[Senate Report 106-154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 275
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-154
_______________________________________________________________________
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
to accompany
H.R. 974
TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO AFFORD HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES FROM THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE BENEFITS OF IN-STATE TUITION AT STATE COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
September 9, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Johanna L. Hardy, Counsel
Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director, Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
John H. Shumake, Professional Staff Member, Oversight of Government
Management Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and General Counsel
Peter A. Ludgin, Minority Professional Staff Member
Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director, Oversight of
Government Management Restructuring and the District of Columbia
Subcommittee
Darla D. Cassell, Administrative Clerk
Calendar No. 275
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-154
======================================================================
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT OF 1999
_______
September 9, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 974]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (H.R. 974) to establish a program to afford
high school graduates from the District of Columbia the
benefits of in-state tuition at state colleges and universities
outside the District of Columbia, tuition assistance grants to
private colleges in the region and potentially additional
funding for the University of the District of Columbia, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Summary of Legislation...........................................1
II. Background and Need for Legislation..............................2
III. Legislative History..............................................3
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................7
V. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office................13
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................16
VII. Additional Views................................................17
VIII.Changes in Existing Law.........................................19
I. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
The District of Columbia College Access Act establishes a
program to permit D.C. residents who are recent high school
graduates the ability to pay in-state tuition rates upon
admission to state colleges in Maryland or Virginia. The
federal government will pay the difference between the two
rates, creating no additional cost to state universities.
Public university grants may not exceed $10,000 in any award
year, with a total cap of $50,000 per individual. The total
individual cap of $50,000 allows students to receive the
maximum $10,000 scholarship amount for up to five years.
The program is administered by the Mayor of the District of
Columbia, in consultation with the Secretary of Education. The
Mayor and the Secretary of Education will enter into a
memorandum of agreement which will describe the specifics of
the consultative relationship.
The Mayor may expand the geographic scope beyond Maryland
and Virginia if, after consulting with the House of
Representatives Committee on Government Reform and the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, he or she determines that
eligible students are experiencing difficulty gaining admission
to public universities in Maryland and Virginia because of any
preference afforded in-state residents. The Mayor must also
consider the estimated cost of a proposed expansion. The
General Accounting Office (GAO) will monitor the effect of the
program and will report to Congress and the Mayor any findings
concerning the difficulty of eligible students gaining
admission to Maryland and Virginia public colleges. Funding of
$12 million is authorized in FY 2000 and ``such sums as
necessary'' for each of the five succeeding fiscal years.
The bill also provides tuition assistance grants for
students attending private colleges in the District or the
adjoining Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Tuition assistance
grants for private colleges may not exceed $2,500 in any award
year, with a total cap of $12,500 per individual. Funding of $5
million is authorized in FY 2000 and ``such sums as necessary''
for each of the five succeeding fiscal years.
The admissions policies and standards are not altered for
any college or university. High school graduates must begin
undergraduate course work within three years of high school
graduation, excluding active duty in the military, the Peace
Corps or Americorps. Individuals receiving the recognized
equivalent of a secondary high school diploma are also
eligible.
The bill could also provide additional funding for the
University of the District of Columbia (UDC), the District's
only public university. UDC, which is designated as a part of
the federal historically black colleges and universities (HBCU)
program, is funded by the District government. If UDC does not
receive funds as a historically black college under the Higher
Education Act of 1965, this bill authorizes $1.5 million for
UDC in FY 2000 and ``such sums as may be necessary'' for each
of the five succeeding fiscal years.
The Secretary of Education is directed to assign a
department employee or employees to serve as advisor(s) to the
Mayor. The Inspector General of the Department of Education has
the authority to audit and review this program. Administrative
costs may not exceed 7% of the total funds made available.
II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Congress acts as the de facto state legislature for the
District of Columbia. This legislation was introduced to
address the lack of a university system in the District of
Columbia as that concept exists in all 50 states. The same
choices and opportunities simply do not exist for students and
parents here as exist elsewhere. This has often lead to an out-
migration of population in order to take advantage of the
educational opportunities all other Americans enjoy as
residents of a particular state. The University of the District
of Columbia is the city's only public university. The only low
cost option for higher education in the city, UDC was created
in 1977 when District of Columbia Teachers College, the Federal
City College and the Washington Technical Institute were
combined into a single institution. Unfortunately, many do not
feel that UDC can provide the necessary range of options for
D.C. students.
Congress has made great efforts to stabilize the city's
population and tax base. Congress enacted legislation to
relieve the District of costly state functions and the
federally created pension liability, provide a $5,000 home
buyer credit and other tax benefits, authorize the MCI Arena
and a new Convention Center, and create a new Water and Sewer
Authority. Congress also created a Financial Authority to help
stabilize the city's finances and has conducted numerous
oversight hearings to help efforts to reform the Metropolitan
Police Department and the school system. The D.C. College
Access Act is intended as another step toward stabilizing the
city's population while, most importantly, aiding the city's
young people.
As a compliment and enhancement to the D.C. College Access
Act, 17 private sector companies and foundations (including
Mobil Corporation, America Online, Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, US
Airways, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bell Atlantic, The Morris
and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the J. Willard and Alice S.
Marriott Foundation, and The Washington Post) have raised
almost $20 million for the D.C. College Access Program (DC-
CAP). DC-CAP is based on the Cleveland Scholarship Program,
with the goal of helping the District's public high school
students prepare for, enter and graduate from college. The
program will provide counsel to help students recognize that
college is a realistic option, assist students and parents in
working through the complex testing, application and financial
aid process, and provide ``last dollar'' funding. A pilot
program is scheduled to begin at six D.C. public high schools
in September of 1999, making the first financial awards in June
of 2000. The city's remaining public schools will join the
program in September of 2000.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), Chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), the subcommittee's ranking
member introduced H.R. 974. H.R. 974 was approved by voice vote
by the House subcommittee on April 15, 1999, approved by voice
vote by the full committee on May 19, 1999, and passed in the
House of Representatives on May 24, 1999, by voice vote. H.R.
974 was received by the Senate and was referred to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the
District of Columbia.
As passed by the House, H.R. 974 would allow high school
graduates who are D.C. residents to qualify for in-state
tuition rates at public universities across the nation. The
federal government would pay the difference between the two
rates up to $10,000 a year, creating no additional cost to
state universities. The Mayor is authorized to make awards of
up to $3,000 a year for students attending private colleges in
the District, Maryland or Virginia. There is a one year
residency requirement and no limit on the amount of income
students or their families may earn. The program would be
administered by the Mayor of the District of Columbia in
consultation with the Secretary of Education. The Mayor is
authorized to delegate the administration of the program to a
non-governmental agency if he or she determines that it would
be more efficient to do so. UDC was appropriated an unspecified
amount each year ``to enhance educational opportunities.''
Administrative costs may not exceed 10% of the total program
costs. If there are insufficient funds to make the grant awards
requested, the amount of grant awards would be ratably reduced.
Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT), Chairman of the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, introduced a similar
D.C. resident tuition support bill, S. 856, Expanded Options in
Higher Education for District of Columbia Students Act of 1999.
However, while they shared common goals, S. 856 and H.R. 974
differed in many respects. S. 856 would allow high school
graduates to qualify for in-state tuition rates at public
universities in Maryland and Virginia. Funding of $20 million
is authorized for FY 2000 and ``such sums as may be necessary''
for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years. Tuition assistance
grants of up to $2,000 would apply for students who attend a
private college in the District or the neighboring Maryland and
Virginia counties. Funding of $10 million is authorized in FY
2000 and ``such sums as may be necessary'' for each of the 5
succeeding fiscal years. The program would be administered by
the Secretary of Education in consultation with the Mayor of
the District of Columbia. The Secretary is authorized to
delegate the administration of the program to another public or
private entity if he or she determines that it would be more
efficient. Individuals whose family income exceeds the level at
which eligibility for the Hope Scholarship tax credit is set
are not eligible to participate. UDC would receive $1.5 million
in FY 2000 and ``such sums as may be necessary'' for each of
the succeeding fiscal years to enable the school to carry out
activities authorized under Part B of Title III of the Higher
Education Act. S. 856 was referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia.
On Thursday, June 24, 1999, Sen. George Voinovich chaired a
hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia entitled ``H.R. 974--The District of Columbia College
Access Act and S. 856--Expanded Options in Higher Education for
District of Columbia Students Act of 1999''. The hearing
compared the provisions of the two bills and evaluated the
college access proposal.
Three panels were organized to address these issues. Panel
I included the bill sponsors, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), Del.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT).
Panel II included District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams
and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and
Innovation, with the Office of Post-Secondary Education at the
U.S. Department of Education, Maureen McLaughlin. Panel III
included Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Mobil
Corporation, Lucio Noto, President of the University of the
District of Columbia, Dr. Julius Nimmons, and Chair of the
Government Relations Committee of the Consortium of
Universities, Patricia McGuire.
In response to testimony received at the hearing and in an
effort to reconcile differences between H.R. 974 and S. 856,
Sen. Voinovich drafted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 974 which takes provisions from both the
House and Senate versions and adds new elements.
Explanation of Voinovich amendment in the nature of a
substitute
The Voinovich amendment grants the Mayor, in consultation
with the Secretary of Education, the authority to administer
the tuition assistance program. The Secretary of Education is
directed to assign department employees to serve as advisors to
the Mayor and provide technical assistance. The Inspector
General of the Department of Education has the authority to
audit and review this program, and nothing in the amendment
precludes the Inspector General of the District of Columbia
from exercising broad oversight as well. The Comptroller
General of theUnited States will also monitor the program and
analyze whether students had difficulty gaining admission to
institutions because of any preference afforded in-state residents,
reporting the findings to Congress and the Mayor. The administrative
costs for the program are limited to 7% of the total funds made
available. The Department of Education believed the 10% cap in the
original House bill was excessive.
Originally, H.R. 974 offered eligible students access to
public institutions in all 50 states, while S. 856 limited
eligible institutions to those in Maryland and Virginia.
Proponents of the language in the Senate version believed that
access to public institutions in all 50 states would allow
District residents greater benefits than residents of the 50
states, encourage students to leave the area and, according to
the Department of Education and CBO, cost considerably more.
Because neither version would alter the admissions policy of a
university, a student is still applying as an out-of-state
student. Others felt that allowing students to attend public
universities across a larger geographic area would ensure that
average and below average students who could ordinarily attend
an open admissions state institution, would have a greater
opportunity of gaining admission to a public university as an
out-of-state applicant. Several recent articles in periodicals
have addressed the difficulty of gaining admission to public
colleges, even for in-state students. The Voinovich amendment
in the nature of a substitute reconciles these two approaches
by limiting eligible public institutions to those in Maryland
and Virginia to control costs, but allowing the Mayor to expand
the geographic scope beyond those two states if it is found
that D.C. students are having difficulty gaining admission to
Maryland and Virginia public universities simply because of
their out-of-state status. In making a determination to expand
the geographic scope, the Mayor must consult with the House
Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs, as well as the Secretary of Education.
GAO will monitor the effect of the program and will report to
Congress and the Mayor any findings concerning the difficulty
of eligible students gaining admission to Maryland and Virginia
public colleges.
S. 856 included a provision which would make a student
ineligible if their family income exceeds the level at which
eligibility for the Hope Scholarship tax credit ($50,000 or
less for a single taxpayer, or $100,000 for a married couple)
is set. Senator Jeffords and others believed that federal funds
should be targeted to students with the greatest financial
need, and should not benefit wealthier families. However, the
Voinovich amendment in the nature of a substitute does not
include a means test. None of the fifty states has an income
test for residents to attend public colleges, and this
legislation is intended to afford District residents the same
opportunities available to residents of other states,
regardless of income. Further, the District desperately needs
to attract and maintain a thriving middle class tax base, and
the inclusion of a means test runs counter to that goal.
Both H.R. 974 and S. 856 included provisions for UDC. In
the past the District government received a federal payment,
which excluded UDC from receiving funds under the HBCU formula
because the university was funded by the city and there is a
``double dipping'' federal funds exclusion provision for HBCUs.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and the Department of Education have
been working to ensure that in the future UDC will consistently
receive monies from the HBCU pool of funds. The provision in
the Voinovich amendment in the nature of a substitute ensures
that if UDC does not receive funds as a HBCU under the Higher
Education Act of 1965, UDC will be authorized to receive $1.5
million in FY 2000 (the approximate amount of its HBCU formula
allocation) and ``such sums as may be necessary'' for each of
the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
H.R. 974 and S. 856 were ordered reported by the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia by unanimous consent; the Committee on Governmental
Affairs considered H.R. 974 with the amendment in the nature of
a substitute offered by Sen. Voinovich at a business meeting on
August 3, 1999. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) offered four
amendments to the Voinovich amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Explanation of Durbin amendments to Voinovich amendment in
the nature of a substitute
The first Durbin amendment was approved by voice vote as it
was not controversial and included technical corrections and
minor policy changes, including language that would ensure that
these awards would supplement and not supplant other financial
assistance available. The amendment expanded the consultation
if the Mayor considers expansion of the geographic coverage of
public institutions to include the Secretary of Education, as
well as the congressional committees. The amendment also
altered the effective date from October 1, 1999 to January 1,
2000. This change clarifies and ensures that monies are
available for purposes of administration, but will not create
the expectation of awards being granted until January.
The second amendment was also approved by voice vote; it
expands the monitoring and reporting duties of the Comptroller
General of the United States to review the impact of this
program on the University of the District of Columbia, to
analyze the extent to which there are an insufficient number of
eligible institutions to which District students can gain
access due to caps on the number of out-of-state students an
institution will enroll, and a review of significant barriers
imposed by academic entrance requirements and the absence of
admission programs benefitting minority students.
The third amendment offered and adopted by voice vote
prioritizes funding of awards for students if there are
insufficient funds and a ratable reduction is instituted.
Tuition awards would first be reduced for students who had not
previously received funds. If funds were still insufficient,
tuition awards would be reduced for all other students,
granting the Mayor the authority to adjust awards based on the
financial need of the eligible students. This amendment
addresses the concerns of means testing proponents by providing
the Mayor the authority to prioritize funding based on need if
the appropriation is not sufficient to cover the awards of
students. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) raised some concerns with
federally funding an educational program without including some
type of financial or means test. Sen. Voinovich, Sen. Joseph
Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) expressed support
for extending benefits to District residents similar to the
benefits that residents of the fifty states receive and
omitting a means test.
The fourth amendment offered addressed an eligibility
provision in the Voinovich amendment which would make eligible
those students who had graduated from a secondary school after
January 1, 1999. The intent of this amendment was to eliminate
a phasing-in of the program, allowing eligible students in any
undergraduate cohort to apply for benefits under this program
from its inception. Sen. Voinovich expressed concerns with the
cost of the Durbin amendmentand suggested approaching the
inception of the new program with caution, considering it a pilot
phase. He was opposed to the amendment and Sen. Durbin withdrew it.
The Voinovich amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 974, as amended by the Durbin amendments, was adopted by
voice vote. H.R. 974, as amended, was ordered reported by voice
vote.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Sec. 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia College
Access Act of 1999''.
Sec. 2. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to establish a program that
enables college-bound residents of the District of Columbia to
have greater choices among institutions of higher education.
Sec. 3. Public school program
(a) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Mayor may award grants, from
amounts appropriated under subsection (i), to eligible
institutions that enroll students to pay the difference
between the tuition and fees charged for in-State
students and the tuition and fees charged for out-of-
State students.
(2) Maximum student amounts.--An eligible student
shall have paid on the student's behalf under this
section--
(A) not more than $10,000 for any 1 award
year; and
(B) a total of not more than $50,000.
(3) Proration.--The Mayor may prorate payments of
awards for students who attend an eligible institution
on a part time basis.
(b) Reduction for Insufficient Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--If the funds appropriated pursuant
to subsection (i) for any fiscal year are insufficient
to award a grant in the amount determined under
subsection (a) on behalf of each eligible student
enrolled in an eligible institution, the Mayor shall--
(A) first, ratably reduce the amount of the
tuition payment made on behalf of each student
who has not previously received funds under
this section; and
(B) if the funds are insufficient after
implementing subparagraph (A), ratably reduce
the amount of the tuition payments made on
behalf of all other students.
(2) Adjustments.--The Mayor may adjust the amount of
tuition and fee payments made under paragraph (1) based
on--
(A) the financial need of the eligible
students to avoid undue hardship to the
eligible students;
(B) undue administrative burdens on the
Mayor.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible
institution'' means an institution that--
(A) is a public institution of higher
education located--
(i) in the State of Maryland or the
Commonwealth of Virginia; or
(ii) outside the State of Maryland or
the Commonwealth of Virginia, but only
if the Mayor--
(I) determines that a
significant number of eligible
students seeking admission to
public institutions in the
State of Maryland or the
Commonwealth of Virginia are
experiencing difficulty gaining
admission due to any preference
afforded in-State residents;
(II) consults with the House
Committee on Government Reform,
the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the
Secretary regarding expansion
of the program to include
institutions located outside of
the State of Maryland or the
Commonwealth of Virginia; and
(III) takes into
consideration the projected
cost of expansion;
(B) is eligible to participate in the student
financial assistance programs under title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
(C) enters into an agreement with the Mayor
containing such conditions as the Mayor may
specify, including a requirement that the
institution use the funds to supplement and not
supplant assistance that otherwise would be
provided to eligible students from the District
of Columbia.
(2) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student''
means an individual who--
(A) was domiciled in the District of Columbia
for 12 consecutive months preceding the
beginning of the freshman year at an
institution of higher education;
(B) graduated from a secondary school or
received the recognized equivalent diploma on
or after January 1, 1999;
(C) begins the individual's undergraduate
study within 3 calendar years of subsection (B)
(excluding any period of service on active duty
in the Armed Forces);
(D) is enrolled or accepted for enrollment,
in a degree, certificate, or other program
leading to a recognized educational credential
at an eligible institution;
(E) is maintaining satisfactory progress in
the course of study the student is pursuing;
(F) has not completed the individual's first
undergraduate baccalaureate course of study.
(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning
given the term in Section 101 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965.
(4) Mayor.--The term ``Mayor'' means the Mayor of the
District of Columbia.
(5) Secondary school.--The term ``Secondary School''
has the meaning given that term under Section 14101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of Education.
(d) Construction.--This Act shall not alter the admission
policies of an institution of higher education to enable an
eligible student to enroll in that institution.
(e) Applications.--Each prospective student desiring a
tuition payment shall submit an application and any additional
information to the eligible institution.
(f) Administration of Program.--
(1) In general.--The Mayor shall carry out the
program in consultation with the Secretary. The Mayor
may also enter into agreement with another private or
public entity to administer the program if the Mayor
determines that doing so is a more efficient way of
carrying out the program.
(2) Policies and procedures.--The Mayor, in
consultation with participating institutions, shall
develop policies and procedures for the administration
of the program.
(3) Memorandum of agreement.--The Mayor and the
Secretary shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement
that describes--
(A) the manner in which the Mayor shall
consult with the Secretary with respect to
administering the program; and
(B) any technical or other assistance to be
provided to the Mayor by the Secretary for
purposes of administering the program.
(g) Mayor's Report.--The Mayor shall report to Congress
annually regarding--
(1) the number of eligible students attending each
eligible institution and the amount of the grant awards
paid to those institutions on behalf of the eligible
students;
(2) the extent, if any, to which a ratable reduction
was made in the amount of tuition and fee payments made
on behalf of eligible students; and
(3) the progress in obtaining recognized academic
credentials of the cohort of eligible students for each
year.
(h) GAO Report.--GAO shall monitor the effect of the
program on educational opportunities for eligible students. GAO
shall also analyze whether eligible students had difficulty
gaining admission to eligible institutions because of any
preference afforded in-state residents by eligible
institutions, and shall report any findings to Congress and the
Mayor. In addition the Comptroller General shall--
(1) determine if there are an insufficient number of
eligible institutions to which District of Columbia
students can gain admission due to--
(A) caps on the number of out-of-State
students the institution will enroll;
(B) barriers imposed by academic entrance
requirements (such as grade point average and
standardized scholastic admissions tests); and
(2) assess the impact of the program on enrollment at
the University of the District of Columbia; and
(3) report the findings to Congress and the Mayor.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the District of Columbia $12,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each of
the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
(j) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on
January 1, 2000.
Sec. 4. Assistance to the University of the District of Columbia
(a) In General.--If the University of the District of
Columbia does not receive funds under part B of title III of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 for a fiscal year, then the
Mayor may provide financial assistance to the UDC to enable the
university to carry out authorized activities.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the District of Columbia $1,500,000 for
fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each of
the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
(c) Special Rule.--For any fiscal year, the University of
the District of Columbia may receive financial assistance
pursuant to this section, or pursuant to part B of title III of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, but not pursuant to both this
section and such part B.
Sec. 5. Private school program
(a) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Mayor may award grants, from
amounts appropriated under subsection (f), to eligible
institutions that enroll students to pay the cost of
tuition and fees at the eligible institutions on behalf
of each eligible student enrolled in an eligible
institution. The Mayor may prescribe such regulations
as may be necessary to carry out this section.
(2) Maximum student amounts.--An eligible student
shall have paid on the student's behalf under this
section--
(A) not more than $2,500 for any 1 award
year; and
(B) a total of not more than $12,500.
(3) Proration.--The Mayor shall prorate payments
under this section for students who attend an eligible
institution on less than a full-time basis.
(b) Reduction for Insufficient Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--If the funds appropriated pursuant
to subsection (i) for any fiscal year are insufficient
to award a grant in the amount determined under
subsection (a) on behalf of each eligible student
enrolled in an eligible institution, the Mayor shall--
(A) first, ratably reduce the amount of the
tuition payment made on behalf of each student
who has not previously received funds under
this section; and
(B) if the funds are insufficient after
implementing subparagraph (A), ratably reduce
the amount of the tuition payments made on
behalf of all other students.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible
institution'' means an institution that--
(A) is a private, nonprofit, associate or
baccalaureate degree-granting, institution of
higher education, the main campus of which is
located--
(i) in the District of Columbia;
(ii) in the city of Alexandria, Falls
Church, or Fairfax, or the county of
Arlington or Fairfax, in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, or a
political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia located within
any such county; or
(iii) in the county of Montgomery or
Prince George's in the State of
Maryland, or a political subdivision of
the State of Maryland located within
any such county;
(B) is eligible to participate in the student
financial assistance programs; and
(C) enters into an agreement with the Mayor
containing such conditions as the Mayor may
specify, including a requirement that the
institution use the funds to supplement and not
supplant assistance that otherwise would be
provided to eligible students from the District
of Columbia.
(2) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student''
means an individual who meets the requirements of
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 3(c)(2).
(3) Mayor.--The term ``Mayor'' means the Mayor of the
District of Columbia.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of Education.
(d) Application.--Each prospective student desiring a
tuition payment shall submit an application and any additional
information to the eligible institution.
(e) Administration of Program.--
(1) In general.--The Mayor shall carry out the
program in consultation with the Secretary. The Mayor
may also enter into agreement with another private or
public entity to administer the program if the Mayor
determines that doing so is a more efficient way of
carrying out the program.
(2) Policies and procedures.--The Mayor, in
consultation with participating institutions, shall
develop policies and procedures for the administration
of the program.
(3) Memorandum of agreement.--The Mayor and the
Secretary shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement
that describes--
(A) the manner in which the Mayor shall
consult with the Secretary with respect to
administering the program; and
(B) any technical or other assistance to be
provided to the Mayor by the Secretary for
purposes of administering the program.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the District of Columbia $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each of
the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on
January 1, 2000.
Sec. 6. General requirements
(a) Personnel.--The Secretary shall arrange for the
assignment of an individual to serve as an adviser to the Mayor
with respect to the programs assisted under this Act.
(b) Administration Expenses.--The Mayor may use not more
than 7 percent of the funds made available for a program under
Section 3 or 5 for a fiscal year to pay the administrative
expenses of the program under Section 3 or 5 for the fiscal
year.
(c) Inspector General Review.--Each of the programs
assisted under this Act shall be subject to audit and other
review by the Inspector General of the Department of Education.
(d) Gifts.--The Mayor may accept, use, and dispose of
donations of services or property for purposes of carrying out
this Act.
(e) Funding Rule.--Notwithstanding Sections 3 and 5, the
Mayor may use funds made available--
(1) under Section 3 to carry out Section 5 if the
amount of funds made available under Section 3 exceeds
the amount of funds awarded under Section 3 during a
time period determined by the Mayor; and
(2) under Section 5 to carry out Section 3 if the
amount of funds made available under Section 5 exceeds
the amount of funds awarded under Section 5 during a
time period determined by the Mayor.
(f) Maximum Student Amount Adjustments.--The Mayor shall
establish rules to adjust the maximum student amounts described
in Sections 3(a)(2)(B) and 5(a)(2)(B) for eligible students
described in Section 3(c)(2) or 5(c)(2) who transfer between
the eligible institutions described in Section 3(c)(1) or
5(c)(1).
v. cost estimate of the congressional budget office
H.R. 974--District of Columbia College Access Act
Summary: H.R. 974 would establish two new federal grant
programs. Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and for the succeeding
five years, the bill would authorize a new college access
scholarship program administered by the Mayor of the District
of Columbia and would authorize a new federal payment to the
University of the District of Columbia (UCD).
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that H.R. 974 would result in additional
discretionary spending of $9 million 2000 and $72 million over
the 2000-2004 period. H.R. 974 would not affect direct spending
or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not
apply.
The act contains an intergovernmental mandate that would
affect the District of Columbia. CBO estimates that complying
with this mandate would entail no net costs. This legislation
would have no effect on the budgets of other state, local, or
tribal governments. H.R. 974 contains no private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
federal budgetary impact of H.R. 974 is presented in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 500 (education, training, employment, and
social services).
ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 974
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
-----------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Tuition Grants:
Estimated Authorization Level......................... ....... 17 10 13 16 17
Estimated Outlays..................................... ....... 7 10 13 16 17
Federal Payments to UDC:
Estimated Authorization Level......................... ....... 2 2 2 2 2
Estimated Outlays..................................... ....... 2 2 2 2 2
Total Authorizations Under H.R. 974:
Estimated Authorization Level......................... ....... 19 12 15 18 19
Estimated Outlays..................................... ....... 9 12 15 18 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Basis of Estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that H.R. 974 will be enacted prior to October 1, 1999.
Tuition assistance
H.R. 974 would establish scholarships, administered by the
Mayor, designed to provide financial assistance to District of
Columbia (D.C.) residents who choose to attend public colleges
outside of D.C. or private postsecondary institutions in D.C.
or in one of the surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland or
Virginia. Public institutions initially eligible for the grants
would be located in Maryland or Virginia, but the act would
allow an extension to other states if the Mayor finds access is
limited by preferences afforded in-state residents. The private
school tuition grants would be restricted to nonprofit
institutions. The act would authorize an appropriation for
fiscal year 2000 of $12 million for the public institution
program and $5 million for the private school program. The
authorizations for 2001 through 2005 are for such sums as may
be necessary.
Eligibility for the tuition assistance would be limited to
individuals who graduate from high school or receive an
equivalent of a secondary school diploma after January 1, 1999,
reside in D.C. for at least 12 consecutive months prior to
beginning the freshman year in a eligible institution, and
begin their postsecondary school course-of-study within three
years of their high school graduation. For those who wish to
attend state-supported public institutions outside of D.C.,
H.R. 974 would provide scholarships equal to the difference
between the tuition paid by residents of the state in which the
institution is located and the tuition charged to nonresident
students, but not to exceed $10,000. In addition, the bill
would authorize a $2,500 maximum annual scholarship for those
who choose to attend a private institution in D.C. or in one of
the surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland or Virginia. The
assistance under each portion of the program would be prorated
if the student is enrolled in a less than full-time program.
CBO estimates that H.R. 974 would authorize funding for the
tuition grants--including administrative costs--totaling $74
million over the 2000-2004 period. The outlays would amount to
$64 million over the five-year period. (CBO estimates that the
$17 million authorized for 2000 would be $10 million more than
necessary to fully fund the program that year.)
The act would authorize the tuition grant program to begin
awarding grants as soon as January 2000. As a result, CBO
estimates that about 1,000 students would begin receiving
assistance during the 1999-2000 academic year at a cost of $1.3
million. CBO estimates that about 2,000 students would receive
tuition assistance under this program in academic year 2000-
2001. Of this total, about 900 would attend public institutions
and receive grants averaging $3,500; 1,100 would attend private
institutions and receive grants averaging $2,100. By academic
year 2004-2005, an estimated 5,600 students would receive
tuition assistance--2,500 attending public institutions and
3,100 enrolled at private institutions.
To determine the number of D.C. residents eligible for the
grants, CBO used the 1996-1997 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data Analysis System (IPEDS). Those data show the
distribution of D.C. residents, attending their first year of
college by institution type and location. CBO assumes that the
distributional characteristics observed for freshmen are the
same at each undergraduate grade level and applied those
distributions to the total number of D.C. residents enrolled in
instutitions of higher education during the 1996-1997 academic
year. To predict enrollment for 2000 and beyond, CBO relied on
the growth rates for the national enrollment projections from
the National Center for Education Statistics.
The basic enrollment assumptions were modified to reflect
behavioral responses on the part of students. CBO assumed that
there would be a small change in the distribution of students
among institutions--that UDC would lose a modest share of its
enrollment of D.C. residents to two-year and four-year public
institutions in Maryland and Virginia, and postsecondary
institutions outside of Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. would lose
a small share of their enrollment of D.C. residents to four-
year public colleges and universities in Maryland and Virginia
or to the private institutions covered by the act.
To determine the average tuition grant, CBO used 1996-1997
IPEDS data to determine the average in-state and out-of-state
tuition rates by school type. CBO inflated these rates by the
College Board's average estimate of tuition increases to arrive
at the tuition costs for 2000. To estimate future tuition
increases, CBO used its baseline projections for the Cross
Domestic Product price index.
Finally, CBO added administrative costs which, under H.R.
974, could equal a maximum of 7 percent of total program costs.
Payments for UDC
H.R. 974 also authorizes $1.5 million annually over the
next six years to make federal payments to UDC that would fund
activities similar to those authorized under part B of title
III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which provides
assistance to historically black colleges and universities. As
for similar federal payments to the District of Columbia,
estimated outlays equal budget authority in each year.
Estimated Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
H.R. 974 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in
UMRA, but CBO estimates that complying with this mandate would
entail no net costs. The bill would impose certain
administrative requirements on the Mayor of the District of
Columbia in connection with the scholarship program. Because
these requirements would not be conditions of federal
assistance, they would be mandates as defined in UMRA. A
portion of the federal grants for the scholarship program would
be available to cover the cost incurred by the District of
Columbia in carrying out those administrative requirements,
H.R. 974 would have no impact on the budgets of other state,
local, or tribal governments.
Estimated Impact on the Private Sector: H.R. 974 contains
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO Estimate: On May 24, 1999, CBO produced a cost
estimate for H.R. 974 as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Government Reform. CBO estimated that, to fully
fund the activities authorized by that version of H.R. 974, the
Congress would have to provide appropriations of $117 million
for 2000 and $603 million over the 2000-2004 period.
Under the House version of the bill, the tuition assistance
program would cost $390 million over the first five years.
Unlike the Senate-reported legislation, which would restrict
the public institution enrollment only to schools in Maryland
and Virginia, the House bill would extend the tuition
assistance benefits to D.C. residents enrolled in any public
post-secondary institution in the country. Similarly, coverage
for the private school assistance under the House version would
be available on behalf of a D.C. resident attending a private
school anywhere in Maryland, Virginia, or the District of
Columbia. Moreover, CBO estimated that about one-half of all
nonresident sophomores, juniors, and seniors attending private
colleges in D.C. would elect to claim D.C. residency in order
to qualify for tuition assistance. Under the Senate version of
H.R. 974, CBO estimates that very few nonresident students
would file for D.C. residency because the act would require
that the student be domiciled in D.C. for 12 continuous months
prior to enrolling in the freshman year of an undergraduate
baccalaureate degree program.
Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Kalcevic;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg;
Impact on the Private Sector: Nabeel Alsalam.
Estimate Approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
SENATE H.R. 974--AS ORDERED REPORTED AUG. 3, 1999--PRELIMINARY STAFF ESTIMATE--AUG. 4, 1999
[Discretionary spending--with discretionary inflation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
Authorization levels ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuition Grants--Public Colleges:
Estimated Authorization Level.. ..... 12 6 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 13
Estimated Outlays.............. ..... 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 13
Tuition Grants--Private Colleges:
Estimated Authorization Level.. ..... 5 6 6 8 8 9 9 9 9 9
Estimated Outlays.............. ..... 4 6 6 8 8 9 9 9 9 9
Federal Payments to the University
of the District of Columbia:
Estimated Authorization Level.. ..... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Estimated Outlays.............. ..... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total:
Estimated Authorization Level.. ..... 19 14 16 19 20 22 23 23 23 24
Estimated Outlays.............. ..... 9 14 16 19 20 22 23 23 23 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
vi. evaluation of regulatory impact
Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory and paperwork impact of H.R. 974, as
well as the impact of the bill on personal privacy. The
Committee finds that the bill will have no significant impact
on paperwork or regulatory burdens, or on individual privacy,
beyond what may be imposed by existing law.
VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS
I support this legislation, which will establish a special
program to enable eligible District of Columbia students
seeking post-secondary education to choose from a broader
network of public institutions with the benefit of subsidized
tuition assistance to offset the nonresident cost differential.
This legislation is one of President Clinton's priorities for
higher education this year, and has attracted considerable
support. I applaud the efforts of Subcommittee Chairman
Voinovich to evaluate a variety of options, seek input from
interested and affected parties, and carefully consider
alternative approaches in crafting the compromise proposal
approved by the Committee.
However, I am concerned that, as currently designed under
our Committee-approved measure, the tuition assistance program
for both public and private institutions would be available at
the outset to only those students in the first or second years
of their college studies. Consequently, this program will not
benefit a large segment of currently enrolled undergraduate
students or individuals who may be contemplating attending
college but who graduated prior to 1999. Under such a phased-in
program, it could take several years before a realistic
assessment of the actual costs, demands, and impact of a fully
operational tuition assistance program could be made.
During full committee markup, I offered an amendment to
address this issue. My amendment sought to eliminate the phase-
in element so as to allow all four collegiate cohorts (current
incoming freshsmen through seniors, as well as others within
three years of high school graduation or attainment of a
recognized high school diploma equivalent) the opportunity to
apply for the program. I withdrew the amendment in the hope
that continued discussion of this provision could ensue.
The current substitute bill makes eligibility under the
program open only to those students who have graduated from
high school or received their General Educational Development
certificate since January 1, 1999. Otherwise eligible students
who are currently enrolled in post-secondary institutions, or
those students who desire to pursue post-secondary education
and are within 3 years of having graduated from high school,
but who graduated prior to January 1, 1999, would not qualify.
Some contend that the new and unprecedented nature of this
program and the lack of experience on the part of potential
administrators dictate a need to proceed cautiously. However, I
have reservations about placing such an initial limitation on
the group of eligible applicants and about treating the program
as a trial undertaking to be phased-in over several years.
The requirement that eligible students must have graduated
from high school after January 1, 1999 postpones the true cost
of the program until later years. Limiting the eligible
students in this way may encourage the Mayor to expand the
program in early years without the ability to continue funding
benefits to the full contingent of eligible students in the
future. It could create false expectations on the part of
students who will rely on the availability of these benefits
and their continuation. It also may create a situation in which
a ratable reduction for all students may be implemented if
funding is insufficient.
Requiring the program to be phased-in and not including
enrolled students who graduated prior to January 1999 in the
pool of eligible applicants could jeopardize funding of the
program in 2000 at the full authorized level of $17 million,
consistent with President Clinton's request. An examination of
the estimated costs of the program under the Committee-approved
bill as projected by the Congressional Budget Office reflects
that the estimated outlay to run the tuition assistance program
in its first year is $7 million, and that not until 2004 would
a program designed under the terms of the Committee-approved
bill be projected to cost $17 million.
Because this program will be new and unlike any other, it
may be difficult to precisely gauge the behavioral responses of
potential beneficiaries. From all accounts, interest in
participation is expected to be high. Therefore, it would be
most appropriate and advantageous that administrators and
Congress be able to ascertain as soon as possible after the
program is launched the extent of demand and usage by the full
contingent of eligible students, not just those in their first
or second years of study. Similarly, assessing the
administrative impact of operating a full program will be
difficult if it is implemented incrementally. Furthermore, it
may be impossible to conduct a valid, first-year evaluation of
the practical effect of the provisions governing ratable
reductions based on possible fund depletion. There is also the
potential for skewed results in program evaluations if the full
range of eligible students for whom the program is intended are
not permitted to participate immediately.
I trust that we will look carefully at the ramifications of
delaying full implementation until later years and the
advantages of launching this program without any phase-in
restrictions.
As I have also publicly stated, Mayor Williams, the elected
Council, and the citizens of the District of Columbia should
devote maximum resources and attention to invigorating,
enhancing, and sustaining the University of the District of
Columbia as a premier flagship public institution of higher
learning that will attract and retain the best and brightest
students.
Moreover, I must emphasize the importance of the District
of Columbia looking ahead to and seriously determining how it
can and will invest local funds in this tuition assistance
program which is clearly designed to benefit local citizens,
rather than allowing the program to be wholly dependent on
Federal dollars for its viability.
Finally, I believe it would be prudent for the District to
explore the feasibility of becoming a participant in reciprocal
arrangements such as the Academic Common Market, an alliance of
fifteen States which permit out-of-State students to pay in-
State tuition while studying selected academic programs that
are not available in their home jurisdiction.
Dick Durbin.
viii. changes in existing law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that H.R.
974, as reported, makes no changes in existing law.