PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 12, 2010
Officer Daniel Faulkner Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act of 2010 - (Sec. 2) Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate the expected family contribution used in determining a student's need for title IV assistance in the case of a student applicant who is eligible for a Pell Grant and whose parent or guardian died as a result of performing service as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew.
Requires such student to be less than 24 years old and enrolled at an institution of higher education at the time of his or her parent's or guardian's death.
Gives financial aid administrators the responsibility of verifying that such students are eligible to have their expected family contribution adjusted (or eliminated), and of adjusting (or eliminating) it, unless the Secretary of Education establishes an alternate method of adjusting their expected family contribution.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the total Pell Grant of a student whose Pell Grant is increased by reason of this Act from being considered in calculating that student's educational assistance benefits under the Public Safety Officer's Benefits program.
(Sec. 3) Alters the source of the annual Pell Grant increase for such students to require that it be provided only to the extent that funds are specifically provided in advance to such students in an appropriation Act for that award year.
People & committees
Rep. Murphy, Patrick J. [D-PA-8] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3344)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3344)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 959.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3344-3346)
Ms. Woolsey moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Education and Labor
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. 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.959 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.959 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.959 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.959 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.