HR-604-117
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 467.
Sponsored by Robert Scott (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would create a federal grant program to fund repairs, modernization, and new construction of public elementary and secondary school facilities. It would establish a new Office of School Infrastructure and Sustainability within the Department of Education to administer the program. Grant recipients would be required to follow green building standards, use domestically produced iron and steel, meet hazard-resistance building codes, and comply with EPA water efficiency criteria. The bill would also restore school infrastructure tax credit bonds, extend the Impact Aid Construction program through FY2027, and create a separate grant program for schools with concrete foundations damaged by pyrrhotite.
Who benefits
Students and staff at public schools with aging, deteriorating, or unsafe facilities — particularly those in high-poverty districts that lack local tax revenue for capital improvements. Local educational agencies (LEAs) in low-income areas would receive need-based grants. Schools in regions affected by pyrrhotite foundation damage (concentrated in parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts) would receive targeted assistance. Domestic manufacturers of iron, steel, and construction materials would benefit from the Buy America requirements. Workers in the construction and building trades would likely see increased demand for their labor.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who fund the federal spending authorized by the bill. Private and religious school communities, whose institutions are explicitly excluded from eligibility, would not receive facility funding. Construction firms that rely on lower-cost imported steel or manufactured products could face higher project costs or reduced competitiveness under Buy America requirements. States and LEAs that do not meet the bill's green building and environmental standards could be disqualified from receiving funds, potentially disadvantaging rural or lower-capacity districts with fewer administrative resources to comply.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the physical condition of a school building directly affects student health, safety, and academic performance, and that decades of deferred maintenance have left millions of students — disproportionately in low-income communities — learning in facilities with lead pipes, poor ventilation, and crumbling infrastructure. They contend that local property tax bases in high-poverty areas are structurally unable to generate the capital needed for major facility improvements, making federal intervention necessary to close the equity gap. Supporters also argue that the Buy America and green building requirements create domestic jobs, reduce long-term energy costs for school districts, and improve environmental outcomes for surrounding communities. The creation of a dedicated federal office, they say, would bring accountability and coordination to a historically fragmented area of school policy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that school facilities are a state and local responsibility under the Tenth Amendment, and that a large federal grant program with prescriptive conditions — including green building mandates, Buy America requirements, and EPA water standards — represents an expansion of federal control over decisions that communities are better positioned to make for themselves. They contend that the compliance requirements would increase construction costs, slow project timelines, and divert funds away from direct facility improvements. Critics also argue that restricting eligibility to public schools while excluding private and religious schools raises fairness concerns, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Carson v. Makin (2022), which held that states cannot exclude religious schools from otherwise available public benefit programs. Finally, opponents question whether creating a new federal office adds administrative overhead without meaningfully improving outcomes for students.
Constitutional context
The bill's primary constitutional basis is the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8), which allows Congress to attach conditions to federal funds, provided those conditions are unambiguous, related to the federal interest, and not coercive — as established in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The exclusion of private and religious schools from grant eligibility raises potential tension with the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, particularly after Carson v. Makin (2022), where the Supreme Court held that excluding religious schools from a public tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Tenth Amendment is also relevant, as education is a power traditionally reserved to the states; however, voluntary federal grant programs with conditions have generally been upheld. The Equal Protection Clause may be implicated if funding distribution is challenged as inequitable across demographic or geographic lines.
Checks and balances
The bill would expand Executive Branch authority by creating a new office — the Office of School Infrastructure and Sustainability — within the Department of Education, giving the agency new rulemaking, grant administration, and oversight functions. Congress retains authority through annual appropriations and the reporting requirements built into the bill, including mandatory GAO review of geographic distribution and project impact. The GAO reporting requirement provides a legislative oversight mechanism to monitor how the Executive Branch administers the grant program.
Historical precedent
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 established the framework for federal funding of public K-12 education with conditions attached. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included approximately $53 billion for school modernization and construction. The Qualified School Construction Bond program (2009) is a direct predecessor to the tax credit bond provisions in this bill.