PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2001
Public School Construction Partnership Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for the treatment of qualified public educational facility bonds as exempt facility bonds. Defines a "qualified public educational facility" as any school facility which is: (1) part of a public elementary school or a public secondary school; and (2) owned by a private, for-profit corporation pursuant to a public-private partnership agreement with a State or local educational agency. Provides for an exception from the State volume cap.Sets forth provisions concerning: (1) time-related spending requirements for public school construction bonds and doubling the arbitrage rebate exception for governmental bonds used to finance education facilities; and (2) the treatment of public school construction bonds as qualified tax-exempt obligations.
People & committees
Rep. Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [R-FL-22] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E79-80)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.379 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.379 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.379 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.379 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.