PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 18, 1996
Impact Aid Technical Amendments of 1996 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 with respect to impact aid programs. Adds a hold harmless provision relating to Federal acquisition of real property, whereby no eligible local educational agency (LEA) shall receive less than 85 percent of the preceding year's amount in payment for any fiscal year. Provides that children who would have resided in military installation housing on Federal property, if such property were not undergoing renovation on the date of eligibilty determination, be considered eligible federally connected children for purposes of impact aid payments to LEAs. Sets forth requirements for the method of computation of impact aid payments with respect to eligible federally connected children in States with only one LEA.
People & committees
Rep. Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [R-CA-51] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 104-195.
Became Public Law No: 104-195.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H9938-9940)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H9938-9940)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Mr. Cunningham moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5155 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5155 proposed by Senator Stevens for Senator Kassebaum.
Measure laid before Senate. (consideration: CR S9663-9664)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 392.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4446-4451)
Mr. Cunningham moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 273.
Reported by the Committee on Economic and Educational. H. Rept. 104-560.
Reported by the Committee on Economic and Educational. H. Rept. 104-560.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
Referred to the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3269 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3269 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3269 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3269 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.