[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.

                          ____________________