H. Rept. 106-158 - 106th Congress (1999-2000)
May 24, 1999, As Reported by the Government Reform Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 106-158 - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT




[House Report 106-158]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]




106th Congress                                            Rept. 106-158
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================



 
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT

                                _______


                  May 24, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Burton of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform, 
                        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 Government Reform, to whom 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, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Summary of Legislation...........................................4
 II. Background and Need for Legislation..............................5
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Action........................7
 IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony.........................7
  V. Explanation of Bill as Reported..................................7
 VI. Compliance with Rule XIII........................................8
VII. Budget Analysis and Projections..................................8
VIII.Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.................9

 IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for this Legislation..........12
  X. Committee Recommendation........................................12
 XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1..............12
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 423.....12
XIII.Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b).....12

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia College Access 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

  There is hereby established the District of Columbia College Access 
Scholarship Program (hereafter in this Act referred to as the 
``Program'') under which the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall 
award scholarships in accordance with section 4 using amounts in the 
District of Columbia College Access Fund established under section 3.

SEC. 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS FUND.

  (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established on the books of the 
government of the District of Columbia the District of Columbia College 
Access Fund (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Fund''), which 
shall consist of the following amounts:
          (1) Amounts appropriated to the Fund under law.
          (2) Gifts and bequests.
          (3) Refunds paid under section 4(b)(4).
          (4) Interest earned on the balance of the Fund.
  (b) Administration.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall 
administer the Fund, in consultation with the Secretary of Education.
  (c) Use of Fund.--
          (1) In general.--Amounts in the Fund shall be used solely to 
        award scholarships in accordance with section 4, except that 
        not more than 10 percent of the balance of the Fund with 
        respect to a fiscal year may be used for the administration of 
        the Fund during such year.
          (2) Determination of amount available for scholarships.--With 
        respect to each academic year for which scholarships may be 
        awarded under this Act, the Mayor shall determine the amount 
        available from the Fund for awarding scholarships.
  (d) Investment.--The Mayor shall invest such portion of the Fund as 
is not in the judgment of the Mayor required to make current payments 
for scholarships. Such investments shall be in such form as the Mayor 
considers appropriate.

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

  (a) Applications.--Any qualified graduate seeking a scholarship under 
the Program shall submit an application to the Mayor in such form and 
containing such information as the Mayor may prescribe by regulation. 
The Mayor shall make applications for scholarships under the Program 
available not later than October 1 of the academic year preceding the 
academic year for which the scholarships will be awarded, and shall 
announce the recipients of scholarships under this section not later 
than a date determined by the Mayor in consultation with the Secretary 
of Education.
  (b) Awards Authorized.--
          (1) Awards to each qualified graduate.--
                  (A) In general.--From the amount available from the 
                Fund under section 3(c)(2) for any academic year, the 
                Mayor shall award scholarships to each qualified 
                graduate submitting an application that is approved 
                pursuant to subsection (a).
                  (B) Awards to students at eligible public 
                institutions based on in-state tuition.--Subject to 
                subparagraph (D) and paragraph (2), such scholarship 
                shall provide, for attendance at an eligible public 
                institution located outside the District of Columbia, 
                an amount equal to the difference between--
                          (i) the amount of the tuition normally 
                        charged by that institution to a student who is 
                        not a resident of the State in which that 
                        institution is located for the program of 
                        instruction in which the qualified graduate is 
                        enrolled or accepted for enrollment; and
                          (ii) the amount of the tuition normally 
                        charged by that institution to a student who is 
                        a resident of such State for such program of 
                        instruction, or the amount of the tuition 
                        normally charged by that institution to a 
                        student who is a resident of the county in 
                        which the institution is located for such 
                        program of instruction, whichever is less.
                  (C) Tuition assistance grants to students at eligible 
                private institutions.--Subject to paragraph (2), such 
                scholarship shall provide, for at
                tendance at an eligible private institution, a tuition 
                assistance grant in a uniform amount determined by the 
                Mayor, not to exceed $3,000 for the academic year.
                  (D) Cap on amount provided.--The amount of a 
                scholarship provided to an individual under 
                subparagraph (B) for an academic year may not exceed 
                $10,000.
          (2) Ratable reduction if funds insufficient.--If the amount 
        available from the Fund under section 3(c)(2) for any academic 
        year is not sufficient to pay the scholarship amount determined 
        under paragraph (1) for each qualified graduate submitting an 
        application that is approved pursuant to subsection (a), the 
        amount of such scholarships shall be ratably reduced. If 
        additional sums become available for such academic year, such 
        reduced scholarships shall be increased on the same basis as 
        they were reduced (until the amount allotted equals the amount 
        determined under paragraph (1)).
          (3) Disbursement.--The scholarships awarded under this 
        section shall be disbursed to the eligible institution at which 
        the qualified graduate is enrolled or accepted for enrollment 
        by check or other means that is payable to and requires the 
        endorsement or other certification by such graduate.
          (4) Refunds.--The Mayor may prescribe such regulations as may 
        be necessary to provide for the refund to the Fund of a portion 
        of the amount awarded under this section in the event a 
        recipient of a scholarship under this section withdraws from an 
        institution during a period of enrollment in which the 
        recipient began attendance.
  (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
require an institution of higher education to alter the institution's 
admissions policies or standards in any manner in order for a qualified 
graduate to receive a scholarship to attend such institution under this 
Act.
  (d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
          (1) Qualified graduate.--The term ``qualified graduate'' 
        means an individual who--
                  (A) has been a resident of the District of Columbia 
                for not less than the 12 consecutive months preceding 
                the academic year for which the scholarship is sought;
                  (B) begins his or her undergraduate course of study 
                within the 3 calendar years (excluding any period of 
                service on active duty in the Armed Forces of the 
                United States, in the Peace Corps or Americorps) of 
                graduating from a secondary school, or receiving the 
                recognized equivalent of a secondary school diploma;
                  (C) is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a 
                degree, certificate, or other program (including a 
                program of study abroad approved for credit by the 
                institution at which such student is enrolled) leading 
                to a recognized educational credential at an eligible 
                institution;
                  (D) if the student is presently enrolled at an 
                institution, is maintaining satisfactory progress in 
                the course of study the student is pursuing, as 
                determined under section 484(c) of the Higher Education 
                Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(c));
                  (E) is a citizen or national of the United States, a 
                permanent resident of the United States, able to 
                provide evidence from the Immigration and 
                Naturalization Service that he or she is in the United 
                States for other than a temporary purpose with the 
                intention of becoming a citizen or permanent resident, 
                or a citizen of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
                the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of 
                Palau;
                  (F) does not owe a refund on grants previously 
                received under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 
                1965, and is not in default on any loan made, insured, 
                or guaranteed under such title;
                  (G) has not completed his or her first undergraduate 
                baccalaureate course of study; and
                  (H) is not incarcerated.
          (2) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible institution'' 
        means eligible public institution or an eligible private 
        institution.
          (3) Eligible public institution.--The term ``eligible public 
        institution'' means an institution of higher education that--
                  (A) is established as a State-supported institution 
                of higher education by the State in which such 
                institution is located;
                  (B) is eligible to participate in student financial 
                assistance programs under title IV of the Higher 
                Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.); and
                  (C) has entered into an agreement with the Mayor 
                containing such requirements for the management of 
                funds provided under this Act 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 students from the 
                District of Columbia.
          (4) Eligible private institution.--The term ``eligible 
        private institution'' means an institution of higher education 
        that--
                  (A) is located in the District of Columbia, the State 
                of Maryland, or the Commonwealth of Virginia;
                  (B) is not established as a State-supported 
                institution of higher education by the State in which 
                such institution is located;
                  (C) is eligible to participate in student financial 
                assistance programs under title IV of the Higher 
                Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.); and
                  (D) has entered into an agreement with the Mayor 
                containing such requirements for the management of 
                funds provided under this Act 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 students from the 
                District of Columbia.
          (5) Institution of higher education.--The term ``institution 
        of higher education'' has the meaning given that term under 
        section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        1001).
          (6) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has the 
        meaning given that term under section 14101 of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM AND FUND.

  In carrying out the Program and administering the Fund, the Mayor of 
the District of Columbia--
          (1) shall consult with the Secretary of Education; and
          (2) may enter into a contract with a nongovernmental agency 
        to administer the Program and the Fund if the Mayor determines 
        that it is cost-effective and appropriate to do so.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated for payment to the Fund such 
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2000 and for each of the 5 
succeeding fiscal years.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT 
                    OF COLUMBIA.

  There is authorized to be appropriated to the University of the 
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000 and each of the 5 succeeding 
fiscal years such sums as may be necessary to enhance educational 
opportunities for the University.

                       i. summary of legislation

    The District of Columbia College Access Act is intended to 
permit D.C. residents who are high school graduates to pay in-
state tuition rates upon admission to state colleges outside 
the District of Columbia, and to provide Tuition Assistance 
Grants for those attending other colleges in Virginia, 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The bill is not 
intended to alter a college's admissions policies and 
standards. High school graduates would have to be District 
residents for at least one year to qualify for the in-state 
rate and must begin undergraduate courses within three years of 
high school graduation, excluding active duty military service. 
The bill is intended to apply as well to those receiving a 
recognized equivalent of a secondary high school diploma. A 
$3,000 cap is placed on Tuition Assistance Grants to private 
colleges in the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. A 
$10,000 cap is placed on scholarship awards for the in-state 
rate at public colleges and universities. Appropriation of sums 
necessary to the Fund established is authorized for FY 2000 and 
five succeeding years. The Fund is to be administered by the 
District of Columbia Mayor's Office, with
disbursements going directly to the eligible college or 
university. An appropriation is authorized for the University 
of the District of Columbia for FY 2000 and each of the five 
succeeding years in such sums as may be necessary to enhance 
educational opportunities for the University.

              II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

    Implicit in the unique status of the District of Columbia, 
not being a state or part of a state, is that it lacks a 
university system of higher education as that concept is known 
in all 50 states. In recent years, Congress and the 
Administration, in cooperation with local officials, have 
significantly restructured the relationship between the 
District and the Federal Government. H.R. 974 is consistent 
with those efforts.
    District high school graduates have few choices in seeking 
to continue their education in public colleges or universities, 
and private institutions are out of reach for many. By 
providing high school graduates who live in the District the 
opportunity, upon acceptance for admission, to qualify for in-
state rates at public colleges and universities, H.R. 974 helps 
District of Columbia high school graduates continue their 
education. Having Tuition Assistance Grants in H.R. 974 for 
those qualifying for private colleges in Virginia, Maryland, 
and the District, would have a similar effect. Attending 
college would thus be more feasible and more on a par with 
opportunities that exist for students in the fifty states.
    H.R. 974 will provide an incentive for families to continue 
residing in the District of Columbia. Since the formation of 
the District of Columbia Subcommittee in 1995, Congress has 
made great efforts to stabilize the city's population and tax 
base. Legislation enacted by the Congress has been intended to 
enhance population stability in the District. This has included 
removing costly state functions and the Federally created 
pension liability; providing a $5,000 home-buyer credit and 
other tax benefits; legislation authorizing the MCI Arena and a 
new, expanded Convention Center; legislation creating a new 
Water and Sewer Authority; creation of a control board to help 
stabilize the city's finances; and conducting numerous 
oversight hearings to help efforts to reform the Metropolitan 
Police Department and the school system.
    At the present time, the University of the District of 
Columbia is the only low-cost option for higher education in 
the city. Created in 1977 by combining the District of Columbia 
Teachers College, the Federal City College, and the Washington 
Technical Institute into a single system, UDC cannot provide 
the range of options needed by District residents. H.R. 974 
authorizes funds necessary to enhance education at UDC.
    Complementary to H.R. 974, an initiative by a leading group 
of regional foundations and companies will provide sums that 
will be used to assist District students gain entrance to and 
be able to attend college. A pilot program at six D.C. public 
schools is expected to commence in September, 1999. The 
initiative, known as D.C. CAP, is complementary to H.R. 974. 
H.R. 974 is strongly supported by those participating in D.C. 
CAP. Those participating include Mobil Corp., America Online, 
Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, US Airways, Lockheed Martin Corp., Bell 
Atlantic, the Morris and Gwendolyn
Cafritz Foundation, the J. Willard and Alice S. Mariott 
Foundation, and the Washington Post Company.
    H.R. 974 is strongly supported by the Consortium of 
Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area, which 
consists of the following institutions of higher education: 
American University, The Catholic University of America, 
Gallaudet University, George Mason University, The George 
Washington University, Georgetown University, Howard 
University, Marymount University, Southeastern University, 
Trinity College, University of the District of Columbia, and 
University of Maryland College Park.
    Support for H.R. 974 has also been expressed by District of 
Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams and other local officials and 
leading educators. In addition, expressions of support have 
been received from the American Association of Community 
Colleges, Montgomery College, Reverend Jim Dickerson of the New 
Community Church, Shaw EcoVillage Project co-director Ondine 
Wilhelm, Executive Director Fred Taylor of ``For Love of 
Children'', the Washington, DC Association of Realtors, Manna, 
Inc. and Manna Community Development Corporation.
    H.R. 974 contains an authorization for funds that will 
allow the District's open admissions institution, the 
University of the District of Columbia (UDC), to become a 
funded Historically Black College and University (HBCU) like 
every other HBCU in the country, UDC is the only publicly 
funded institution of higher education in the District of 
Columbia. The District, like most large cities, has a large 
population that requires access to a publicly funded open 
admissions institution to go to any institution at all.
    Under existing law, UDC is, by definition, a Historically 
Black University that qualifies for HBCU funds because it meets 
the three salient requirements: (1) UDC was created from 
colleges established before 1964; (2) it served primarily black 
people; and (3) it is an accredited institution. Though 
technically an HBCU, UDC was, in error, denied the funding 
benefits of HBCU. In the HBCU provision of Title III, UDC is 
discussed in the same section as Howard University, and it 
explicitly indicates that the University receives a direct 
payment from the Federal Government. This has never been the 
case. Moreover, the District no longer receives a Federal 
payment.
    Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member of the 
District of Columbia Subcommittee, has endeavored to obtain 
full HBCU status before. Apparently, the only reason that UDC 
has not previously been included is that funds were needed to 
be authorized to accompany the request. H.R. 974 authorizes 
those funds.
    H.R. 974 adopts a comprehensive approach to satisfy the 
needs of the entire spectrum of college-bound D.C. students--
those prepared to go out-of-state as well as the larger number 
of students who will not be able to take advantage of the 
scholarships provided. A scholarship-only approach would have 
left the largest number of college-bound D.C. students with 
access only to a university (UDC) severely injured by the 
fiscal crisis. There is sufficient funding authorized in H.R. 
974 to accommodate both UDC and the scholarships provided.
    It is intended that the UDC funds authorized will not be 
used for operations generally, but will be targeted for 
urgently needed
infrastructure needs that could not otherwise likely find a 
place in the D.C. budget for years. Deferred investment has 
produced damaging results at UDC ranging from elevators that 
don't work to a technology deficit that will keep students from 
competing for the abundance of technology jobs that are 
available in the Washington Metropolitan Region. H.R. 974 will 
begin to address these vital needs.

             III. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE ACTION

    On April 15, 1999, the District of Columbia Subcommittee, 
on a voice vote, unanimously approved an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 974 offered byRep. Tom Davis, 
Chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee. The Subcommittee 
then approved the bill as amended. On May 19, 1999, the Government 
Reform Committee, on a voice vote, unanimously voted to approve an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 974 offered by Rep. Tom 
Davis, Chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee. The Committee 
then approved the bill, as amended, by voice vote.

              IV. COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY

    The Subcommittee did not hold any hearings on H.R. 974.

                 V. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL AS REPORTED

Section-by-section analysis of H.R. 974, as amended, the District of 
        Columbia College Access Act

    Section 1: Short Title. Section 1 establishes the short 
title as the ``District of Columbia College Access Act.''
    Section 2: Establishes the District of Columbia College 
Access Scholarship program under which the Mayor shall make 
awards in accordance with the statute.
    Section 3: Subsection (a) establishes the District of 
Columbia College Access Fund, authorizes it to accept amounts 
appropriated, gifts, bequests, and interest.
    Subsection (b) authorizes the Mayor to administer the Fund 
in consultation with the Secretary of Education.
    Subsection (c) establishes the use of the Fund as one 
solely to make scholarship awards, with no more than 10 percent 
to be used for administration, and authorizes the Mayor to 
determine the annual amount available from the Fund.
    Subsection (d) authorizes the Mayor to invest such portion 
of the Fund not required for scholarships.
    Section 4: Administration of Scholarship Program.
    Subsection (a) prescribes procedure for making an 
application to the Mayor for a scholarship and authorizes 
regulations. Scholarships shall be made available not later 
than October 1 of the academic year for which an award shall be 
made, the announcement date to be as determined by the Mayor in 
consultation with the Secretary of Education.
    Subsection (b) authorizes awards to qualified graduates at 
eligible public institutions based on in-state tuition, and 
tuition assistance grants to students at eligible private 
institutions, and provides a cap of $3,000 on the amount 
provided for private institutions and a cap of $10,000 on the 
amount provided for public institutions. There is a ratable 
reduction if the funds are insufficient. Disbursements are to 
the institution. The Mayor may make refunds to the Fund if a 
recipient withdraws.
    Subsection (c) Rule of Construction states that the Act may 
not be construed to require an institution to alter admissions 
policies or standards in any manner in order for a qualified 
graduate to receive a scholarship.
    Subsection (d): Definitions. Qualified graduate is one who 
has been a resident of the District for at least 12 months, 
begins an undergraduate course of study within at least 3 
calendar years of graduating from a secondary school, or 
receiving the recognized equivalent of a secondary school 
diploma, excluding military service or service in the Peace 
Corps or AmeriCorps, is enrolled or accepted to the 
institution, maintains satisfactory progress, is a citizen, 
U.S. national, or permanent U.S. resident, or provides 
documentation of residence with intention of becoming a 
citizen, does not owe a grant refund, is not in default under 
the Higher Education Act, has not completed the first course of 
study, and is not incarcerated.
    Eligible public institutions are state-supported, eligible 
to participate in student financial assistance, have entered 
into an agreement with the Mayor, including a requirement that 
any funds received from the Fund shall supplement and not 
supplant funds otherwise available to enable qualified 
graduates to attend the institution.
    Eligible private institutions are located in the District 
of Columbia, Virginia, or Maryland, are not established as 
state-supported, are eligible to participate in student 
financial assistance programs, and have entered into an 
agreement with the Mayor.
    An institution of higher education is defined in accordance 
with the Higher Education Act.
    A secondary school is defined in accordance with the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
    Section 5: Administration of Program and Fund. Requires the 
Mayor to consult with the Secretary of Education, to enter into 
a contract to administer the Fund if cost-effective and 
appropriate.
    Section 6: Authorization of Appropriations. Such sums as 
may be necessary for fiscal year 2000 and for each of the 5 
succeeding fiscal years are authorized.
    Section 7: Authorization of Appropriations for University 
of the District of Columbia. Such sums as may be necessary to 
enhance educational opportunities for the University is 
authorized for fiscal year 2000 and each of the 5 succeeding 
fiscal years.

                     VI. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the results and findings from 
committee oversight activities are incorporated in the bill and 
this report.

                  VII. BUDGET ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS

    The budget analysis and projections required by Section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Office Act of 1974 are 
contained in the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office. 
(CBO analysis and projections attached)


         VIII. COST ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 24, 1999.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 974, the District 
of Columbia College Access Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Josh O'Harra.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

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 (UDC).
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that H.R. 974 would result in additional 
discretionary spending of $117 million in 2000 and $603 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 bill contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would affect 
the District of Columbia. CBO estimates that complying with 
this mandate would entail no net costs. This bill would have no 
effect on the budgets of other state, local, or tribal 
governments. H.R. 974 does not contain any private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
federal budgetary impact of H.R. 974 is presented in the 
following table. The budgetary impact of this legislation falls 
within budget function 500. For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes enactment prior to October 1, 1999.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorizations under current law:
    Estimated authorization level...................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
    Estimated outlays...............................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
Proposed changes:
    Tuition grants:
        Estimated authorization level...............  ........        77        78        79        80        81
        Estimated outlays...........................  ........        77        78        79        80        81
    Federal payments to UDC:
        Estimated authorization level...............  ........        40        41        42        43        43
        Estimated outlays...........................  ........        40        41        42        43        43


Total proposed changes:
    Estimated authorization level...................  ........       117       119       120       123       125
    Estimated outlays...............................  ........       117       119       120       123       125
Authorizations under H.R. 974:
    Estimated authorization level...................  ........       117       119       120       123       125
    Estimated outlays...............................  ........       117       119       120       123       125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

                           basis of estimate

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 colleges in Maryland, Virginia, or 
D.C. The bill authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may 
be necessary in 2000 through 2005 to provide those 
scholarships. All residents of D.C. who begin their first 
postsecondary school course-of-study within three years of 
their high school graduation and are not incarcerated would be 
eligible for scholarships. 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 
$3,000 maximum annual scholarship to those who choose to attend 
a private institution in Maryland, Virginia, or D.C.
    CBO estimates that full-funding of the tuition grants would 
cost $77 million in budget authority in fiscal year 2000 and 
$395 million over the 2000 to 2004 period. The outlays would be 
the same, assuming that the appropriations are promptly 
deposited in the fund to be administered by D.C.'s mayor.
    CBO estimates that about 22,000 students would receive 
tuition assistance under this program in fiscal year 2000. Of 
this total, about 4,500 would attend public institutions and 
receive grants averaging $4,000; 17,000 would attend private 
institutions and receive grants averaging $3,000.
    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 
institutions 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 (NCES).
    The basic enrollment assumptions were modified in two ways 
to reflect behavioral responses on the part of students. First, 
CBO assumed there would be a change in the distribution of 
students among institutions--that UDC would lose a modest share 
of its enrollment of D.C. residents to two- and four-year public 
institutions outside of D.C., and private institutions outside 
of Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. would lose a small share of the 
enrollment of those students to four-year public colleges and 
universities outside of D.C.
    Second, CBO assumes that one-half of the approximately 
24,000 nonresident sophomores, juniors, and seniors currently 
enrolled in D.C. private institutions will elect to become D.C. 
residents in order to take advantage of the $3,000 tuition 
subsidy. CBO assumes that the residency requirements for 
qualifying for resident tuition at UDC would be the applicable 
standard for the new program.
    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 Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP) price index.
    Finally, CBO added administrative costs which, under H.R. 
974, could equal a maximum of 10 percent of total program 
costs.

Payments for UDC

    H.R. 974 also authorizes such sums as may be necessary over 
the next six years to make federal payments to UDC to enhance 
educational opportunities. CBO estimates that the cost of those 
federal grants to UDC will be $40 million in 2000 and $210 
million over the 2000-2004 period.
    The concept of enhanced educational opportunities is not 
defined in H.R. 974. In addition, the bill does not establish 
limits or restrictions on the use of the funds. Enhancements 
could range from relatively modest changes, such as adding a 
few course offerings or additional support services, to 
significantly more substantial improvements, such as providing 
an additional campus, raising UDC's quality to the level of the 
premier public universities in the country, or restoring UDC 
funding in 2000 to the amounts provided the school in the early 
1990s. The latter option, after adjusting for inflation, would 
exceed $35 million.
    For the purpose of this cost estimate, CBO has estimated 
that budget authority in fiscal year 2000 for grants to UDC 
will equal the $40 million the District of Columbia currently 
provides UDC in financial support. The outyear estimate 
reflects the 2000 level with an adjustment for inflation. As in 
similar federal payments to other universities, 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. Because these requirements would not be conditions of 
federal assistance, they would be mandates as defined in UMRA. 
Costs incurred by the District of Columbia in meeting those 
administrative requirements would be offset by funds provided. 
H.R. 974 would haveno 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.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Josh O'Harra and 
Deborah Kalcevic. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments: Susan Seig. Impact on the Private Sector: Nabeel 
Alsalam.
    Estimate approved by: James R. Horney, Unit Chief, Budget 
Analysis Division.

       IX. SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS LEGISLATION

    Clause 17 of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution 
grants Congress the power to enact this law.

                      X. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    On May 19, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Government Reform ordered the bill, as amended, favorably 
reported.
    Date: May 19, 1999.
    Amendment No. 1.
    Description: Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 974.
    Offered by: Mr. Davis of Virginia.
    Adopted by voice vote.
    Date: May 19, 1999.
    H.R. 974, as amended.
    Final passage adopted by voice vote.

         XI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT: PUBLIC LAW 104-1

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(B)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1).

    XII. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT: PUBLIC LAW 104-4 SECTION 423

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose 
any Federal mandates within the meaning of section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4).

    XIII. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT (5 U.S.C. APP) SECTION 5(b)

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize establishment of an advisory committee within the 
definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).