[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4446-H4451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPACT AID TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1996
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3269) to amend the impact aid
[[Page H4447]]
program to provide for a hold-harmless with respect to amounts for
payments relating to the Federal acquisition of real property and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3269
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Impact Aid Technical
Amendments Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. HOLD-HARMLESS AMOUNTS FOR PAYMENTS RELATING TO
FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 8002 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(g) Former Districts.--
``(1) In general.--Where the school district of any local
educational agency described in paragraph (2) is formed at
any time after 1938 by the consolidation of two or more
former school districts, such agency may elect (at any time
such agency files an application under section 8005) for any
fiscal year to have (A) the eligibility of such local
educational agency, and (B) the amount which such agency
shall be eligible to receive, determined under this section
only with respect to such of the former school districts
comprising such consolidated school districts as such agency
shall designate in such election.
``(2) Eligible local educational agencies.--A local
educational agency referred to in paragraph (1) is any local
educational agency that, for fiscal year 1994 or any
preceding fiscal year, applied for and was determined
eligible under section 2(c) of the Act of September 30, 1950
(Public Law 874, 81st Congress) as such section was in effect
on September 30, 1994.
``(h) Hold Harmless Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(A),
the total amount that the Secretary shall pay a local
educational agency that is otherwise eligible under
subsection (b)--
``(A) for fiscal year 1995 shall not be less than 85
percent of the amount such agency received for fiscal year
1994 under section 2 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public
Law 874, 81st Congress) as such section was in effect on
September 30, 1994; or
``(B) for fiscal year 1996 shall not be less than 85
percent of the amount such agency received for fiscal year
1995 under subsection (b).
``(2) Ratable reductions.--(A)(i) If necessary in order to
make payments to local educational agencies in accordance
with paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary first
shall ratably reduce payments under subsection (b) for such
year to local educational agencies that do not receive a
payment under this subsection for such year.
``(ii) If additional funds become available for making
payments under subsection (b) for such year, then payments
that were reduced under clause (i) shall be increased on the
same basis as such payments were reduced.
``(B)(i) If the sums made available under this title for
any fiscal year are insufficient to pay the full amounts that
all local educational agencies in all States are eligible to
receive under paragraph (1) after the application of
subparagraph (A) for such year, then the Secretary shall
ratably reduce payments under paragraph (1) to all such
agencies for such year.
``(ii) If additional funds become available for making
payments under paragraph (1) for such fiscal year, then
payments that were reduced under clause (i) shall be
increased on the same basis as such payments were reduced.''.
``(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (g) of section 8002 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as added
by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to fiscal years
after fiscal year 1995.
SEC. 3. PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY CONNECTED CHILDREN
RESIDING ON MILITARY INSTALLATION HOUSING
UNDERGOING RENOVATION.
(a) In General.--Section 8003(a) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Military installation housing undergoing
renovation.--For purposes of computing the amount of a
payment for a local educational agency for children described
in paragraph (1)(D)(i), the Secretary shall consider such
children to be children described in paragraph (1)(B) if the
Secretary determines, on the basis of a certification
provided to the Secretary by a designated representative of
the Secretary of Defense, that such children would have
resided in housing on Federal property in accordance with
paragraph (1)(B) except that such housing was undergoing
renovation on the date for which the Secretary determines the
number of children under paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (4) of section 8003(a) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as added
by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to fiscal years
after fiscal year 1995.
SEC. 4. COMPUTATION OF PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY
CONNECTED CHILDREN IN STATES WITH ONLY ONE
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.
(a) In General.--Section 8003(b) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) States with only one local educational agency.--
``(A) In general.--In any of the 50 States in which there
is only one local educational agency, the Secretary shall,
for purposes of paragraphs (1)(C) and (2) of this subsection
and subsection (e), consider each administrative school
district in the State to be a separate local educational
agency.
``(B) Computation of maximum amount of basic support
payment and threshold payment.--In computing the maximum
payment amount under paragraph (1)(C) and the learning
opportunity threshold payment under paragraph (2)(B) for an
administrative school district described in subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) the Secretary shall first determine the maximum
payment amount and the total current expenditures for the
State as a whole; and
``(ii) the Secretary shall then--
``(I) proportionately allocate such maximum payment amount
among the administrative school districts on the basis of the
respective weighted student units of such districts; and
``(II) proportionately allocate such total current
expenditures among the administrative school districts on the
basis of the respective number of students in average daily
attendance at such districts.''.
(B) Effective Date.--Paragraph (3) of section 8003(b) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as added
by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to fiscal years
after fiscal year 1994.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham] and the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]
will each be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to support H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical
Amendments Act of 1996.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to the children attending
schools that lose tax revenue associated with a government facility,
such as a military base. That is why we have impact aid--to make sure
those schools have the resources they need to educate children.
Unfortunately, parts of the impact aid law, last authorized in 1994,
are having unintended effects, or are failing to keep up with changing
circumstances. Some school districts may not receive the impact aid
that their circumstances demand. So H.R. 3269 makes minor technical
corrections in the impact aid law, so that federally impacted school
districts are treated fairly.
H.R. 3269 makes four changes in the impact aid law. Two are related
to Federal property payments. One addresses the effects of military
housing renovation. And the last clarifies the intent of Congress with
regard to impact aid payments to Hawaii.
grandfathering consolidated districts for section 8002 payments
The first change restores a grandfather clause for consolidated
school districts impacted by Federal property. A consolidated district
is where one district may have met the criteria for section 2 payments,
having 10 or more percent of its property owned by the Federal
Government, but whose section 2 payment eligibility disappeared when it
was consolidated with another district. Prior law allowed these
consolidated districts to receive section 2 impact aid payments. And
during the conference on the last impact aid authorization, Congress
assumed that the Department of Education would continue the eligibility
of these consolidated districts. However, the Department has since
ruled that they are no longer eligible.
This change, grandfathering these schools and restoring their
eligibility for the new section 8002 payments, affects approximately 75
districts, many in South Dakota, Kansas, California, and Indiana
Hold Harmless for section 8002 payments in fiscal years 1995 and 1996
The second change establishes a hold harmless for current section
8002 recipients, similar to the hold harmless for school payments for
federally connected children. The 103d Congress changed the mechanism
for determining payments for section 8002. That change directed
payments based upon an assessment of the highest and best use of
property currently adjoining Federal property, rather than the highest
and best use at the time such property was acquired. This change shifts
the allocation of certain impact aid dollars. The hold harmless
provisions would provide section 8002 district 85
[[Page H4448]]
percent of the amount they received in fiscal year 1994 in fiscal year
1995, and 85 percent of what they received in fiscal year 1995 in
fiscal year 1996. Because of delays in distributing fiscal year 1995
funds, this hold harmless would still work for fiscal year 1995.
effects of Mass Renovation of Military Housing
The third change addresses a matter related to the refurbishment of
military housing. The Department of Defense has started a major
renovation of housing across the country. In most cases, families must
move off-base during renovation. The Department of Education, as a
result, no longer considers children in such families as so-called A
kids--those whose families live and work on base. In some areas, this
has caused a major reduction in impact aid for a school district, with
no corresponding reduction in the number of children they must educate.
According to the Pentagon, the average period of time children are off
base is 90 to 120 days. But if they are off when impact aid counts are
taken, the school district loses funds.
The Department of Defense indicates these mass renovations will go on
for years. Allowing these students to continue to be classified as A
students should not have an adverse impact on other schools, since it
would neither increase nor decrease the amount a district is currently
receiving.
clarifying congressional intent regarding hawaii
The fourth and last change addresses the Department of Education's
calculation of impact aid payments for the State of Hawaii.
Hawaii is the only State in the Nation with only one Local Education
Agency, or LEA. However, for the purpose of administering Federal
grants, the Department of Education has routinely recognized the seven
administrative districts within Hawaii's LEA as individual school
districts. This has been the case with impact aid for many years. With
over 30,000 federally connected children in Hawaii, certain areas of
the State are among the most impacted in America.
When the 103d Congress modified the impact aid law, it did not intend
to change the treatment of Hawaii for the purpose of determining impact
aid payments.
It fully intended the Department to Treat Hawaii as having seven
school districts. However, it was not clearly spelled out in the law,
and the Department has decided to treat Hawaii as one LEA. This has cut
Hawaii's impact aid payment nearly in half. Chairman Goodling and
Congresswoman Mink wrote the Department to state that such a cut was
not the intent of Congress. The Department responded that Congress had
to change the law. This amendment does so, and it has Congresswoman
Mink's support. In fact, she is 1 of 3 original cosponsors of this
bill.
That summarizes H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of
1996.
In developing this legislation, we sought to include minor technical
corrections in three categories: unintended consequences of the
previous authorization, areas where the Department interpreted
congressional intent in an unintended way, and issues unforeseen by the
103d Congress. It is not a comprehensive correction, particularly when
one considers the many new ways the military is arranging family
housing. Furthermore, we have avoided mentioning specific districts in
these impact aid technical amendments, so we can maintain fairness,
integrity and trust in the impact aid program.
H.R. 3269 was introduced April 18, reported by the Youth Subcommittee
on April 24 by voice vote, and by the full Opportunities Committee on
May 1 by voice vote. I would like to include for the Record letters of
support from the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools,
and the National Military Impacted Schools Association. I encourage the
bill's adoption, without amendments. And I yield back the balance of my
time.
I include for the Record the following:
National Association of
Federally Impacted Schools,
Washington, DC, April 30, 1996.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and
Families, Economic and Education Opportunities Committee,
E227 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cunningham: On behalf of the 1,600 school
districts represented by the National Association of
Federally Impacted Schools, I write to thank you for your
leadership in bringing H.R. 3269 to the Committee and wish to
communicate are total support for this very important piece
of legislation.
As you know, H.R. 3269 only corrects certain provisions of
the law that were inadvertently overlooked during
consideration of the ``Improving America's Schools Act of
1994''. These are provisions that are extremely important to
those schools receiving funds under section 8002 (federal
properties), as it applies to their FY '95 funding as well as
FY '96. The bill also insures that the Department of
Education in making payments to the State of Hawaii, will do
so in the same manner as they did under the previous statute.
Again, this provision was mistakenly left out of the 1994
reauthorization. None of the above represents any kind of
policy change, rather it simply conforms the present law with
the previous statute as it applies to section 8002 and the
State of Hawaii.
I also commend you for your foresight in seeing the current
problems that are facing many of our heavily impacted
military dependent school districts. Because the Department
of Defense is now undertaking a national on-base housing
renovation project, many of our school districts face
uncertainty when it comes to impact aid funding because of
the differences in how the law treats children residing with
parents living off-base. Section 3 of H.R. 3269 addresses
this problem so that these schools will be allowed to develop
school budgets knowing what their on-base student counts will
be. Your approach is fair and it is reasonable.
Again Mr. Chairman, NAFIS appreciates your leadership and
would only hope that H.R. 3269 can be dispensed with quickly
in order that FY '95/FY '96 funding for section 8002
districts and the State of Hawaii, can be allocated by the
Department of Education without any additional delay.
Sincerely,
John B. Forkenbrock,
Executive Director.
____
National Military Impacted
Schools Association,
Bellevue, NE, April 30, 1996.
Hon. William Goodling,
Chairman, Economic and Education Opportunities Committee,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodling: On behalf of the 500,000 military
dependents served by the Impact Aid Program, I want to thank
you for bringing H.R. 3269 to your committee. This bill is
along overdue and critically needed by schools serving
military installations throughout the United States.
Many school districts serving the children of military
personnel will benefit from this legislation and in the end
it will be good for the children they educate. H.R. 3269 will
help school districts cope with the effects of base housing
renovations when trying to budget for educational programs
for the children they are responsible for serving.
The Military Impacted Schools Association (MISA) is working
hard to represent the needs of military school districts and
work in conjunction with the National Association of
Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS) to support the Impact Aid
Program. We are very fortunate to have leaders in Congress
that help take the lead on issues such as addressed in H.R.
3269.
Sincerely,
John F. Deegan, Ed.D.,
Executive Director.
____
San Diego City Schools,
San Diego, CA, April 30, 1996.
Hon. Randall ``Duke'' Cunningham,
House of Representatives,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cunningham: The San Diego Unified School
District strongly supports H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid
Technical Amendments Act of 1996.
This measure, as currently written, will clarify several
issues not fully addressed in the reauthorization of Impact
Aid last year. Specifically, funding for section 8002 will
reestablish eligibility for school districts. Additionally,
districts will be protected from temporary fluctuations in
their student count due to military housing undergoing
renovation.
We appreciate the bipartisan support for public education
through the Impact Aid program reflected in this measure.
Impact Aid is an important part of our ability to provide a
comprehensive education program for our students. Your
ongoing support is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Frank Till,
Deputy Superintendent.
____
[[Page H4449]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IMPACT AID PROGRAM--CONSOLIDATED DISTRICTS THAT MET SECTION 2 10% ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA BASED UPON ONE OR MORE FORMER DISTRICTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Fed.
10% Fed. prop. in any No Fed. prop First FY Last FY
Applicant prop. in any frm. dist. in any frm. Date(s) of Date(s) of applied Last sec. 2 applied
State No. Applicant name frm. dist. prior to dist. prior consolidation acquisition for sec. full payment for sec.
prior to consolid. to consolid. 2 \1\ amount 2
consolidation but <10%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN...................................... 1301 N. Vermillion............. X ............ ............ 1961 1942 1962 $25,247 (93) 1994
IN...................................... 1407 Maconaquah................ X ............ ............ 1963 1942-84 1972 5,600 (92) 1994
IN...................................... 1413 Nineveh................... X ............ ............ 1964 1942 1963 21,252 (92) 1994
IN...................................... 2010 Greater Clark............. X ............ ............ 1967, 68 1940-44 1969 317,221 (93) 1994
IN...................................... 4301 Bartholomew............... X ............ ............ 1965 1942 1992 85,315 (93) 1994
IA...................................... 2602 North Polk................ ............. ............ X 1956, 57 1966-74 1976 34,160 (88) 1989
IA...................................... 2701 Woodwd. Grg............... ............. ............ X 1964 1967-71 1976 12,511 (88) 1989
IA...................................... 2702 Ankeny.................... ............. ............ X 1919 1965-70 1976 11,773 (88) 1989
IA...................................... 2704 Madrid.................... ............. ............ X 1955 1967-74 1976 $3,543 (88) 1989
KS...................................... 1731 W.Franklin................ X ............ ............ 1965 1959-62 1971 6,646 (92) 1994
KS...................................... 1819 Eastern Heights........... X ............ ............ 1966 1952-54 1967 25,662 (93) 1994
KS...................................... 1820 Waconda................... ............. X ............ 1966 1960-73 1967 63,748 (91) 1994
KS...................................... 1833 Perry..................... X ............ ............ 1965 1963-75 1967 $8,901 (91) 1994
KS...................................... 1836 #340 Jefferson West....... X ............ ............ 1966 1964-66 1967 7,089 (93) 1994
KS...................................... 1844 Paola..................... ............. ............ X 1967 1974-79 1979 8,214 (88) 1993
KS...................................... 1846 Blue Valley............... X ............ ............ 1959 1953-65 1967 55,044 (92) 1994
KS...................................... 1855 Lawrence.................. ............. ............ X ................. ........... 1975 42,837 (88) 1989
KS...................................... 1856 White Rock................ X ............ ............ 1983 1956-70 1967 2,861 (93) 1994
KS...................................... 1919 Marais des Cygnes......... ............. ............ X ................. ........... 1970 7,884 (88) 1989
KS...................................... 1922 Eureka.................... X ............ ............ 1966 1946-58 1968 8,900 (92) 1994
KS...................................... 2007 Burlington................ X ............ ............ 1965 1961-65 1970 6,276 (92) 1994
KS...................................... 2102 Norton.................... X ............ ............ 1967 1961-65 1970 7,346 (93) 1994
KS...................................... 2302 Mankato................... X ............ ............ 1966 1955-57 1972 3,223 (93) 1994
MO...................................... 0208 Ft. Osage................. X ............ ............ 1949 1940-42 1980 7,490 (93) 1994
MO...................................... 0404 Smithville................ ............. ............ X 1962 1972-81 1975 36,916 (93) 1994
MO...................................... 1411 Clinton................... X ............ ............ 1971, 80 1968-79 1976 5,608 (93) 1993
MO...................................... 1503 Phelps Co................. X ............ ............ 1965 1939-82 1976 686 (88) 1989
MO...................................... 1901 Fredericktown............. X ............ ............ 1968 1939-84 1972 833 (92) 1993
MO...................................... 2304 Richards \2\.............. ............. ............ ............ ................. 1939-44 1972 481 (88) 1989
MO...................................... 2307 Alton..................... X X ............ 1959 1939-81 1972 1,092 (87) 1994
MO...................................... 2607 Plattsburg................ ............. ............ X 1944, 48, 49, 60 1976-80 1978 4,101 (92) 1994
MO...................................... 2608 Sullivan.................. ............. ............ X 1947, 48, 56 1968-76 1975 4,261 (93) 1994
MO...................................... 2705 Lesterville............... X ............ ............ 1956 1939-81 1979 234 (87) 1994
MO...................................... 2902 S. Reynolds Co............ X ............ ............ 43, 44, 45, 47, 1941-48 1978 2,551 (93) 1993
48
MO...................................... 3104 Valley R-VI............... X ............ ............ 1951 1939-44 1980 304 (88) 1988
NE...................................... 0206 Alda...................... X ............ ............ 1982 1942 1987 $2,631 (93) 1994
NE...................................... 1202 Loup City................. X ............ ............ 1965 1959-61 1970 12,007 (93) 1994
NE...................................... 1703 N.W. HSD.................. X ............ ............ 1955 & 56 1942 1982 15,753 (93) 1994
NE...................................... 1802 Cedar Hollow #3........... X ............ ............ 1990 1942 1990 4,580 (92) 1994
NE...................................... 3802 Plain View................ X ............ ............ 1982, 84, 88 1942 1987 1,695 (93) 1994
NE...................................... 3803 SD #1-R................... X ............ ............ 1986 1942 1987 8,787 (93) 1994
NY...................................... 0009 Indian River.............. X ............ ............ 1957 1942 1951 3,517 (89) 1994
ND...................................... 0202 Hazen..................... X ............ ............ 1966 1948-80 1991 4,861 (93) 1994
ND...................................... 2406 Turtle Lake............... X ............ ............ 1959 1948-50 1991 2,689 (93) 1994
ND...................................... 4202 Beulah.................... X ............ ............ 1950 1948-49 1991 5,878 (92) 1992
OH...................................... 1305 Maplewood................. X ............ ............ 1960 1943-44 1962 37,932 (93) 1994
OK...................................... 0036 Canadian.................. X ............ ............ 1964-65 1959-63 1964 1,720 (92) 1994
OK...................................... 0040 Fanshawe.................. X ............ ............ 1968 1947-49 1953 4,927 (92) 1994
OK...................................... 0413 Sand Springs.............. X ............ ............ 1968 1957-60 1968 103 (92) 1994
OK...................................... 0856 Snyder MT.Pk.............. X ............ ............ 1982 1971-73 1983 2,264 (92) 1994
OK...................................... 1011 Wister.................... X ............ ............ 1950's 1946+47 1959 4,919 (90) 1993
OK...................................... 1507 Stringtown................ ............. ............ X 1962 1981-83 1983 778 (93) 1994
OK...................................... 1608 Marietta.................. X ............ ............ 1966 1939-43 1965 2,418 (92) 1994
OK...................................... 2006 Haworth................... X ............ ............ 1921, 45, 50, 63, 1940-65 1976 764 (92) 1994
65-68
PA...................................... 1808 Centennial................ X ............ ............ 1967 1944-53 1967 630,719 (93) 1994
PA...................................... 2220 E. Stroudsburg............ ............. ............ X 1955 1966-82 1979 317,434 (88) 1994
PA...................................... 3401 Delaware Valley........... ............. ............ X 1966 1969-90 1983 200,086 (89) 1992
SD...................................... 0005 Pierre.................... X ............ ............ 1968 1954-74 1991 33,003 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 0010 Andes Central............. X ............ ............ 1968, 69 1947-86 1989 17,984 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 0012 Lemmon.................... X ............ ............ 1969, 70 1939-54 1992 38,558 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 0401 Yankton................... X ............ ............ 1965, 68 1953-56 1992 7,891 (92) 1994
SD...................................... 0505 Geddes.................... X ............ ............ 1967 1947-52 1991 22,069 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 0902 Mobridge.................. X ............ ............ 1990 1960-61 1991 3,465 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 1406 Platte.................... X ............ ............ 1969 1949-54 1991 25,975 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 2101 Bonesteel................. X ............ ............ 1958-62 1940-52 1988 25,314 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 2201 Kadoka.................... X ............ ............ 1970 1939-90 1993 15,884 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 2204 Lyman..................... X X ............ 1970 1939-73 1991 3,017 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 2401 Gregory................... X ............ ............ 1970 1950-53 1991 16,211 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 2402 Bison..................... X ............ ............ 1968 1939-89 1991 13,048 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 2403 Northwest................. X ............ ............ 1968 1939-86 1991 13,163 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 4201 Bon Homme................. X ............ ............ 1972 1953-58 1991 26,868 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 4202 Burke..................... X ............ ............ 1968 1950-53 1991 11,140 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 4203 Oelrichs.................. X ............ ............ 1968 1939-70 1991 7,015 (93) 1994
SD...................................... 0403 Custer.................... X ............ ............ 1944, 64, 70 1939-88 1992 12,416 (93) 1994
TX...................................... 0702 Liberty-Eylau............. X ............ ............ 1955 1949-53 1981 22,714 (93) 1994
WI...................................... 1009 Crandon................... X ............ ............ 1950 1939-76 1982 8,990 (93) 1994
WI...................................... 1306 Laona..................... X ............ ............ 1970 1939-84 1982 19,895 (93) 193
WI...................................... 1308 Sauk-Prairie.............. X ............ ............ 1963 1940+74 1975 89,618 (93) 1994
WI...................................... 1703 Florence Co............... X ............ ............ 1958 1939-78 1983 27,667 (92) 1994
WI...................................... 1901 La Farge.................. ............. ............ X 1965 1968-78 1972 35,588 (93) 1994
Total............................. ......... 80........................ 64 3 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These dates reflect the oldest Impact Aid Program payment records located for each district.
\2\ No Department records are available concerning the Federal acquisition of property in the former districts.
Note: This report is based upon date contained in Impact Aid program files and is accurate to the best of our knowledge.
{time} 1515
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 3269, the impact aid technical amendments of 1996, which corrects
certain situations which have been brought to our attention since the
authorization of the law in 1994.
As has been stated by the subcommittee chair, this is truly a
bipartisan effort supported by the impact aid communities to make
technical corrections necessary to assure that this program is
administered in a fair and appropriate manner.
There are basically four changes to the legislation dealing with:
First, the grandfathering of consolidated school districts who receive
payments for Federal property in what is commonly known as section 2
payments; the second establishes a hold harmless for Federal property
or section 2 payments; the third, assuring that students who are
temporarily housed off base because of renovation of military
[[Page H4450]]
housing are still counted as ``A'' category children; and fourth, the
provision which corrects the situation and the treatment of Hawaii's
school districts.
These provisions have already been described by the subcommittee
chair, so I will not go into detail with respect to three, but I would
like to say a few words about Hawaii's provisions. And in that context,
I extend my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who have
both assisted in helping me to correct this situation.
Mr. Speaker, the conference committee in which we all sat dealing
with the amendments to impact aid were distributed sheets which
indicated how the funds would be distributed under the new formula. And
in those sheets where the distribution was tallied, the assumption was
that Hawaii would be considered as it has always been in the past as
having seven districts, even though we only have one statewide system.
Mr. Speaker, it was under the assumption that this would be the
interpretation of the language in the legislation that I gave it my
support, only to find out later that that was not the case and that the
language was ambiguous at best.
So, I especially appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to try to help me try to obtain
clarification with the administration through a letter which we jointly
submitted. Unfortunately, the administration felt that the only way to
correct the difficulty, which was unintended, was through this
legislation. I appreciate the efforts in bringing this bill up
promptly, because it would have a very drastic impact on the funding of
our school systems if this were not corrected as it is about to be
corrected, hopefully, this year.
Hawaii is unique in the whole country. It has only one school agency,
but seven districts. And so, it is important that that concept be
continued as it has been used as the basis for distributing other
formula grants.
Mr. Speaker, I agree certainly with all that the subcommittee
chairman has said; that this was an unintended error made by the
committee then under the control of the Democratic Party. So, we are
certainly responsible for the difficulties that were created. In that
context, I am especially appreciative of this assistance in helping to
correct this problem.
Mr. Speaker, the letter which I would like to submit for the Record
is a letter which was signed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] and myself, written to the U.S. Department of Education
asking them to correct this administratively, and then the response
indicating that that could not be done.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to concur with this bill and to help it
be enacted into law as quickly as possible, because just as we are
anxious to have our changes take effect, I am sure that all the other
districts that are to be benefited by this technical correction are
also equally impacted and equally anxious to have these corrections
take place.
Again, my thanks to the committee for their prompt attention to this
and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:
U.S. Department of Education,
The Secretary,
October 30, 1995.
Hon. Patsy T. Mink,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Patsy: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the
treatment of Hawaii under the reauthorized Impact Aid
program. I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify this
issue. An identical response is being sent to the co-signer
of your letter, Congressman William F. Goodling.
As you point out in your letter, prior to the
reauthorization of the Impact Aid program, Impact Aid
payments to Hawaii were determined by considering each of
Hawaii's seven administrative districts as a separate local
educational agency (LEA). This treatment benefited Hawaii
under the Impact Aid formula prescribed by P.L. 81-874, by
providing larger payments for some of those administrative
units.
This special treatment was not the result of administrative
discretion on the part of the Department of Education,
however, but was mandated by section 5(h) of P.L. 81-874,
which stated, in part, ``. . . such restriction shall be
applied, in the case of any State . . . within which there is
only one local educational agency, by treating each
administrative school district within such State as a local
educational agency. . . .'' Before the enactment of section
5(h) of P.L. 81-874, Hawaii had been treated as a single LEA
for Impact Aid payment purposes. A provision similar to
section 5(h) was not included in the Improving America's
Schools Act, which reauthorized the Impact Aid program as
Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and
repealed P.L. 81-874. We therefore have no authority to
continue to consider Hawaii's administrative school districts
as separate LEAs under the new law.
At the time of the reauthorization, we understood that
Hawaii sought to be treated as one LEA under the new formula
so that it could benefit under section 8003(a)(2)(C), which
increases the weighted count of federally connected children
by 35 percent if an LEA has at least 6,500 federally
connected children and a total of 100,000 children in average
daily attendance. We believe that this provision was adopted
to increase the maximum payment amounts for Hawaii and San
Diego, which appear to be the only two LEAs that meet its
criteria. Hawaii could not benefit from this provision if
its seven administration school districts were considered
to be separate LEAs, since none of the individual school
districts has 100,000 children in average daily
attendance.
Since the enactment of the new law, it has become clear
that the payment reduction formula prescribed by section
8003(b)(2) may result in Hawaii's final formula payment being
sharply reduced from its maximum payment amount in years when
appropriations are reduced, as in the current budget
environment. The Administration proposed amendments this
year, in conjunction with our fiscal year 1996 budget
proposal, which included the repeal of section 8003(b)(2) and
instead would have required that, in years in which
appropriations are insufficient to provide maximum payment
amounts in full, maximum payment amounts be reduced using a
standard ratable reduction for each eligible LEA. This
proposed modification of the formula, if adopted, would
result in more equitable payments under the impact Aid
program and could significantly increase Hawaii's payment,
subject to appropriation levels.
I hope that you will find this information helpful. If we
can be of further assistance or provide additional
information to you, please do not hesitate to contact me or
our staff who work with the Impact Aid Program.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 12, 1995.
Hon. Richard Riley,
Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to express our concern
regarding the Department's calculation of Impact Aid payments
for the State of Hawaii.
Hawaii is the only State in the Nation which has only one
Local Educational Agency (LEA). However, for the purpose of
administering federal grants, the Department has routinely
recognized the seven administrative districts within Hawaii's
LEA as individual school districts. This is true of Title I
and has been the case for Impact Aid for many years.
Changing the treatment of Hawaii in the Impact Aid program
from seven districts to one district will result in the State
losing over half of its Impact Aid funds. With over 30,000
federally-connected children in Hawaii, certain areas of the
State are among the most impacted in our Nation.
During the reauthorization of the Impact Aid law last year,
the Congress did not intend to change the treatment of Hawaii
for purposes of determining Impact Aid payments and fully
expected the Department to continue to consider Hawaii as
having seven school districts.
We would respectfully request that the Department utilize
its administrative authority to resolve this situation for
the State of Hawaii and continue to treat its seven
administrative districts as individual school districts. We
thank you for any assistance you may provide in this matter.
Sincerely,
William F. Goodling.
Patsy T. Mink.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC,
June 30, 1995.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chair, Committee On Educational & Economic Opportunities,
Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: During the debate on the Department of Defense
Authorization bill you announced your intention to review the
Impact Aid program which is designed to support the costs of
educating military children.
As you review this program, I respectfully request your
assistance in correcting a flaw in the Impact Aid formula,
which results in a devastating loss of Impact Aid funds for
the State of Hawaii.
Hawaii usually receives around $20 million from Impact Aid.
Under the current formula without a hold harmless Hawaii's
Impact Aid allocation would drop from $20 million to $9
million (See attached calculation by the Department of
Education). Hawaii has a high number of military A children
and even with the decrease in the Impact Aid appropriation in
FY95, Hawaii should not receive such a large reduction in its
allocation.
[[Page H4451]]
We suspect that the new method for ratable reduction is the
reason Hawaii will face this enormous loss. The Learning
Opportunity Threshold (LOT) method places a higher priority
on those school districts with high percentages of Impact Aid
students and a high percentage of impact aid funds in their
budget. During the reauthorization last year, we knew the LOT
would adversely impact Hawaii because of the fact that our
whole state is one school district. Therefore, even though
certain areas of the state have high concentrations of
military A children, when looking at the whole state Impact
Aid children make up a much smaller percentage of our total
student population and the Impact Aid funds make up a smaller
percentage of our state budget.
To compensate for this situation (large school districts
with large number of A students) it was proposed that an
extra ``weight'' in the initial formula be given to Hawaii
and San Diego to minimize the impact of the LOT. Formula runs
that were produced at the time of reauthorization showed that
Hawaii would received about $25 million under this scheme.
Now that the actual allocations are being made by the
Department of Education, this has not held true. In fact,
Hawaii stands to lose over half of its impact aid payment
once the two year hold-harmless ends. This was clearly not
the intention of the Committee, as it proposed to minimize
the impact of the LOT on Hawaii.
I believe there is a simple remedy to this situation.
Hawaii's seven administrative districts within our single LEA
are often treated as separate LEA's for the purposes of
calculating federal formulas. This is true for Title I and
was true of the impact Aid formula prior to this
reauthorization. We believe if this language is reinserted in
the impact Aid formula and each of our seven administrative
districts are treated as separate LEA's this unintended
impact of the LOT formula will be mitigated.
My staff is working with our school district to ensure that
the school district possesses the necessary data in order for
the U.S. Department of Education to calculate Hawaii's
allocation based on seven districts rather than one. We are
also conferring with the Department to assure that this
remedy would indeed fix Hawaii's situation.
I appreciate your consideration, and look forward to
working with you to resolve this unforeseen consequence of
the new Impact Aid formula.
Very truly yours,
Patsy T. Mink,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, today we are witnessing a love-in and a
marriage between San Diego and Hawaii, and I would assure the gentleman
from Ohio that everything in the legislation was made in America.
Mr. Speaker, during the 103d Congress, we enacted major changes to
the impact aid law. These changes focused the program on those school
districts in greatest need and eliminated all the various exemptions,
exceptions, et cetera which had been made to the program over the
years. Before the enactment of these reforms, this program was losing
its base of support in Congress and was the subject of a fair amount of
criticism.
At that time, I vowed that the only changes made to this program in
the future would be those with broad, national application, or to
clarify current law. The changes reported by my committee, and outlined
by Chairman Duke Cunningham are just that.
The Impact Aid program serves an important purpose. It assists those
school districts whose ability to educate their student population is
adversely impacted by a Federal presence.
The legislation before you today, H.R. 3269, insures that the program
will continue to effectively address the needs of those school
districts. I urge your support of this measure.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bateman], who has been a leader.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Mr. Cunningham,
Mr. Goodling, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Clay for bringing this bipartisan
impact aid technical corrections package to the floor. All four
gentlemen have been good friends to the Impact Aid program over the
years.
I am particularly pleased by the committee's decision to include two
provisions that address military housing and the section 8002 land
payment program. On military housing, I believe the committee has
drafted a sensible plan that preserves Impact Aid payments to schools
when children and their parents are temporarily moved off-base because
of Department of Defense housing renovations.
I also would like to praise the committee for including a hold
harmless provision for the section 8002 land payment program, which
helps localities where the Federal Government has taken a significant
portion of local land off the tax rolls. By phasing in the impact of
changes made to the land payment program, we are giving local schools
time to adjust their budgets without jeopardizing the education of
federally connected children.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this worthy piece of legislation.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for
H.R. 3269, the impact aid technical amendments bill. Hawaii is, in many
cases, an exception to the rule in the United States. With regard to
the impact aid program, Hawaii is the only State in the Union with one
school district. However, the U.S. Department of Education, routinely
treats the seven administrative agencies within Hawaii's single school
district as separate when calculating Federal formula grants. This is
true of title I and was true of the impact aid formula prior to the
last reauthorization. When the impact aid reauthorization was
considered in the 103d Congress, it was not expressly stated that
Hawaii's one school district should be regarded as seven for
administrative purposes. H.R. 3269 clarifies such congressional intent
with the technical amendments and effectively increases Federal impact
aid contributions to Hawaii by approximately a half. H.R. 3269 would
finally allow Hawaii a fair allocation under the impact aid program.
Throughout my congressional career, I have strongly supported impact
aid and the principle that States should be compensated for the use of
State property for Federal activities. Without impact aid, the burden
of educating federally supported families would become an unfunded
mandate for local education agencies. As a member of the Impact Aid
Coalition Steering Committee, I will continue to advocate for the
military families and all children who benefit from the impact aid
program.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3269.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________