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
``(g) ADVERTISING AND ROTATION.--The provisions of sections (d) and (e)(1) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (as amended by the Stronger Tobacco Warning Labels to Save Lives Act) shall apply to advertisements for smokeless tobacco products required under subsection (a)(2) and the rotation of the label statements required under subsection (a)(1) on such products.
[Page: S7240] GPO's PDF
``(h) APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENT.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a distributor or a retailer of smokeless tobacco products who does not manufacture, package, or import such products for sale or distribution within the United States.
``(i) TELEVISION AND RADIO ADVERTISING.--It shall be unlawful to advertise smokeless tobacco or cigars on any medium of electronic communications subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this section.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. L. CHAFEE):
S. 2890. A bill to provide States with funds to support State, regional, and local school construction; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
BUILDING, RENOVATING, IMPROVING, AND CONSTRUCTING KIDS' SCHOOLS ACT
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator CHAFEE, to introduce a revised version of the ``Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act''--legislation that would address our nation's burgeoning need for K-12 school construction, renovation, and repair.
The legislation--which is endorsed by the National Education Association (NEA) and National PTA, and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE)--would accomplish this in a fiscally-responsible manner while seeking to find the middle ground between those who support a very direct, active federal role in school construction, and those who are concerned about an expanded federal role in what has been--and remains--a state and local responsibility.
Mr. President, the condition of many of our nation's existing public schools is abysmal even as the need for additional schools and classroom space grows. Specifically, according to reports issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement.
As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1999 stated that the average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980.
Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 million by 2008.
Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO), it will cost $112 billion just to bring our nation's schools into good overall condition, and a recent report by the NEA identified $332 billion in unmet school modernization needs. Nowhere is this cost better understood than in my home state of Maine, where a 1996 study by the Maine Department of Education and the State Board of Education determined that the cost of addressing the state's school building and construction needs stood at $637 million.
Mr. President, we simply cannot allow our nation's schools to fall into utter disrepair and obsolescence with children sitting in classrooms that have leaky ceiling or rotting walls. We cannot ignore the need for new schools as the record number of children enrolled in K-12 schools continues to grow.
Accordingly, because the cost of repairing and building these facilities may prove to be more than many state and local governments can bear in a short period of time, I believe the federal government can and should assist Maine and other state and local governments in addressing this growing national crisis.
Admittedly, not all members support strong federal intervention in what has been historically a state and local responsibility. In fact, many argue with merit that the best form of federal assistance for school construction or other local educational needs would be for the federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. This long-standing commitment was made when the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) A ct was signed into law more than 20 years ago, but the federal government has fallen woefully short in upholding its end of the bargain, only recently increasing its share above 10 percent.
Needless to say, I strongly agree with those who argue that the federal government's failure to fulfill this mandate represents nothing less than a raid on the pocketbook of every state and local government. Accordingly, I am pleased that recent efforts in the Congress have increased federal funding for IDEA by nearly $2.5 billion over the past four years, and I support ongoing efforts to achieve the 40 percent federal commitment in the near future.
Yet, even as we work to fulfill this long-standing commitment and thereby free-up local resources to address local needs, I believe the federal government can do more to assist state and local governments in addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local control.
Mr. President, the legislation we are offering today--the ``BRICKS Act''--will do just. Specifically, it addresses our nation's school construction needs in a responsible fiscal manner while bridging the gap between those who advocate a more activist federal role in school construction and those who do not.
First, our legislation will provide $20 billion in federal loans to support school construction, renovation, and repair at the local level. By designating that at least one-half of these loan monies must be used to pay the interest owed to bondholders on new school construction bonds that are issued through the year 2003, the federal government will leverage the issuing of new bonds by states and localities that would not otherwise be made. In addition, by providing that up to one-half of the monies may be used for state-wide school construction initiatives, the bill provides needed flexibility to
ensure that unique state and local approaches to school construction will also be supported, such as revolving loan funds.
Of importance, these loan monies--which will be distributed on an annual basis using the Title I distribution formula--will become available to each state at the request of a Governor. While the federal loans can only be used to support bond issues that will supplement, and not supplant, the amount of school construction that would have occurred in the absence of the loans, there will be no requirement that states engage in a lengthy application process that does not even assure them of their rightful share of the $20 billion pot.
Second, our bill ensures that these loans are made by the federal government in a fiscally responsible manner that does not cut into the Social Security surplus or claim a portion of non-Social Security surpluses that may prove ephemeral in the future.
Specifically, our bill would make these loans to states from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)--a fund that was created through the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and has grown to hold more than $40 billion in assets. The principal activity of the fund--which is controlled solely by the Secretary of the Treasury--is foreign exchange intervention that is intended to limit fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the fund has also been used to provide stabilization loans to foreign countries, including a $20 billion line of credit to Mexico in 1995 to support the peso.
In light of the controversial manner in which the ESF has been used, some have argued that additional constraints should be placed on the fund. Still others--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence B. Lindsey--have stated that, for various reasons, the fund should be liquidated.
Regardless of how one feels about exercising greater constraint over he ESF or liquidating it, I believe that if this $40 billion fund can be used to bailout foreign currencies, it certainly can be used to help America's schools.
Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that the $20 billion in loans provided by my legislation will be made
[Page: S7241] GPO's PDF
Although the ESF will recoup all of the monies it lends, it should also be noted that my proposal ensures that states and local governments will not be forced to pay excessive interest, or that they will be forced to repay over an unreasonable period of time. In fact, if the federal government fails to substantially increase its share of IDEA fu nding, states will incur no interest at all!
Specifically, to encourage the federal government to meet its funding commitment for IDEA--a nd to compensate states for the fact that every dollar in foregone IDEA fu nding is a dollar less that they have for school construction or other local needs--our bill would impose no interest on BRICKS loans during the first five years provided the 40 percent funding commitment is not met.
Thereafter, the interest rate is pegged to the federal share of IDEA: z ero in any year that the federal government fails to fund at least 20 percent of the cost of IDEA; 2 .5 percent--the long-term projected inflation rate--in years that the federal share falls between 20 and 30 percent; 3.5 percent in years the federal share is 30 to 40 percent; and 4.5 percent in years the full 40 percent share is achieved.
Combined, these provisions will minimize the cost of these loans to the states, and maximize the utilization of these loans for school construction, renovation, and repair.
Mr. President, by providing low-interest loans to states and local governments to support school construction, I believe that our bill represents a fiscally-responsible, centrist solution to a national problem.
For those who support a direct, active federal role in school construction, our bill provides substantial federal assistance by dedicating $20 billion to leverage a significant amount of new school construction bonds. For those who are concerned about the federal government becoming overly-engaged in an historically state and local responsibility--and thereby stepping on local control--my bill directs that the monies provided to states will be repaid, and that no onerous applications or demands are placed on states to receive their share of these monies.
Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues support the ``BRICKS Act''--legislation that is intended to bridge the gap between competing philosophies on the federal role in school construction. Ultimately, if we work together, we can make a tangible difference in the condition of America's schools without turning it into a partisan or ideological battle that is better suited to sound bites than actual solutions.
Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support from the NEA, PTA, NASBE, and Jim Rier, the Chairman of the Maine State Board of Education, be inserted in the RECORD following my statement.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2000.
Senator OLYMPIA
SNOWE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR SNOWE: On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.5 million members, we would like to thank you for your leadership in introducing a revised version of the Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act.
As you know, our nation's schools are in desperate need of repair and renovation. Too many students attend classes in overcrowded buildings with leaky roofs, faulty wiring, and outdated plumbing. A recently-released NEA study documents more than $300 billion in unmet infrastructure and technology needs, nearly three times the level estimated in previous research by the General Accounting Office.
NEA believes the revised BRICKS Act offers a meaningful avenue for assisting schools. The bill would make available $20 billion in guaranteed funding over 15 years to provide low-interest--and in many cases zero interest--school modernization loans to states and schools. According to a preliminary Department of Education analysis, the BRICKS Act would provide schools with a benefit of $465 for each $1,000 in bonds.
We are pleased that the BRICKS Act would allow up to 50 percent of federal funds to be used for payment of actual construction costs or the principal portion of loans, as well as the interest costs. We also appreciate the provision allowing those states with laws that prohibit borrowing to pay the interest costs on school bonds to use 100 percent of their BRICKS loans for state revolving loan funds or other state administered school modernization programs.
NEA believes it is essential to enact meaningful school modernization assistance this year. We thank you for your leadership in this area and look forward to continuing to work with you toward passage of bipartisan school modernization legislation.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
Director of Government
Relations.
--
NATIONAL PTA,
Chicago, IL, July 7, 2000.
Hon. LINCOLN D.
CHAFEE,
Hon. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATORS CHAFEE AND SNOWE: On behalf of the 6.5 million parents, teachers, students, and other child advocates who are members of the National PTA, I am writing to support the Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act, which you plan to introduce next week.
We thank you for your leadership in proposing this initiative, which acknowledges the federal government's responsibility to help schools repair and renovate their facilities. As you are aware, the U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that the cost of fixing the structural problems in schools across the nation will cost more than $112 billion. If new schools are built to accommodate overcrowding, and if schools' technology, wiring, and infrastructure needs are added in, this estimate would exceed $200 billion dollars.
This is a problem schools cannot address without a partnership with the federal government, and National PTA supports a variety of approaches to address this growing crisis. In addition to endorsing the BRICKS bill, National PTA is supporting the Public School Repair and Renovation Act, which would provide tax credits to pay the interest on school modernization bonds and create a grant and loan program for emergency repairs in high-need districts; and also the America's Better Classrooms Act, which would provide $22 billion over two years in zero interest school construction and modernization bonds.
Under BRICKS, nearly $20 billion would be available over 15 years to provide low interest, and in many cases zero interest, loans to States for interest payments on their school modernization bonds. We are pleased that the proposal will allow increased flexibility in using the federal funds for interest payments, as well as for other state-administered programs that assist state entities or local governments pay for the construction or repair of schools.
National PTA is committed to helping enact a federal school modernization proposal this Congress. We believe the BRICKS Act should be promoted as one of the ways the federal government can assist schools, and we thank you for your leadership in this area. We look forward to continuing to work with you toward formulation and passage of bipartisan school modernization legislation.
Sincerely,
Vicki Rafel,
Vice President for Legislation.
--
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION,
Alexandria, VA, July 18, 2000.
Hon. OLYMPIA
SNOWE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR SNOWE: The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) is a private nonprofit association representing state and territorial boards of education. Our principal objectives are to strengthen state leadership in education policy-making, promote excellence in the education of all students, advocate equality of access to educational opportunity, and assure responsible governance of public education.
We are writing to applaud your efforts to provide federal assistance to states for school construction. The deterioration of America's school infrastructure has reached crisis proportions. At least one-third of all U.S. schools are in need of extensive repairs or replacement and 60% have at least one major building deficiency such as cracked foundations, leaky roofs, or crumbling walls. We cannot expect our children to learn much less excel in such decrepit and unsafe environments.
The more than $112 billion needed to renovate and/or repair existing school facilities has simply overwhelmed state and local resources. This national problem demands federal attention and we are encouraged that your office is attempting to address this need by proposing a $20 billion federal loan program.
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
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