-Performing Public 

School Facilities Act’’ 

On Thursday, July 12, 2007, Representatives Chandler, George 

Miller (D–CA), and Dale Kildee (D–MI) introduced H.R. 3021, the 

21st Century High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, a bill to 

direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and low-interest 

loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization, or repair of public kindergarten, elementary, and secondary 

educational facilities, and for other purposes. 

Full Committee Markup of H.R. 3021 

On Wednesday, April 30, 2008, the Committee on Education and 

Labor considered H.R. 3021 in legislative session, and reported the 

bill favorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by a 

vote of 28–19. Representatives Loebsack and Kildee offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3021 made 

the following changes: 

• Inserted the word ‘‘Green’’ into the Act’s title; 

• Converted the competitive grant and loan program authorized by the bill to a formula grant program, based on each 

state’s and local educational agency’s allocation under Part A 

of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965; 

• Required the Secretary of Education to distribute funds to 

states within thirty days of the Department’s appropriation, 

and states to distribute funds to local educational agencies 

within thirty days of having received such funds; 

• Required the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 

states and local educational agencies; 

• Required states to provide technical assistance to local 

educational agencies, to develop a plan to establish a database 

that includes an inventory of public school facilities in the 

state and the modernization, renovation, and repair needs of, 

energy use by, and carbon footprint of such schools, and to develop a school energy efficiency quality plan; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
9 

• Required local educational agencies to use an increasing 

percentage of funds received under the bill in compliance with 

sustainable building rating systems; 

• Added a title authorizing funds for grants to local educational agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to 

compensate for damage to public school facilities caused by 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005; and 

• Clarified that local educational agencies are required to report publicly on the sustainable building rating systems with 

which their uses of funds comply, to explain any uses of funds 

that did not comply with such systems, and to explain the 

demonstrated or expected benefits from their uses of funds 

(such as energy savings, indoor environmental quality, improved climate for teaching and learning, etc.), and the percentage of funds used in low-income and rural schools. 

• The Committee rejected six amendments by roll-call vote. 

The Chair ruled two other amendments out of order on the 

ground that they addressed issues that were beyond the scope 

of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Committee upheld both rulings by roll-call vote. 

House Passage of H.R. 3021 

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3021 on June 4, 2008, 

by a vote of 250–164. The bill was messaged to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 

Pensions Senate. 

Related Legislative Action 

On September 26, 2008, the House passed H.R. 7110, the Job 

Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008, introduced by Representative David Obey (D–WI), Chairman of the Appropriations 

Committee. H.R. 7110 appropriated $3 billion for public school 

modernization, renovation and repair, essentially as provided by 

Title I of H.R. 3021. 

On January 28, 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, 

the House passed H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA), also introduced by Chairman Obey. H.R. 1 appropriated $14 billion for public school modernization, renovation and 

repair, again, essentially as provided by Title I of H.R. 3021. On 

February 12, 2009, the House passed the Conference Report to 

H.R. 1, which did not include dedicated funds for public school 

modernization, renovation and repair. However, Title XIV of the 

Conference Report, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, includes 

$48.6 billion for states and local educational agencies, of which 

public school modernization, renovation and repair (including modernization, renovation and repair that complies with a recognized 

green building standard) is one authorized use. 

111TH CONGRESS

Introduction of the ‘‘21st Century Green High-Performing 

Public School Facilities Act’’ 

On Thursday, April 30, 2009, Representatives Ben Chandler (D– 

KY), George Miller (D–CA), Dale Kildee (D–MI), and Dave 

Loebsack (D–IA) introduced H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
10 

1Other original cosponsors of the bill were Representatives Robert E. Andrews (D–NJ), Joe 

Courtney (D–CT), Raul M. Grijalva (D–AZ), Phil Hare (D–IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D–HI), Rush 

Holt (D–NJ), Pedro R. Pierluisi (D–PR), Jared Polis (D–CO), Gregorio Sablan (D–CNMI), John 

F. Tierney (D–MA), Paul D. Tonko (D–NY), Lynn C. Woolsey (D–CA), and David Wu (D–OR). 

High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill, which is 

largely similar to H.R. 30021, directs the Secretary of Education to 

make grants and low-interest loans to local educational agencies 

for the modernization, renovation, or repair of public early learning, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary educational facilities, 

and for other purposes.1

Full Committee Markup of H.R. 2187 

On Wednesday, May 6, 2009, the Committee on Education and 

Labor considered H.R. 2187 in legislative session, and reported the 

bill favorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by a 

vote of 31–14. Chairman Miller offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes several 

changes, including: • Makes the state database online and publicly searchable; • Expands reporting data concerning charter schools; • Expands the areas to be covered by voluntary high-performing school guidelines to be developed by states; • Adds stormwater runoff, seismic code compliance, and additional renewable energy systems as allowable uses of funds; • Expands lead-based hazards that can be mitigated with 

these funds; • Allows energy audits as a use of funds; and • Requires state or local green standards to include a method for demonstrating compliance if they are to be used to comply with the provisions of the bill. 

The Committee also adopted three amendments offered by the 

following members: Representative Polis (to ensure that charter 

schools receive a share of a local education agency’s funds based on 

the percentage of low-income students within the agency served by 

charter schools and to ensure consultation between the agency and 

charter schools concerning the needs of individual schools); Representative Joe Sestak (D–PA) (to clarify that improvements to ceilings and floors are authorized uses of funds); and Senior Republican Member Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon (to require local educational agencies to conduct a state-certified, independent thirdparty facilities audit to receive funds). 

The Committee rejected two amendments by roll-call vote. 

III. SUMMARY OF THE BILL

As reported, Title I of H.R. 2187 authorizes $6.4 billion for fiscal 

year 2010 and such sums through fiscal year 2015. The bill ensures 

that school districts around the country will quickly receive funds 

for much needed public school modernization, renovation, and repair projects to improve the teaching and learning climate, student 

and staff health and safety, energy efficiency, and the environment. 

It directs the Secretary to reserve one percent of Title I funds for 

assistance to outlying areas and Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools and requires that such funds be distributed between the 

outlying areas and the Department of the Interior for Bureau of InVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:18 May 12, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR100.XXX HR100

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
11 

dian Education-funded schools in the same proportion as the 

amount reserved and distributed under section 1121(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

H.R. 2187 allocates to each state the same percentage of funds 

that the state receives under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act and allocates within states the same percentage to each school district that the school district receives 

under such part (except that no such school district will receive less 

than $5,000). To receive funds, a local educational agency must 

conduct an independent, third party audit of the condition of its 

public school facilities that is certified by the state. It also requires 

the Secretary to distribute funds to states within thirty days of appropriation for redistribution to school districts within thirty days 

of receipt. 

The bill allows states to reserve one percent of their Title I allocation to carry out their responsibilities under the Act, which include technical assistance, developing an online, publicly searchable statewide database of public school facility design, condition, 

modernization, renovation and repair needs, usage, utilization, energy use, and carbon footprint, and creating voluntary guidelines 

for high-performing public school buildings. 

Funds under Title I may be used for public school modernization, 

renovation, and repairs, including roofs, electrical, plumbing, sewage, stormwater runoff and lighting systems or components thereof, 

and windows, floors, ceilings and doors; heating, ventilation, and 

air-conditioning systems or components thereof, including insulation and indoor air quality assessments; bringing schools into compliance with fire, health, seismic and safety codes, including modernizations, renovations, and repairs that ensure that schools are 

prepared for emergencies; complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973; abatement, removal, or interim controls of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, mold, mildew, or lead-based hazards; reduction of classroom noise and environmental noise pollution; modernization, renovation, or repairs to reduce the consumption of coal, 

electricity, land, natural gas, oil, or water; upgrading or installing 

educational technology infrastructure; modernization, renovation, 

or repairs of laboratory facilities, libraries, career and technical 

education facilities and building infrastructure to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access; renewable energy generation and heating systems and energy audits; other modernizations, renovations, 

or repairs that improve the teaching and learning climate, ensure 

the health and safety of students and staff, make schools more energy efficient or reduce class size; and required environmental remediation related to modernizations, renovations, or repairs described above. 

H.R. 2187 requires that funds be used for projects that meet one 

of four widely recognized green standards (Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, 

Energy Star, Collaborative for High Performance Schools, or Green 

Globes) or an equivalent state or local standard, which must include a verifiable method to demonstrate compliance. School districts must use their funds under the Act for projects that meet one 

of the Act’s green requirements as follows—50 percent in 2010, 60 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
12 

percent in 2011, 70 percent in 2012, 80 percent in 2013, 90 percent 

in 2014, and 100 percent in 2015. 

In Title II, the bill authorizes $100 million for each of fiscal years 

2010 through 2015 for public schools in the Gulf region in response 

to damages from Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. These funds 

are to be used for the same purposes as Title I funds, but also may 

be used for new construction, and must be distributed by the Secretary within 60 days of an appropriation. 

The bill requires local educational agencies to ensure that the bid 

process for any projects carried out through a contract ensures the 

maximum number of qualified bidders, including local, small, minority, women- and veteran-owned businesses, through full and 

open competition. 

It requires that all iron, steel and manufactured goods used in 

projects funded by this Act be produced in the United States, but 

allows the Secretary to waive the requirement under specified circumstances. 

Davis-Bacon labor law protections apply to all funds received 

under the Act. 

The bill requires that charter schools receive a share of a local 

education agency’s funds under this Act based on the percentage of 

low-income students within the agency served by charter schools. 

The bill also requires consultation between the agency and charter 

schools on that process. 

The bill requires school districts to report publicly on educational, energy, and indoor environmental benefits of projects, 

compliance with the green requirement, and the percentage of 

funds used for projects at low-income, charter and rural schools. 

States must compile these reports and submit them to the Secretary who shall, in turn, report to the House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions and make that report available on the Department’s website 

The bill requires the Secretary of Education (in consultation with 

the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency) to disseminate best practices in school 

modernization, renovation, repair and construction of school facilities and to provide technical assistance to states and school districts concerning such best practices. 

The bill prohibits funds to be used to employ workers in violation 

of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act or to be distributed to a local educational agency that does not have a policy 

that requires a criminal background check on all agency employees. 

Finally, the bill requires the Secretary, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Labor, to work with recipients of funds under this Act 

to promote appropriate opportunities for participants in Youthbuild 

programs to gain experience on projects funded by this Act. 

IV. COMMITTEE VIEWS

The Committee believes that H.R. 2187 addresses a number of 

important issues—the quality of our nation’s public school facilities, 

student achievement, the state of the economy, and the state of the 

environment. The Committee believes that these issues are interrelated and that each represents a critical national concern. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
13 

2Testimony of Representative Ben Chandler, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-BenChandler.pdf. 3Testimony of Kathleen J. Moore, Director, School Facilities Planning Division, California Department of Education, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and 

Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http:// 

edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-KathleenMoore.pdf). 4Good Buildings, Better Schools, Filardo, M., Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper, April 

29, 2008. 5 Condition of America’s Schools, Government Accounting Office, 1995 (GAO/HEHS-95-61). 

6 In 2004, the General Accounting Office was renamed the Government Accountability Office. 

The Committee will use ‘‘GAO’’ to refer to both. 7 Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999, National Center for Education Statistics. 8Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost?, National Education Association, 2000. 

9 Building Minds, Minding Buildings: School Infrastructure Funding Need, A state-by-state assessment and an analysis of recent court cases: 2008, American Federation of Teachers. 10http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/schools. 

As noted above, President Obama and Congress have already endorsed these principles by making green school modernization, renovation and repair an allowable use of funds under the state fiscal 

stabilization fund in H.R. 1. The Committee believes H.R. 2187 is 

a critical next step in this effort because it is important to provide 

funds specifically dedicated to this purpose. Prior to ARRA, and 

with the exception of funding through the Impact Aid program and 

through the Department of the Interior for Indian schools, direct 

federal support for school construction has been virtually non-existent since fiscal year 2001, when Congress appropriated $1.2 billion 

primarily for emergency school repair and renovation. The Committee agrees with Representative Chandler’s testimony before the 

Committee last year, that ‘‘[w]hile Congress has recognized that 

educational excellence is vital to the economy and national competitiveness, too often we have failed to provide . . . the funding necessary to make these goals a reality.’’ 2

The demand for new and renovated public school facilities is unprecedented in our nation’s history.3 A briefing paper delivered at 

an Economic Policy Institute forum, Investing in U.S. Infrastructure, in April 2008, called for $140 billion in federal funds for capital outlays for low-income school districts and an ongoing federal 

role in such funding comparable to the current federal share of 

education operations funding (approximately 10 percent) in order to 

bring these districts up to parity with the highest income districts. 

The paper argued that such funding is necessary to ensure that 

‘‘the nation’s public schools are healthy, safe, environmentally 

sound, and built . . . to support a high-quality education.’’ 4

Need and disparity 

The most recent comprehensive estimates of the national need for school construction and renovation were made in 1995 ($112 billion, U.S. General Accounting Office 5 (GAO) 6 ), 2000 ($127 billion, 

National Center for Education Statistics 7 (NCES)), 2001 ($322 billion, National Education Association 8 (NEA)), and 2008 ($254.6 billion, American Federation of Teachers (AFT)) 9. 

Several studies highlight the inadequacy of school facilities. In 

2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers, on its national infrastructure report card, gave America’s public schools a D.10 A 

2005 survey of school principals by NCES found that fifty-two percent of schools had no science laboratories, thirty percent had no 

art rooms, nineteen percent had no music rooms, and seventeen 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
14 

11Public School Principals Report on Their School Facilities: Fall 2005, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 12 Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the 

United States 2003–2004, Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Education Statistics. 13 America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions, Government Accounting Office, 1996 (GAO/ 

HEHS–96–103). 14Growth and Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School Construction, Building Educational 

Success Together, 2006. 15Greening America’s Schools, Kats, G., 2006. 16 Ibid. 

percent had no gymnasium.11 A 2004 NCES report found that one 

school in three had temporary buildings as the primary learning 

space for at least 160 students, and that in one in five schools, 

teachers routinely had to use a building’s common areas for instructional purposes.12

Disparities in the condition of our schools are also well-documented. In 1996, GAO reported, in a follow-up to an earlier study, 

that on every measure—inadequate buildings or building features, 

unsatisfactory environmental conditions, etc.—the same subgroups 

schools in central cities, western states, and schools serving higher 

percentages of minority or low-income students—reported having 

more significant problems.13

In 2006, a report by Building Educational Success Together 

(BEST) concluded that the GAO and NEA estimates ‘‘grossly underestimated’’ the need for school improvements, and concurred 

with the 1996 GAO finding that facilities in low-income and minority-serving areas tended to be in significantly worse condition. The 

report also concluded that despite significant state and local expenditures on school construction and renovation from 1996–2004, 

‘‘there continue to be millions of students in substandard and 

crowded school conditions.’’ 14

It is the Committee’s intent that funds authorized by this bill be 

used to ensure that all children have access to a high-quality public 

school facility. The Committee recognizes that facility quality disparity is most likely to occur in low-income areas. Accordingly, the 

Committee encourages local educational agencies to take care to 

ensure that the needs of low-income and rural schools are addressed by giving priority to schools where modernization, renovation, and repair will most benefit students, teachers, and other 

staff and ensuring that the schools are safe, healthy, conducive to 

teaching and learning, energy efficient, and environmentally sound. 

Green Schools 

A 2006 report concludes that a green school (1) uses one-third 

less energy than a conventional school; (2) reduces harmful carbon 

dioxide emissions by forty percent, which helps reduce global climate change; (3) uses 30 percent less water; (4) has better lighting 

and temperature controls, which promotes higher student achievement; and (5) has a more comfortable indoor environment, improved ventilation and indoor air quality, which result in shortterm ($96,760 per year) and long-term savings as a result of green 

building.15 The average national school construction cost is $150 

per square foot; building green adds only $3 per square foot. 

According to the study, the long-term savings from green building are $70 per square foot.16

The importance of energy savings was illustrated by hearing testimony of Representative and Committee Member Holt. RepresentVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:18 May 12, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR100.XXX HR100

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
15 

17Testimony of Representative Rush Holt, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee 

on Education and Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 

2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-RushHolt.pdf. 18Testimony of Representative David Loebsack, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-DaveLoebsack.pdf. 19Testimony of Representative Darlene Hooley, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-DarleneHooley.pdf. 

ative Holt noted that between 2005 and 2007, schools’ energy costs 

increased from $6 billion annually to $8 billion.17 According to 

Committee Member Loebsack’s testimony at the same hearing, 

green schools save 33 percent on energy and 32 percent on water 

costs compared to non-green schools.18

The Committee believes that green building can serve a number 

of purposes. Such building will directly benefit both the larger environment and the indoor environment. The Committee further believes that green building will improve the ability of teachers to 

teach and students to learn as well as the health of students, 

teachers, and other school staff. 

States, cities, and school districts around the country have adopted green building and green schools initiatives. Representative 

Hooley (Co-Chair of the Congressional Green Schools Caucus) testified that by 2010, the green building market will be worth $60 billion, of which twenty-seven percent will be comprised by school facilities.19

The Committee believes that a critical component of the success 

of this bill will be local educational agencies’ knowledge of best 

practices in school construction, modernization, renovation, and repair as they relate to green building. 

With reference to states’ responsibilities, the bill directs states to 

develop voluntary guidelines for high-performing school buildings. 

The Committee encourages states, in developing the energy efficiency components of such guidelines, to look for direction to the 

definition of such plans in H.R. 579, the School Building Enhancement Act, introduced by Representative Holt. That bill defines such 

plans as including standards for school building design, construction, and renovation; and proposals for the systematic improvement 

(including benchmarks and timelines) of environmental conditions 

in and around schools throughout the state. H.R. 579 also encourages purchasing environmentally preferable products for instruction and maintenance, increasing the use of alternative energy 

fuels in school buses, and maximizing transportation choices for 

students, staff, and other members of the community. 

In addition to the voluntary state guidelines for high-performing 

school buildings required in the bill, the Committee encourages 

states to establish voluntary guidelines concerning performance 

monitoring, use of Energy Star equipment, alternative fuels buses, 

anti-idling measures, and other measures the state believes will 

contribute to high-performing schools. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary, in carrying out the Department’s technical assistance responsibilities under H.R. 2187, as 

amended, to examine the Illinois Resource Guide for Healthy, 

High-Performing School Buildings. The recommendations and information in the guide are intended to provide school administrators, school boards and other community members with guidance to 

make informed decisions about health and energy efficiency issues 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
16 

20For a discussion of a case study in building a modern, green school, see, Testimony of Mary 

Cullinane, Director, Innovation and Business Development Team, Microsoft Corporation, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School 

Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008- 

02-13-MaryCullinane.pdf). 21See, e.g., Testimony of Judi Caddick, Teacher, Memorial Junior High School, Illinois Education Association, Lansing, Illinois, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 

Education and Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 

2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-JudiCaddick.pdf). 22For Generations to Come, 21st Century School Fund, 2004. 23 Another study finding a relationship between facility quality and teacher retention is The 

Effects of School Facility Quality on Teacher Retention in Urban School Districts, Buckley, J., 

Schneider, M., and Shang, Y., 2004. 24Those factors include: air conditioning, size/configuration of rooms, acoustics or noise control, ventilation, heating, physical condition, indoor air quality, natural lighting, artificial lighting. 25The fourteen health and safety measures are accident prevention, asbestos management, 

fire/life safety, campus security, chemical safety, pest management, lead management, restroom 

facilities, indoor environment, maintenance and repair, safe school plan, emergency preparedness, traffic and pedestrian safety, and science laboratory safety. 

important to schools. The guide’s objective is to promote long-term 

thinking and to ensure that school buildings are compatible with 

the goals of improving learning environments, reducing operating 

costs, supporting health and safety, and protecting our natural environment.20

Impact on teaching and learning 

The Committee believes that while equity alone justifies federal 

support for local educational agencies to ensure that every child 

has access to a high-quality public school facility, such support also 

is essential to closing the achievement gap. The Committee believes 

that the relationship between the quality of school facilities and 

student achievement and teacher performance and retention are 

positively intertwined.21 Research demonstrates that better school 

facilities result in improved student achievement and teacher recruitment and retention. The physical condition of schools also affects student and teacher health. 

According to a 2004 report by the 21st Century School Fund, inadequate school facilities can result in alienated students, low staff 

morale, high teacher attrition, the inability to provide specialized 

curricula, reduced learning time, distractions from learning, reduced ability to meet special needs, lack of technological proficiency, health problems for students and staff, safety hazards, 

and less supervision of student behavior.22

In its 2005 survey, NCES noted that a key reason for school construction and renovation is student and teacher safety, but that 

building quality also affects the context for learning, such that 

lighting, noise reduction, air quality and other factors can affect 

student achievement and behavior. NCES further noted that building quality affects teacher retention—forty percent of teachers who 

transferred schools and thirty-nine percent who left teaching cited 

the need for significant school repairs as a source of their dissatisfaction.23 NCES found that one-third of school principals cited 

at least one environmental factor 24 as interfering with their ability 

to deliver instruction. 

A 2004 study of the Los Angeles Unified School District, authored by the current Commissioner of NCES, found a positive relationship between a school’s compliance with fourteen health and 

safety measures 25 and its students’ academic performance on CaliVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:18 May 12, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR100.XXX HR100

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
17 

26LAUSD School Facilities and Academic Performance, Buckley, J., Schneider, M. and Shang, 

Y., 2004. 27http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-PaulaVincent.pdf. 28 A Summary of Scientific Findings on Adverse Effects of Indoor Environments on Students’ 

Health, Academic Performance and Attendance, U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004. 29http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/children.htm. 30 Building Minds, Minding Buildings, American Federation of Teachers, 2006. 

fornia State tests.26 And, the testimony at the Committee’s February 13, 2008 hearing of Dr. Paula Vincent, the Superintendent 

of the Clear Creek Amana (Iowa) School District identifies and discusses a number of other studies linking school facilities with improved student achievement and teacher performance and retention.27

The Committee encourages school districts that undertake 

projects to reduce or eliminate human exposure to classroom noise 

and environmental noise pollution, and the Secretary, in providing 

technical assistance concerning reducing background noise and reverberation in classrooms, to consider the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) approved Standard S12.6–2002, [Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines 

for School]. 

Impact on health 

A 2004 study mandated by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, 

and funded by the Department of Education found that ‘‘overall 

evidence suggests that poor environments in schools, due primarily 

to the effects of indoor pollutants, adversely affect the health, performance, and attendance of students.’’ Specifically, the study 

found that indoor environmental quality can influence health outcomes, which may, in turn, influence student and teacher performance directly and indirectly.28 The study cites the 1995 GAO finding that thirty percent of schools reported unsatisfactory ventilation. 

The Centers for Disease Control advises that asthma accounts 

for more than fourteen million missed school days per year.29 A 

2006 report by the American Federation of Teachers concludes that 

‘‘[p]oor air quality in schools contributes to students’ asthma, absences due to illness, difficulty concentrating, and lower achievement.’’ 30

The Committee further recognizes that although lead solder with 

more than 0.2 percent lead and plumbing fixtures with more than 

8 percent lead were banned in 1987, such products remain in 

schools across the country. The longer water remains in contact 

with leaded plumbing, the more opportunity exists for lead to leach 

into water. As a result, many facilities with on again/off again 

water use patterns, such as schools, have elevated lead concentrations in the water. The Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Centers for Disease Control both have concluded that there is no 

safe level of exposure to lead. Exposure to lead early in life has 

been linked to cognitive deficits, attention deficits, and extremely 

aggressive behavior. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
18 

31Growth and Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School Construction, Building Educational 

Success Together, 2006. 32Testimony of Representative Bob Etheridge, Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-02-13-BobEtheridge.pdf. 33See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. 34See also Testimony of Paul Vallas, Superintendent, Louisiana Recovery School District, 

Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Modern Public 

School Facilities: Investing in the Future, February 13, 2008 (http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/ 

2008-02-13-PaulVallas.pdf). 

Impact on community 

According to the 2006 BEST study, the difference between good 

and poor quality facilities also affects the communities in which 

they are located. School quality has a direct, positive impact on residential property values and can improve a community’s ability to 

attract businesses and workers.31 This point also is supported by 

Representative Bob Etheridge’s testimony at the February 13, 2008 

Committee hearing on this issue.32

The BEST study also concluded that investments in school facilities bring money into local economies through job creation and supply purchases and can help revitalize distressed neighborhoods. 

The Committee is persuaded by these findings and expects that 

this bill will produce positive results in our communities. 

Impact on economy 

Direct federal investment in school improvements could provide 

an immediate boost to our economy and generate jobs. Federal 

funding for the modernization, renovation, or repair of school facilities could be spent quickly and efficiently to address the loss of 1.3 

million jobs in the construction industry over the last year and a 

half.33

An analysis of H.R. 2187 as amended by the substitute was provided to the Committee by the Economic Policy Institute. The analysis estimates that this bill’s funding would support 136,000 new 

jobs. 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

H.R. 2187 provides additional support for Gulf Coast schools still 

recovering from damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

The Gulf region, primarily New Orleans, has hundreds of millions 

of dollars in unmet school modernization, renovation, repair and 

construction needs, much as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. 

Prior to the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Recovery School District of Louisiana (RSD) already had a deferred 

maintenance infrastructure deficit of approximately $1 billion. The 

hurricanes caused an additional $800 million in damage to the district’s schools. 

The funding from this bill will help the district, and others in the 

Gulf region, meet these important and timely needs as they continue to recover from the hurricanes.34

Davis-Bacon 

Under the bill, the construction, modernization, repair, and renovation projects paid for, in whole or in part, with the grants made 

available by this legislation are subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
19 

35See generally, Peter Philips, ‘‘Square Foot Construction Costs for Newly Constructed State 

and Local Schools, Offices and Warehouses in Nine Southwestern and Intermountain States 

1992–1994,’’ Prepared for the Legislative Education Study Committee of the New Mexico State 

Legislature, September 6, 1996. 36Michael P. Kelsay et al., ‘‘The Adverse Economic Impact from Repeal of the Prevailing Wage 

Law in Missouri,’’ Council for Promoting American Business, January 2004. 37 Among the many organizations supporting H.R. 2187 are 21st Century School Fund; American Association of Classified School Employees; American Association of School Administrators 

(AASA); American Architectural Foundation; American Congress on Surveying and Mapping; 

American Council of Engineering Companies; American Federation of Teachers; American Institute of Architects; American Lighting Association; American Society of Civil Engineers; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; American Society of 

Landscape Architects; Architecture 2030; The Collaborative for High Performance Schools 

(CHPS); The Campaign for Environmental Literacy; Center for Environmental Innovation in 

Roofing; Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI); Council of the Great 

City Schools; Environment America; Environmental and Energy Study Institute; Global Green; 

Green for All; Healthy Schools Campaign; International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, 

AFL-CIO; Mechanical Contractors Association of America; National Association of Energy Service Companies; National Association of State Energy Officials; National Construction Alliance 

II (NCA II—the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the International 

Union of Operating Engineers); National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP); 

National Education Association; National School Plant Management Association; National Society of Professional Engineers; National Wildlife Federation; Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors Association; Rebuild America’s Schools; Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ 

National Association; The Stella Group; Sustainable Buildings Industry Council; U.S. Green 

Building Council (USGBC). 

wage requirements. Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rules ensure that 

taxpayer dollars are not used to undercut local wage rates. These 

rules require contractors to pay the local prevailing wage to their 

employees. 

Davis-Bacon requirements will help control costs, ensure higher 

quality work, and improve safety. Studies have shown that, where 

prevailing wages are not required, contractors compete on the basis 

of labor costs, frequently resulting in poor construction quality as 

well as substantial cost and time overruns due to cheaper workers’ 

lower levels of skill, productivity, and training.35 Where prevailing 

wages are paid, higher rates of productivity, safety, and building 

quality more than offset the cost of higher wages. For example, one 

study by the Mechanical Electrical Sheet Metal Alliance, focusing 

on highway and bridge construction, found that workers who were 

paid more than double the wage of low-wage workers were able to 

build 74.4 more miles of highway and 32.8 more miles of bridges 

for $557 million less. 

Davis-Bacon requirements help save federal, state, and local revenue. By creating family-supporting jobs in local communities that 

do not drive workers’ wages down, these requirements ease the 

burden on public programs and provide support for more economic 

activity. Studies have found that repeal of local prevailing wage 

laws results in lower incomes, loss of sales tax revenues, and a general loss of economic activity.36 These are precisely the types of effects the Committee intends to avoid by providing federal assistance to local communities consistent with Davis-Bacon. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, the Committee believes passage of 

this bill will provide significant educational benefits for our nation’s students, health benefits for students, teachers, and others 

who work in our schools, financial benefits for schools resulting 

from energy savings, economic benefits for hundreds of thousands 

of American workers and their families, and environmental benefits.37


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
20 

V. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 2. Definitions 

Includes definitions of Bureau-funded school, charter school, local 

educational agency, outlying area, public school facilities, state, 

LEED Green Building Rating System, Energy Star, CHPS Criteria, 

and Green Globes. 

TITLE I—GRANTS FOR MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, OR REPAIR OF

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Sec. 101. Purpose 

Indicates the purpose of grants under Title I is for modernizing, 

renovating, or repairing public early learning, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary educational facilities. 

Sec. 102. Allocation of funds 

Directs the Secretary to reserve one percent of funds appropriated for Title I in any fiscal year for assistance to the outlying 

areas and for payments to the Secretary of the Interior for assistance to Bureau-funded schools and requires that such funds be distributed between the outlying areas and the Department of the Interior for schools in outlying areas and Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools in the same proportion as the amount reserved under section 1121(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act is so distributed. Allows each state to reserve up to 

one percent of funds appropriated for Title I in any fiscal year to 

carry out its responsibilities under the Act, which include providing 

technical assistance, developing an online, publicly searchable 

statewide database of public school facility design, condition, modernization, renovation and repair needs, usage, utilization, energy 

use, and carbon footprint, and creating voluntary guidelines for 

high-performing public school buildings. 

Allocates to each State the same percentage of funds appropriated under Title I of this Act that the state receives under Title 

I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

Requires local educational agencies, in order to receive funds, to 

conduct an independent, third party audit of the condition of its 

public school facilities that is certified by the state. Within each 

state, allocates to each local educational agency the same percentage of funds appropriated under Title I of this Act that the agency 

receives under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965. 

Requires the Secretary, in determining state and local allocations, to take into account the hold-harmless provisions of Title I, 

Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

Requires the Secretary to distribute funds to states within thirty 

days of the Department’s appropriation and requires states to distribute funds to local educational agencies within thirty days of 

having received them from the Secretary. 

Sec. 103. Allowable uses of funds 

Describes the types of public school modernizations, renovations, 

and repairs that are allowable uses of funds under Title I, including roofs, electrical, plumbing, sewage, stormwater runoff and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
21 

lighting systems or components thereof, and windows, floors, ceilings and doors; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems 

or components thereof, including insulation and indoor air quality 

assessments; bringing schools into compliance with fire, health, 

seismic and safety codes, including modernizations, renovations, 

and repairs that ensure that schools are prepared for emergencies; 

complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; abatement, removal, 

or interim controls of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, mold, 

mildew, or lead-based hazards; reduction of classroom noise and 

environmental noise pollution; modernization, renovation, or repairs to reduce the consumption of coal, electricity, land, natural 

gas, oil, or water; upgrading or installing educational technology infrastructure; modernization, renovation, or repairs of laboratory facilities, libraries, career and technical education facilities and 

building infrastructure to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access; renewable energy generation and heating systems and energy 

audits; other modernizations, renovations, or repairs that improve 

the teaching and learning climate, ensure the health and safety of 

students and staff, make schools more energy efficient or reduce 

class size; and required environmental remediation related to modernizations, renovations, or repairs described above. 

TITLE II—SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND

ALABAMA

Sec. 201. Purpose 

Indicates the purpose of grants under Title I is for modernizing, 

renovating, repairing, or constructing public early learning, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary educational facilities. 

Sec. 202. Allocation to local educational agencies 

Directs the Secretary to allocate funds to local educational agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama based on the infrastructure damage caused as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. 

Requires the Secretary to distribute funds to local educational 

agencies within sixty days of an appropriation of funds. 

Sec. 203. Allowable uses of funds 

Includes the same list of allowable uses of funds as section 103, 

but also allows local educational agencies to use Title II funds for 

construction of new facilities. 

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Impermissible uses of funds 

Prohibits funds received under this Act from being used for 

maintenance, stadiums or similar facilities whose primary use is 

for athletic contests or events for which admission is charged to the 

general public. Also prohibits the improvement or construction of 

facilities which purpose is not the education of children, such as 

administrative facilities, or the purchase of carbon offsets. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
22 

Sec. 302. Supplement, not supplant 

Requires local educational agencies receiving funds under this 

Act to use such funds to supplement, and not supplant, funds that 

otherwise would be used for the same purposes. 

Sec. 303. Prohibition regarding state aid 

Prohibits a state from taking payments under this Act into consideration when determining the eligibility, or amount of, state aid 

for any local educational agencies. 

Sec. 304. Maintenance of effort 

Provides for a 90 percent maintenance of effort for local educational agencies with respect to the provision of a free public education from the previous to the second previous fiscal year concerning the receipt of funds under this Act. 

Sec. 305. Special rule on contracting 

Requires a local educational agency that receives funds under 

this Act and that carries out projects through a contract to ensure 

that the bidding process consists of the maximum number of qualified bidders, including local, small, minority, women- and veteranowned businesses, through full and open competition. 

Sec. 306. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods 

Requires that all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used 

in projects under this Act are produced in the United States unless 

the Secretary finds that the use of these products is inconsistent 

with the public interest, the products are not produced in sufficient 

and reasonably available quantities or of satisfactory quality, or 

the use of such products will increase the overall cost of the project 

by more than 25 percent. If the Secretary waives this provision due 

to a circumstance described above, the Secretary must publish a 

detailed written justification of the determination in the Federal 

Register. This section must be applied in a manner that is consistent with the United States’ obligations under international 

agreements. 

Sec. 307. Application of GEPA 

States that the Davis-Bacon labor law provisions apply to any 

funds received under this Act. 

Sec. 308. Charter schools 

Requires that charter schools receive a portion of a local educational agency’s funds under this Act, based on the percentage of 

low income students in the local educational agency served by charter schools and that local educational agencies consult with charter 

schools to determine individual schools’ needs for renovation, modernization, and repair. 

Sec. 309. Green schools 

Requires local educational agencies receiving funds under this 

Act to use at least half of such funds in fiscal year 2010 (and increasing by ten percentage points per year, to one hundred percent 

in fiscal year 2015) for public school modernizations, renovations, 

repairs, or construction that meet specified green standards, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:18 May 12, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR100.XXX HR100

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
23 

cluding equivalent standards adopted by the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the agency, which must include a 

verifiable method to demonstrate compliance. 

Requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to provide outreach and technical assistance to states and local 

educational agencies concerning best practices in school modernization, renovation, repair and construction, including those related to 

student academic achievement, student and staff health, energy efficiency, and environmental protection. 

Directs the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Labor, to work with local educational agencies to promote appropriate opportunities for participants in the YouthBuild program to 

gain employment experience through projects under this Act. 

Sec. 310. Reporting 

Describes the reporting requirements applicable to local educational agencies, states, and the Secretary, and requires local educational agencies and the Secretary to make their reports publicly 

available, including on their website. 

Sec. 311. Authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes $6,400,000,000 for Title I for fiscal year 2010 and 

such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 

Authorizes $100,000,000 for Title II for each of the fiscal years 

2010 through 2015. 

Sec. 312. Special rules 

Prohibits funds from being used to employ workers in violation 

of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act or from 

being distributed to a local educational agency that does not have 

a policy that requires a criminal background check on all agency 

employees. 

Sec. 313. Youthbuild programs 

Requires the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Labor, to work with recipients of funds under this Act 

to promote appropriate opportunities for participants in Youthbuild 

programs to gain experience on projects funded by this Act. 

VI. EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute is explained in the 

body of this report. 

VII. APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1, the Congressional Accountability Act, requires a description of the application of this bill 

to the legislative branch. H.R. 2187, as amended, provides federal 

funding to help modernize and renovate public schools. The bill 

does not prevent legislative branch employees’ coverage under this 

legislation. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
24 

VIII. UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. H.R. 

2187, as amended, contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

IX. EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 2187, as amended, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clauses 9(d), 9(e) or 9(f) of rule XXI of the House of Representatives. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
25 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here HR100.001
26 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here HR100.002
27 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here HR100.003
28 

XI. STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

body of this report. 

XII. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements of 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives and section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for H.R. 2187, as amended, from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 11, 2009. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2187, the 21st Century 

Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin Humphrey. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2187—21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act 

Summary: H.R. 2187 would authorize the appropriation of $6.4 

billion for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as may be necessary for 

fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to award grants to help modernize 

and renovate public schools. It also would authorize the appropriation of $100 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015 to 

help repair public schools damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

and to construct new schools. (Under the General Education Provisions Act, these authorizations automatically would be extended 

one year.) 

As shown in the following table, CBO estimates that H.R. 2187 

would increase discretionary spending by nearly $20 billion over 

the 2010–2014 period. For this estimate, CBO assumes that $32.9 

billion will be appropriated over that period and that outlays will 

follow the historical spending patterns of similar programs. The 

costs of this legislation fall within budget function 500 (education, 

training, employment and social services). Enacting the bill would 

have no impact on direct spending or revenues. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
29 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010– 

2014 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Title I: 

Estimated Authorization Level ........................................... 6,400 6,438 6,476 6,508 6,565 32,387 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................. 320 2,242 4,815 5,803 6,477 19,657 

Title II: 

Authorization Level ............................................................ 100 100 100 100 100 500 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................. 5 35 75 90 100 305 

Total Changes.

Estimated Authorization Level ............................. 6,500 6,538 6,576 6,608 6,665 32,887 

Outlays ................................................................. 325 2,277 4,890 5,893 6,577 19,962 

H.R. 2187 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Humphrey. 

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

XIII. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the goal of H.R. 2187 is to provide grants to help modernize and renovate public schools. The Committee expects the Department of Education to comply with H.R. 2187 and implement 

the changes to the law in accordance with these stated goals. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, 

the Committee must include a statement citing the specific powers 

granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 

by H.R.2187. The Committee believes that the amendments made 

by this bill are within Congress’ authority under Article I, section 

8, clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution. 

XV. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2187. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that 

rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate 

of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act. 

XVI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, there are no changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported. 

XVII. COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

None. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(30) 

1The federal government also exempts the interest on state and local governmental bonds 

from federal income taxes. States and local areas are provided tax credits for issuing Qualified 

Zone Academy Bonds or QZABs, which may be used for schools based in Empowerment Zones 

or Enterprise Communities, or schools with 35 percent of students qualified for free or reduced 

price lunches under the Federal School Lunch Program. 

MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 2187, THE 21ST CENTURY GREEN 

HIGH-PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT 

Introduction 

Over the past decade, the condition of local public school facilities 

has become an important component of the education debate in 

communities throughout the nation. In both cities and suburbs, 

students, parents, teachers, and many public officials argue that 

school buildings are overcrowded, unsafe, and obsolete. As a result, 

the amount being spent on school construction, modernization, and 

renovation has become a significant issue in many states and local 

school districts. 

The federal government has historically had an extremely limited role in directly financing school infrastructure projects and facility improvement programs. The U.S. Department of Education 

operates the Impact Aid Construction program, which provides 

funding to school districts to build and repair schools impacted by 

the loss of tax revenue because of the presence of military bases, 

federal lands, and Indian reservations in the area; that is, assistance to children who historically have been a federal responsibility. 

The federal government also provides indirect financial support for 

school construction by providing enhanced credit provisions for construction of charter schools by incentivizing the private sector to 

make loans to charter schools for facilities.1

But, overall, the construction and modernization of public elementary and secondary schools has historically been a State and 

local responsibility. For more than 40 years, Congress has deliberately limited the scope of federal intervention in elementary and 

secondary education to those efforts that increase student academic 

achievement. That is, until Democrats on the House Education and 

Labor Committee took up and passed legislation creating a massive 

new federal school construction program, which would be administered through the U.S. Department of Education. The bill, H.R. 

2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, would nationalize and regulate school construction 

projects; threaten state, local, and private support for educational 

infrastructure; jeopardize Congress’ ability to reduce federal spending; push the country further into debt; dramatically increase the 

cost of elementary and secondary schools; and siphon resources 

from longstanding education priorities while failing to improve academic achievement. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
31 

H.R. 2187 nationalizes and regulates school construction projects. 

States and local communities have the primary responsibility to 

set public policy over education, particularly public elementary and 

secondary education. When the federal government has intervened 

to fulfill a pressing need, it has done so while maintaining the autonomy and authority of local communities to make those decisions 

that impact students in their classrooms. The federal government 

does not have the right to replace the responsibilities that lie with 

states and school districts to set their own priorities and to provide 

funding for programs that assist in the education of children. 

The introduction of a new federal program for school construction, like that envisioned under H.R. 2187, would fundamentally 

change this dynamic by giving the federal government responsibility for funding and regulating school construction projects. This 

would undermine the basic premise of elementary and secondary 

education: that education policy should be set at the local level by 

teachers, parents, and superintendents. Instead of passing legislation that would reinforce local control, the Democratic Majority proposes to nationalize school construction projects, forcing states and 

school districts to meet a variety of impractical requirements and 

guidelines set by federal bureaucrats, including regulations that 

building materials meet certain environmental rules. These restrictive federal regulations will needlessly increase project costs and 

provide less flexibility for states and school districts to meet the 

needs of their students. 

H.R. 2187 threatens state, local, and private support for educational 

infrastructure. 

While accurate estimates are difficult to obtain, the U.S. Department of Education has attempted to project the needs and costs of 

school construction, modernization, renovation, and repair. According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) entitled Public 

School Principals Report on Their School Facilities: Fall 2005, the 

unmet need for school construction and renovation is estimated at 

$112 billion, with three-quarters of the nation’s schools reporting 

a need for funds to bring their buildings into a ‘‘good overall condition.’’ However, it should be noted that much of the data on which 

the Department relied was from self-reporting of construction 

needs by school superintendents and other officials. There has been 

no comprehensive independent analysis, such as by an independent 

assessor, conducted to determine the true infrastructure needs 

across the country. 

In order to deal with the need for new construction or renovations to existing buildings, states and local school districts have 

made a significant commitment to public funding of school construction, modernization, renovation, and repair. According to ‘‘The 

2009 Annual School Construction Report’’ recently released by 

School Planning and Management, school construction valued at an 

estimated $19.5 billion was completed in 2008. Of this amount, $13 

billion was spent on the design and construction of new schools (accounting for 66.5 percent of the construction dollars), $3.2 billion 

(16.6 percent) on additions to existing buildings, and just under 

$3.3 billion (16.9 percent) on retrofit and modernization of existing 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
32 

structures. According to the report, the percentage of construction 

dollars spent on new buildings was the highest since 1979. During 

the past seven years, school districts have completed construction 

projects totaling more than $144 billion. 

With statistics showing that the unmet need for school construc- tion and renovation is estimated at $112 billion and that states and 

local school districts spend an average of $20 billion annually on 

school construction, it is valid to wonder how a new federal school 

construction program administered by the U.S. Department of Education (which annually receives roughly $25 billion for the entire 

range of programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act) could do a better job at building schools than state 

and local officials. Yet despite the relatively miniscule impact this 

new federal intervention will have, the mere presence of federal 

spending could have the unintended consequence of signaling that 

other parties are no longer responsible for these key investments. 

With passage of H.R. 2187, there is a great possibility that states, 

local communities, and private sector investors will back away from 

their responsibility to build and maintain safe and modern schools. 

H.R. 2187 jeopardizes Congress’ ability to reduce federal spending, 

pushing the country further into debt. 

America is in the midst of an economic and financial crisis. The 

national debt now stands at more than $11 trillion, and this year 

alone, the federal government is projected to run a deficit of close 

to $2 trillion, a fact that is hard for most Americans to comprehend 

when they have to balance their family checkbook. With these sobering facts, it’s time for Congress to get the federal budget under 

control. During the recent campaign and in his first few months in 

office, President Obama has pledged repeatedly that his Administration will embrace fiscal discipline by taking a scalpel to the massive federal budget and going through it line-by-line to ‘‘stop wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial 

sense.’’ A complementary effort is for Congress to resist the temptation to create new programs when the existing need is already 

being addressed at the state and local level. 

Instead of standing up to the out-of-control spending spree, the 

Democratic majority is proposing to add an estimated $20 billion 

to the federal debt over the next five years, significantly increasing 

the size and scope of the federal government and undermining Congress’ ability to reduce the deficit and get the federal budget under 

control. 

H.R. 2187 dramatically increases the cost of building elementary 

and secondary schools. 

One of the most troubling aspects of the massive new federal 

school construction program authorized through H.R. 2187 is that 

it will be subject to the requirements of the Depression-era DavisBacon Act, which requires construction projects to be paid using 

flawed ‘‘prevailing wages’’ and favors union wage workers. Under 

the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), all laborers on all 

construction projects assisted under any program administered by 

the U.S. Department of Education must be paid wages at rates not 

less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
33 

determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the DavisBacon Act. 

The law was originally passed in 1935 to ensure that the government’s buying power did not drive down construction workers’ 

wages during the Great Depression. Decades later, these prevailing 

wage rates have been proven to be fundamentally flawed, often 

bearing no relation to market wages. Still, they persist in adding 

bureaucratic complexity to federally-funded construction projects, 

including the administrative burden of weekly wage data filing. As 

such, any federal intervention into school construction carries with 

it significant burdens of costs and time consuming paperwork. 

A number of studies have confirmed the flaws inherent in DavisBacon wage calculations, and point out that projects conducted 

under the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act commonly cost between 22 and 26 percent more when compared to similar projects 

completed under market conditions. For example, the Beacon Hill 

Institute completed a study on the effects of paying Davis-Bacon inflated wages in public construction projects and found that when 

the Davis-Bacon mandated wages were followed, labor costs rose by 

22 percent above the reported median wage, while overall construction costs went up 10 percent (which means that almost 10 percent 

of the total construction cost of a new school would be attributable 

to mandates imposed under the Davis-Bacon Act). In total, the 

study reports that Davis-Bacon costs taxpayers over $8.6 billion annually—enough money to hire over 18,000 teachers. 

Just as important, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and 

the U.S. Government Accountability Office have weighed in on this 

important issue. CBO estimates that the federal government could 

save more than $10.5 billion in construction costs if it were to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. It also found that the Davis-Bacon Act 

contributes to the backlog of maintenance projects on the federal 

level, because, ‘‘by raising labor costs, the act reduces the amount 

of maintenance that can be accomplished within a given budget.’’ 

The GAO is also on record in stating that the Davis-Bacon Act is, 

‘‘not susceptible to practical and effective administration’’ by the 

Department of Labor and that Davis-Bacon has resulted in unnecessary construction and administration costs, inflated prices, and 

inaccurate wages. 

This information makes it hard to doubt that Davis-Bacon Act 

‘‘prevailing wages’’ would inflate the costs of building our children’s 

schools and threaten salaries for teachers and in-class dollars for 

technology, textbooks, and supplies. Subjecting new school construction projects to Davis-Bacon wages is unnecessary and will 

force local school districts to divert scarce funds away from teachers and students. 

Given all of this information, it is clear that H.R. 2187 will dramatically raise the costs of school construction at the state and 

local level. At a time when state and local budgets are tightening 

or, in some cases, being cut because of the economic downturn, 

Congress should not impose this unnecessary and outdated mandate on local school districts, which will only serve to overinflate 

school construction prices, limit competition, and reduce jobs for 

entry-level workers. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
34 

2 It should be noted that, last year, the Democratic majority held a single hearing on the issue 

of school construction, which is more than what has been afforded Members of the House Education and Labor Committee this year. At that time, however, there was no opportunity to question the expert witnesses that were called before the Committee as the Chairman abruptly 

ended the hearing after the witnesses presented their oral testimony. 

H.R. 2187 siphons resources from longstanding education priorities 

and fails to improve academic achievement. 

Since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, the federal government has spent nearly $500 billion in federal funds provided by the American taxpayer on public elementary 

and secondary education. An overwhelming majority of this funding 

has been directed toward two primary programs that the federal 

government operates to improve student achievement—(1) Title I 

grants to local educational agencies (LEAs)/school districts under 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which authorizes 

federal aid to state and local educational agencies to help low-income and other disadvantaged children achieve to the same high 

state academic achievement standards as their peers and (2) state 

grants for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which 

authorizes funds to help states and LEAs provide special education 

and related services for children with disabilities. 

Over the last five decades, the federal government has deliberately focused its attention and funding on these programs and 

others that provide assistance to states and school districts to help 

them improve student academic achievement and to comply with 

federal mandates that come with educating students with special 

needs. This targeted focus reflects the recognition that states and 

local communities have the primary responsibility to set public policy over education, particularly public K–12 education. 

By passing H.R. 2187 and creating a new and massive federal 

school construction program, Congressional Democrats will weaken 

Congress’ ability to focus on current priorities and force us to back 

away from the federal focus on adequately funding programs that 

increase student achievement, including the Title I program and 

IDEA. In addition, it undermines the authority and decision-making ability of state and local officials who are in a better position 

to tailor programs to more closely meet their students’ unique 

needs and priorities. 

Committee consideration of H.R. 2187 

On May 6, 2009, the House Education and Labor Committee met 

to mark-up H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing 

Public School Facilities Act. The Democratic majority scheduled 

consideration of the legislation even though no hearings were held 

in advance to explore the merits of a new federal school construction program.2 As has become all too common, the bill was brought 

directly before the Full Committee, circumventing the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education and preventing Committee members on both sides of the 

aisle from engaging in a thorough and open debate on issues that 

impact our nation’s schools. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
35 

Rejected amendments that would have improved the bill 

During consideration of H.R. 2187, Committee Republicans offered a pair of amendments to reinforce the longstanding federal 

education priorities of Title I and IDEA. Unfortunately, both of the 

amendments were rejected by the majority. 

The amendments offered by Committee Republicans to improve 

the bill included: 

Congressman Mike Castle (R–DE) offered an amendment to require the Title I program for low-income students to be fully funded before federal resources could be redirected to support a new 

federal school construction program. The amendment was offered to 

address the fact that the underlying bill would divert significant resources from programs that are properly focused on raising the academic achievement of all students, mainly through the Title I program for low-income students. Under No Child Left Behind, Congress authorized $25 billion for the Title I program that provides 

financial assistance to local educational agencies and schools with 

high numbers or high percentages of poor children. Recently, the 

Democrat-controlled Congress provided $14.5 billion for the Title I 

program, more than $10 billion below the authorized funding level. 

Even though the Castle amendment would ensure that Congress 

keeps making progress toward meeting the funding goals for the 

Title I program for low-income students, it was rejected by a vote 

of 15–28. 

Congressman John Kline (R–MN) offered an amendment to require the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to be 

fully funded before creating a new federal school construction program. When the federal government set up the IDEA program in 

1975, Congress promised states and local school districts that it 

would provide 40 percent of the excess costs of educating children 

with disabilities to ensure that they receive a free appropriate public education. But despite enormous progress, especially over the 

past decade, Congress still is not meeting that commitment. Earlier 

this year, Congress provided $ 2.3 billion for IDEA. Although appropriations for IDEA grants to states have increased significantly 

over the last decade, funding still falls short of the amount that 

would be necessary to provide maximum grants to all states; some 

estimates conclude that appropriated amounts only account for 17% 

of excess costs. The Kline amendment would ensure that Congress 

keeps making progress toward meeting the funding goals for IDEA; 

however, it was rejected by a vote of 15–28. 

Adopted amendments that will improve the bill 

Congressman Jared Polis (D–CO) offered an amendment to ensure that public charter schools are treated in the same manner as 

other public schools under the federal school construction program. 

Committee Republicans strongly support charter schools, which are 

public schools created by teachers, parents, and other members of 

the community to educate students and to stimulate reform in the 

public school system. In exchange for greater accountability for student achievements, these schools are exempt from many local and 

state regulations. It is perhaps no coincidence that charter schools 

are usually among the top performers in big city school districts. 

Unfortunately, public charter schools are significantly underfunded 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
36 

when compared to traditional public schools, falling short of traditional public school funding by 22%, according to some estimates. 

Through the Polis amendment, charter schools will be guaranteed 

the same equitable access to facilities assistance as regular public 

schools under the bill. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

Congressman Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon (R–CA) offered an 

amendment to require local educational agencies to conduct an 

independent audit by a third-party entity substantiating the overall condition of their public school facilities. As discussed above, 

there has never been a comprehensive independent audit or analysis, such as one conducted by an independent assessor, on the nation’s school construction needs and it is nearly impossible to ascertain the true construction and maintenance needs of public schools 

at the state and local level. The McKeon amendment, similar to 

amendments offered by Congressman Tom Price (R–GA) in the 

past, seeks to address this situation by ensuring that school districts independently and accurately assess the state of their elementary and secondary schools to guide how resources would be allocated under this bill. It was adopted by a voice vote. 

Conclusion 

As outlined in these Minority Views, the primary responsibility 

for school construction has historically been and should remain at 

the state and local school levels. While members of the House Education and Labor Committee continue to receive feedback from 

some interest groups that our nation’s elementary and secondary 

schools need funds for school construction and facilities repair and 

renovation projects, other schools may have a need to hire more 

teachers, to provide additional instructional programs to improve 

student achievement for low-income students under the Title I program, or to provide needed services for special education students 

under IDEA. As such, the limited role of the federal government 

should remain focused on assisting local schools and school districts 

in raising student academic achievement. 

Committee Republicans would urge Congress to reject H.R. 2187 

and any attempt to create a federal school construction program. 

These efforts would undermine state and local educational agencies’ responsibility for school construction, add billions of dollars to 

the national debt, and dramatically increase the size and scope of 

the federal government; and it would do these things while diminishing support for programs that serve disadvantaged students. 

HOWARD P. MCKEON. 

THOMAS PRICE. 

DUNCAN HUNTER. 

DAVID P. ROE. 

JOE WILSON. 

GLENN THOMPSON. 

JOHN KLINE. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING