Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2629
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Education
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-04-03: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-19T08:07:09Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act aims to establish a federal-local partnership to fund construction, renovation, and repair of school facilities for local educational agencies (LEAs) that qualify for Impact Aid payments. These LEAs serve areas with significant federal property (like military bases or Indian lands), which reduces their ability to raise local taxes for schools. The goal is to ensure safe learning environments by addressing poor facility conditions, especially in rural or remote areas, through a mix of full federal funding for the neediest districts and matched grants for others.
Key Provisions
- Funding Authorization: Authorizes $250 million annually for the first fiscal year after enactment and the next three years. Of this, 75% goes to competitive grants based on facility needs, and 25% to formula grants. Funds are in addition to existing Impact Aid construction funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and remain available until spent. The program sunsets after four years.
- Competitive Grants (Section 4): Prioritizes awards in two tiers:
- Priority One (Emergency): For LEAs with facilities violating building codes, posing health/safety risks (e.g., poor ventilation, structural issues, lack of accessibility for disabilities, or inadequate tech infrastructure), or needing teacher housing repairs in certain areas.
- Priority Two: For facilities in poor condition with potential hazards (e.g., toxic substances, unsafe water, energy inefficiency) or similar capacity/tech issues.
- Formula Grants (Section 5): Allocates funds using modified ESEA formulas, including additional students from specific federal impact categories (e.g., children on Indian or military lands) to better reflect needs in qualifying LEAs.
- Applications and Award Criteria (Sections 6-7): LEAs submit applications detailing needs. Awards first prioritize the worst facilities, then consider bonding capacity (favoring those with low or no ability to issue bonds, under $50 million in taxable property), student impact percentages, federal land presence, project feasibility, and other resources.
- Payments and Matching (Section 8): Full federal funding for LEAs with no bonding capacity or small grants (under $5 million). Others provide a local match: 10% if highly impacted (80%+ federal influence), 20% if moderately impacted (50-80%), or 25% otherwise. In-kind contributions (e.g., donated labor/materials) count toward matches. Unspent funds redistribute to other ESEA construction needs.
- Use of Funds (Section 9): Limited to construction, renovation, or repair of owned/leased school facilities (not land acquisition). Funds must supplement, not replace, local spending. Prohibits use for facilities without clear ownership or long-term leases.
- Other Requirements: Secretary of Education reserves up to 0.5% for oversight. Annual reports to Congress on projects. Unfunded applications carry over for up to four years, with maintained priority lists.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill builds on the Impact Aid program under ESEA (sections 7002, 7003, and 7007), which already provides payments to offset lost local tax revenue due to federal property. Key changes include:
- Adding new dedicated funding ($250 million/year for four years) specifically for infrastructure, separate from existing ESEA authorizations.
- Introducing a tiered competitive grant system based on facility condition emergencies, which isn't in current law.
- Modifying formula calculations to include more students (e.g., from National Defense Authorization Act categories) and basing local matches on "learning opportunity threshold" percentages (a measure of federal impact on enrollment).
- Allowing in-kind contributions for matches and carry-over of applications, enhancing flexibility not explicitly detailed in prior ESEA provisions.
- Sunset clause limits the program to four years, unlike ongoing ESEA funding.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Education gains responsibilities for grant administration, priority lists, and reporting, potentially increasing workload but with dedicated oversight funds. It could reduce long-term maintenance burdens on federal lands by improving nearby schools.
- On Citizens: Students and staff in impacted schools (e.g., near military bases or in rural/Indian areas) benefit from safer, modern facilities, potentially improving attendance, achievement, and health (e.g., better air quality, accessibility). Teachers in remote areas gain housing support, aiding recruitment. Local communities see economic boosts from construction jobs but may face matching costs.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it supports U.S. military communities (e.g., via teacher housing near bases), indirectly aiding national defense readiness. No effects on foreign policy.
Main Stakeholders
- Local Educational Agencies (LEAs): Primarily those eligible for Impact Aid under ESEA, especially in rural, military-influenced, or Indian/Alaska Native areas with limited taxing power (e.g., 65% report fair/poor facilities per findings).
- Students and School Staff: Over 1 million children in federally impacted districts, facing outdated buildings (many 65+ years old).
- Federal and Local Governments: U.S. Department of Education for administration; states, counties, Tribes for certifications; local taxpayers/communities providing matches.
- Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, representing affected LEAs.
- Bipartisan Sponsors: Representatives from diverse districts (e.g., California, New Jersey), indicating broad support for education equity.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Ensures compliance with existing laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (accessibility) and Title IX (gender equity in facilities). "Supplement, not supplant" rule prevents displacing local funds, aligning with federal grant standards. No challenges to property ownership prohibitions, as it focuses on public schools.
- Constitutional: Addresses equal protection under the Fifth Amendment by remedying tax revenue losses from federal exemptions (non-taxable federal lands), promoting educational equity without favoring any group unduly. Tribal provisions respect sovereignty via leases.
- Political: Bipartisan introduction (10 co-sponsors from both parties) highlights consensus on infrastructure needs in underserved areas. Four-year sunset encourages future reauthorization debates. Findings cite nonpartisan sources (e.g., GAO studies, ASCE ratings) to underscore urgency without bias, potentially influencing broader school funding reforms.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (14)
Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3], Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1], Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11], Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1], Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-04-03: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2025-04-03: Introduced in House
- 2025-04-03: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act — issued 2025-04-03 — PDF (20 pages)