Legislation and Guidance
- Facility Financing Comes to the Forefront
- Congress Ready to Begin Budget Work
- President Signs Stimulus Package
- Negotiations Moving Forward on Farm Bill
News
Legislation and Guidance
Facility Financing Comes to the Forefront
On Wednesday, the House Committee on Education and Labor held a two-panel hearing on school facility financing, entitled “Modern Public School Facilities: Investing in the Future.” The first panel comprised of Members of Congress who have introduced school facility legislation or are involved with the issue. The second comprised of school facility practitioners and policy experts.
In panel one, eight members of Congress testified on either the importance of the federal role in school facility matters or the inappropriateness of federal involvement. Predictably, the matter fell along party lines. Indicative of those in favor of an expanded federal role, Representative Bob Etheridge (D-NC), a former Superintendent of North Carolina’s public schools, discussed his bill, H.R. 2470, the America’s Better Classrooms Act. He made the point that inadequate school facilities are not a function of improper management or lackluster efforts. The problem stems from an explosive demand on facilities that outpaces the efforts to keep with the demands. “School officials are striving to provide first class educational opportunities with infrastructure that has not kept up with the times,” said Etheridge. “Simply put, our schools are busting at the seams. ”
The Republican testimonies reflected concerns over the fiscal implications of further expansion of the federal role in education. The opportunity cost concerned Representative Mike Castle (R-DE) most. He observed that the federal government has not met many of its current funding obligations, such as fully funding No Child Left Behind, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and meeting various other requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Taking on yet another commitment may not be feasible, he testified. But the concerns over inflated construction costs overshadowed the polite opportunity costs argument.
Republicans spent significant time on the impact of the Davis-Bacon law upon construction costs. The Davis-Bacon mandate applies to any bill that receives federal dollars for construction or renovation. It requires that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on all construction and minor remodeling projects to be paid local prevailing wages as determined by the Secretary of Labor. The calculation of the prevailing wage, however, is a matter of debate. As explained by Representative Steve King (R-IA), the law artificially increases labor costs up to 22 percent and overall construction costs up to 9 percent. Because of this increased cost, the Republicans panelists made it clear that they would reject any legislation that would force the Davis-Bacon mandate on school construction and re-modeling. The heated discussion on this debate made it clear that the future of any facility finance bill in Congress this year will turn on its interface with the Davis-Bacon requirements.
The second panel provided the Committee with a practitioner’s view of the federal role in school facility financing. Six panelists informed the Committee about their work in the field and how the federal government has supported their work.
For example, Kathleen Moore, the Director of the School Facilities Planning Division of the California Department of Education, discussed the impact of facilities on student achievement and teacher retention, California’s school facilities needs and successful federal facility programs and the need for continued and expanded federal assistance. Notably, Moore discussed two federal programs that have helped California: the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) program and the Federal Renovation Program. Both, she testified, are models for federal involvement. The QZAB program is a strong model for providing tax credits that allow LEAs the benefit of interest free financing on bonds and the Federal Renovation Program is a good model of a grant that targets urgent repair and renovation. “The physical condition of school facilities impact student achievement and experience as well as teacher retention and community vitality,” testified Moore.“A quality school facility is but one component necessary for successful learning. Alone it is no silver bullet, but together with rigorous standards, qualified teachers and system accountability, it can positively impact educational outcomes.”
The hearing made two things clear. First, the current role in federal facility financing has been critical for many schools and districts. Second, the expansion of the federal role is possible in this session of Congress, but they must resolve the partisan split if any new bills hope to move forward before the elections in November.
Resources
School facility bills before Congress
H.R. 3021, the 21st Century High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, introduced by Representative Ben Chandler (D-KY);
H.R. 3902, Public School Repair and Renovation Act, introduced by Congressman David Loebsack’s (D-IA);
H.R. 3197, the School Building Enhancement Act, authored by Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ);
H.R. 2470, the American’s Better Classrooms Act (ABC), sponsored by House Ways and Means Committee Chair Charlie Rangel
Congress Ready to Begin Budget Work
President Bush began the fiscal year 2009 (FY09) budget cycle last week when he released his budget request. The wheels are beginning to turn in Congress, and the House and Senate Budget Committee plan to begin work shortly after they return from the week-long President’s Day recess. Despite conceding a lot of ground to the President’s request last year, the Democratic majority in Congress is claiming that it will begin the same fight it lost last year.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Ken Conrad (D-ND) is promising to turn a budget resolution (BR) out of committee that closely resembles last year’s resolution. Senator Conrad plans to mark up the BR on March 5th and 6th. Although the House has not scheduled a mark up, House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-SC) intends to begin work around that same time. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to lambast the President’s budget request, claiming it underfunds too many important domestic priorities.
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is criticizing cuts to the children’s health insurance program and various higher education grants, including elimination of the Perkins loan program, which provides money for low-income students to attend college. She is estimating that the President’s budget would cut about $900 million from higher education programs. Rep. Spratt also joined in by referring to Bush’s budget cuts as “draconian,” especially regarding cuts to entitlement programs. However, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson argued that entitlement reform would help raise revenue by nearly $2 trillion a year.
Once both chambers have passed their own BRs, the bills will go to conference and they will put together a joint BR. Once that is approved by both the House and the Senate, it will set caps on discretionary spending, meant to guide Congressional appropriators, who begin work shortly after a joint BR is passed. Since the BR is only used for Congressional purposes, it does not require the President’s signature. Spratt and Conrad hope to have the BR ready in early April, allowing appropriators to begin work shortly after the Easter recess.
Resources
Vicki Needham, “Conrad: Fiscal 2009 Budget Will Resemble 2008,” Congress Now, February 12, 2008.
Jay Heflin, “Spratt Questions Wisdom of Bush Budget's Parameters,” Congress Now, February 13, 2008.
President Signs Stimulus Package
President Bush signed H.R. 5140, a $168 billion economic stimulus package, on Wednesday. The package is intended to help stimulate the economy, which many economists believe is heading into a recession, by putting more money back in the hands of consumers. Regardless of the legislation’s success, H.R. 5140 will have further implications on Capitol Hill as Congress heads into the fiscal year 2009 (FY09) budget cycle.
Marquee provisions in the bill include rebate checks to workers earning at least $3,000, whether or not they pay income taxes. The size of rebate payments are based on taxes paid last year, but will be shown as a credit for the 2008 tax season. Anyone without a Social Security number will not be able to receive one. While lawmakers and economists disagree on the probable benefits of the package, all interested parties agree that the bill’s quick package may not bode well for FY09 appropriations. President Bush and Congressional Republicans signed on early to support the stimulus package, showing a very rare period of partisan cooperation. However, that period will end, specifically regarding federal funding, as soon as the House and Senate Budget Committees meet next month to draft the FY09 budget resolution. The President will remain staunch on his requested funding levels.
For fiscal year 2008 (FY08), the President vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education bill because it came in at nearly $12 billion over his request. He levied similar threats to all bills that year that he felt were too far above his request. The Democratic majority in the House was not strong enough to override his veto. The situation for FY09 is not any different. The President will likely remain unmovable on his funding levels once again, and he still has enough Republican support in the House to sustain a veto. The fact that the President and his supporters in Congress signed off on $168 billion over two years for the stimulus package means that the Administration will be even more stringent on spending for the remainder of the year.
Resource
Jay Heflin, “President Signs Stimulus Package Into Law,” Congress Now, February 13, 2008.
Negotiations Moving Forward on Farm Bill
Those responsible for the Farm Bill may be moving closer to final passage of the long awaited legislation. Although no formal conference has taken place, House and Senate leaders are working on producing a bill that can clear both houses of Congress as well as the White House. Both House and Senate leaders have created final proposals to negotiate over, hoping they can produce a final conference report before March 15, when the current Farm Bill expires.
Earlier this week, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-MN) and ranking member Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA) released a new proposal that would come in at $6 billion above baseline spending for the five-year legislation, which authorizes federal agriculture programs. Peterson claims the White House will support the spending levels in his proposal. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), on the other hand, has countered with his own proposal. Harkin’s measure mirror’s Peterson’s, but includes funding levels that are about $12.5 billion above baseline spending.
All parties involved want additional funding, but any such legislation will face a veto threat from the White House. Despite the significant behind-the-scenes negotiating that is taking place, there is little talk regarding the nutrition provisions of either proposal. A majority of school nutrition advocates support the Senate’s expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program. Unfortunately, the talks are currently focused on payments to farmers, one of the most controversial sections of the bill.
Senator Harkin and his staff plan to work through the weekend, hopefully coming up with a compromise with the House by Sunday. If he is successful, a conference report could make it through Congress shortly after they return from the week-long President’s Day recess. This may allow Congress to get a bill to the President before the March 15 deadline.
Resources
Geof Koss, “Harkin Demands More Farm Bill Spending Than House-Backed Level,” Congress Now, February 14, 2008.
Catharine Richert, “Lawmakers Meet to Move Revamped Farm Legislation Closer to Fruition,” CQ Today, February 14, 2008.
News
New Teacher Policy Program at ED
On Monday, the United States Department of Education (ED) announced a new program, the Teaching Ambassador Fellowship. The program is designed to improve education programs and policies by strengthening the connection to classroom practices, recognizing and retaining motivated and innovative public school teachers, and providing them the opportunity to expand their leadership roles outside of the classroom. The program will have two tiers of participation: Classroom Fellows and Washington Fellows.
Classroom Fellows will serve their regular teaching contracts within their districts, and will be paid to perform additional Fellowship duties for ED. Washington Fellows will serve as full-time federal employees in Washington, D.C. from summer 2008 through June 2009, placed in appropriate positions within the Department of Education to work on education program development and implementation.
Highly Qualified K-12 teachers, as defined under No Child Left Behind, of all subjects from public schools who have spent at least three years in the classroom are eligible to apply. Potential candidates for the Teaching Ambassador Fellowship should visit the United States Deparment of Education Web site (Outside Source) for further information. Up to 20 Classroom Fellows and up to 5 Washington Fellows will be named by Summer 2008.
Resource
“Teaching Ambassador Fellowship (Outside Source),” United States Department of Education,
