S. Rept. 106-154 - 106th Congress (1999-2000)

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.


Senate Report 106-154 - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT

[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.