THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Your legislation, the Building, Renovating, Improving, and Construction Kids' Schools Act (BRICKS), will leverage new school construction expenditures at the state and local levels and provides flexibility to integrate this assistance with the variety of solutions

[Page: S7242]  GPO's PDF

   We appreciate your efforts and attention to address this critical situation. NASBE is encouraged by your actions and we look forward to working with your office to foster a partnership between federal, state and local entities to improve the learning conditions of American children.

   Sincerely,

   Brenda Lilienthal Welburn,
Executive Director.

--

   STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,

   Augusta, ME, April 29, 2000.
Senator OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR SNOWE: The age and condition of our nation's public schools are an expanding crisis and should be of great concern to all. Decades of neglect, unfunded maintenance programs, constrained state and municipal budgets, shifting populations, technology requirements, and programmatic changes have combined to weaken the infrastructure of public education. As you are well aware, a 1995 GAO report estimated that just repairing existing school facilities would cost $112 billion. In addition, building new facilities to met the demands of program and increased enrollments could cost another $73 billion. We have allowed the condition of our schools to deteriorate to a point that there are now critical implications for the health and safety of our students and staff who occupy those buildings. A number of states have launched major efforts to address their school facilities needs. The task is huge and beyond the ability of most local and even state resources.

   Unfortunately, Maine mirrors the nation. A Facilities Inventory Study, conducted in 1996 by the Department of Education and the University of Maine's Center for Research and Evaluation, identified approximately $650 million in needed facility improvements. Of particular concern was the need for over $60 million in serious health and safety related improvements as well as an additional $150 million in other renovation and upgrades required.

   In response to Maine's survey of over 700 buildings, Governor King appointed a Commission to develop a plan to address the needs identified. Their report was delivered to the Maine Legislature in February 1998, and the recommendations were enacted in April 1998. Maine has responded to address the identified needs with significant state and local resources. However, even as we develop policy and resources to aggressively address those needs, our concern grows.

   Progressing from the condition survey to a detailed engineering and environmental analysis of the conditions causes even greater alarm. Roofs that were reported as leaking in the survey are found to have serious structural integrity problems with greater safety risks for occupants as well as more complex and costly solutions. Indoor air quality problems in the survey grow from increased air exchange solutions to more complex ones due to mold and microbial growth in the interior walls. Again, this poses increased health risk for students and staff. As we learn more about the problems, our concerns grow and the necessary resources increase. The critical health and safety needs from the 1996 survey ($60 million) have grown to over $86 million in our latest project estimates. Many more projects are yet to be identified.

   Applications for Major Capital Construction projects were received in August of 1999 from over 100 buildings throughout Maine. Even with a major new commitment of over $200 million from this Session of the Maine Legislature we will only be able to address approximately 20 of those projects over the next two years. More will be applying in the next two-year cycle that begins in July 2001.

   Although school construction and modernization is and should remain primarily a state and local responsibility, states and school districts cannot meet the current urgent needs alone. Federal assistance in the form of reduced or low interest loans as you have included in S1992, the BRICKS ACT, responds to the urgent need and could provide a critical component to a comprehensive but flexible approach to address Maine's, as well as the nation's, school facilities needs. As currently proposed, your legislation would allow the flexibility to address the renovation and upgrade of existing facilities as well as provide relief for overcrowding and insufficient program space where major capital construction is required. It creates an effective local/state/federal partnership, while leaving decisions about which schools to build or repair up to states and local school units. In Maine, that would allow us to strengthen our Revolving Renovation Fund (created to aid local units in the upgrade and renovation of existing buildings), and it would enhance our bonding capacity for long term debt commitment to major capital construction projects.

   Structurally unfit, environmentally deficient, or overcrowded classrooms impair student achievement, diminish student discipline, and compromise student safety. Although not cited often, the learning environment does affect the quality of education and our ability to help students achieve high standards.

   The National Association of State Boards of Education has identified school construction as one of its priority issues. I serve as Vice-Chair of their Governmental Affairs Committee and would be happy to enlist their help in focusing the nation's attention on the poor condition of our schools and the need for comprehensive federal assistance. If you have questions or need information from NASBE please contact David Griffith, Director of Governmental Affairs at 703-684-4000. As Chairman of the Maine State Board of Education and the governor's School Facilities Commission I am available and would be pleased to participate in any way you think appropriate to outline Maine's innovative and comprehensive school facilities program, and to elaborate on how federal assistance could best complement state and local efforts to address our school construction needs.

   It was an honor to meet you in March during NASBE's Legislative Conference. I look forward to working with you in support of a federal partnership with state and local school units to provide a safe, healthy, and effective learning environment for all.

   Sincerely,

   James E. Rier, Jr.,
Chair.

   Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator SNOWE, in introducing a revised version of BRICKS--the Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools Act. This legislation represents a fresh approach to addressing the infrastructure problems in our nation's elementary and secondary schools.

   Many thanks to Senator SNOWE for her commitment to this issue and for her leadership; to the National PTA and the NEA, both of whom have endorsed the proposal; and special thanks to the Rhode Island Department of Education and Commissioner Peter McWalters for offering suggestions which I believe helped to improve this proposal.

   As some of you may know, Senator SNOWE first introduced the BRICKS proposal at the end of the last session. In January, I joined as a cosponsor. We had hoped to offer this revised version as an amendment to S. 2 but were unable to do so. As a result, we are introducing the revised version of BRICKS today in a form we hope many of our colleagues will be enthusiastic about cosponsoring.

   The BRICKS Act would permit the federal government to provide low, or no, interest loans to states to address their serious school infrastructure problems. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that three quarters of our nation's public schools need to build, renovate, improve or modernize their facilities. In some cases the need arises from increased school-age population. In other cases, school facilities are simply old and in need of repair. Today's estimated cost of modernizing and improving school facilities throughout the United States is $127 billion. There is no argument about whether a serious problem exists. There are differences on how best to solve this terribly serious problem.

   BRICKS recognizes that our nation faces a grave problem. We worry about whether our children are learning enough to compete in the international marketplace, yet we send our children to school in overcrowded classrooms. We tell them to do their best without adequate air conditioning, heating and plumbing. We expect them to learn in buildings with leaky roofs and crumbling walls, or we house them in ``temporary'' classrooms in trailers on school parking lots.

   In Rhode Island, our schools are old: twenty five percent were built before 1930; another thirty-six percent were built in the 1940s and 1950s; twenty-three percent were built in the 1960s; and thirteen percent were built in the recent 1980s. Between 1986 and 1990, our small State spent about $400 million on school construction projects, averaging about 11 projects per year, and there is much more to be done. My State isn't asking the federal government to step in and take over its school facilities responsibilities or the responsibilities of local communities. Rather, help is being sought at the federal level to meet a critical and immediate need.

   The legislation which Senator SNOWE and I are introducing today, addresses that need by providing twenty billion dollars in federal loans to the states. Each state receives funds, based on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's Title I distribution formula, at the request of the Governor. States have until 2003 to request the loans. Fifty percent of the loans must be used to repay the interest on school construction bonds. The other fifty percent may be used to support existing state-administered school construction

[Page: S7243]  GPO's PDF

   As a former mayor, the person at the local level signing the checks to pay for my community's education needs, I am very familiar with educational priorities at the local level. I am deeply committed to ensuring that the federal government meets its overdue goal of paying up to forty percent of the cost of educating children with special needs. Since coming to the Senate, I have made fully-funding IDE A--th e Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--a top priority. This bill links the interest states and localities will be required to pay to the federal level of IDEA fun ding. >   Until 2006, there will be zero interest on BRICKS loans. After that, interest will be determined by the federal funding lev el for IDEA. If federal IDEA fun ding rem ains, as it is today, below twenty percent, the loans will remain at zero interest. If the federal spending on IDEA is between twenty and thirty percent, interest will be 2.5 percent. If federal spending on IDEA ris es to between thirty and forty percent, interest rises to 3.5 percent. Finally, if the federal government meets its forty percent goal, interest peaks at 4.5 percent. Taking into account federal funding of IDEA see ms completely appropriate to me. I hope this linkage of IDEA and spending on school facilities is another step which encourages Congress to meet the goal of fully funding IDE A. >   Our proposal does not ask the federal government to assume responsibility for building, improving and maintaining school facilities. States and local school districts already have accepted that responsibility by spending more than ever before on facilities. According to the most recent study by the General Accounting Office on school facilities, issued in March 2000, spending on school infrastructure increased by 39 percent from 1990 to 1997. But they cannot do it alone. The federal government can and should help by providing BRICKS loans.

   I hope that Senators who care about this issue will put aside partisan differences and look carefully at the plan Senator SNOWE and I are proposing. We believe that BRICKS addresses an immediate problem in a responsible manner that does not usurp the authority or responsibility of states and school districts. I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of BRICKS.

   By Mr. REID:

   S. 2891. A bill to establish a national policy of basic consumer fair treatment for airline passengers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

   AIR TRAVELERS FAIR TREATMENT ACT OF 2000

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Air Travelers' Fair Treatment Act of 2000.

   Air travel is an increasingly unpleasant and stressful experience. Anyone who flies much at all knows that airports are crowded, flights too often delayed or canceled without explanation, ticket prices are unpredictable and hard to figure out, passengers are more unruly and occasionally violent.

   Monday's edition of the Washington Post included a front-page story reporting that delays and cancellations are at an all-time high. According to Time Magazine, the number of air-rage incidents reported by flight crews from 66 in 1997, to 534 last year. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to see a relationship between the two.

   Last year, Congress passed my ``air rage'' bill that increased penalties on passengers who commit acts that threaten the health or safety of other passengers or jeopardize the safety of the flight. That was a good bill, that I think will help passengers and airlines alike to reduce the amount of stress associated with flying.

   But punishing unruly passengers is only half of the solution, because unruly passengers are not the only source of stress in air travel. Air rage is not only a cause, but a symptom, of stress.

   The airlines have cut corners in recent years in ways that make traveling by air more and more difficult and unpleasant for customers.

   A few weeks ago, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation released a study on the performance of the airline industry. According to the study:

   Through the first four months of this year, the number of passenger complaints to the Department has increased a whopping 74 percent compared to last year.

   Complaints about delays, cancellations, and missed connections were up 115 percent since last year--in other words, they have more than doubled in only one year.

   And even these numbers may be low, because the Inspector General estimates that the airlines receive anywhere from 100 to 400 complaints for every one that is filed with the government.

   Last fall, the airlines announced that they would voluntarily implement their own reforms. They made a great show of implementing their ``12 Commandments for Customer Service'' last fall.

   But this study reveals that things have become worse, not better. The study cites numerous instances where the airlines have violated their own so-called ``Commandments.''

   For example, one of these so-called Commandments is to notify customers about delays and cancellations. The Transportation Department's report indicated that airlines were, in fact, making an effort to communicate delays and cancellations--but that the information communicated was, to quote the Inspector General, ``frequently inaccurate, incomplete or unreliable.''

   Airlines are often poorly equipped to handle in-flight emergencies--some carriers have virtually no first-air or medical equipment on their flights, and the amount of first-aid training that flight crews received varies widely from carrier to carrier.

   And airlines ticket prices are still confusing and arbitrary. Some carriers have enacted rules that prohibit customers from combining legs of different tickets to get the best prices.

   Now, there are some explanations for the decline in service and the increase in the number of complaints. Last year, the airlines carried a total of 635 million passengers, a record number, double the number of passengers 20 years ago. The average load factor--which refers to the percentage of passengers compared to available seats--is 71 percent, also a record.

   But crowded airports are no excuse for airlines to violate their own so-called Commandments for Customer Service.

   It's no excuse for providing misleading or inaccurate explanations of delays or cancellations to air travelers. People make plans around posted flight schedules, important personal or business plans. If a flight is canceled or delayed, they should be able to find out what's going on, so that they can make alternative plans if they need to.

   The bill I am introducing today will address some of these concerns.

   The bill has seven provisions.

   (1) Pricing Policies: Due to the complex way that airlines price their tickets, in some cases, a trip will be cheaper if a passenger purchases a ticket to a different destination and gets off during the layover, leaving the second leg of the ticket unused, rather than buying a ticket directly to his/her intended destination. Similarly, a passenger may save money by combining portions of different tickets. To prevent this and to force passengers to pay the higher prices, airlines have

    begun canceling the return ticket if the passenger does not use the entire ticket, and penalizing travel agents who allow customers to combine ticket portions this way. The bill would allow passengers to use all, part or none of a purchased ticket without penalty by the airline, enabling passengers and travel agents to freely mix-and-match tickets to get the best price.

   (2) Flight Delays: The bill requires air carriers to provide travelers with accurate and timely explanations of the reasons for a flight cancellation, delay or diversion from a ticketed itinerary, by classifying the failure to do so as an unfair business practice.

   (3) Right to Exit Aircraft: Where a plane has remained at the gate for more than 1 hour past its scheduled departure time and the captain has not been informed that the aircraft can be cleared for departure within 15 minutes, passengers would have the right

[Page: S7244]  GPO's PDF

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents