    [Senate Hearing 106-252]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 106-252

     H.R. 974--THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT AND S. 856--THE
    EXPANDED OPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENTS
                                  ACT OF 1999

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                      OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
            RESTRUCTURING AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 24, 1999

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     59-579 cc                   WASHINGTON : 1999
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                       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
          Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
                      Darla D. Cassell, Administrive Clerk

                                     ------

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND
                            THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                      GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
    WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
                      Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director
       Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                         Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Voinovich............................................     1
        Senator Durbin...............................................     3

                                   WITNESSES
                            Thursday, June 24, 1999

    Hon. Thomas M. Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of
      Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform.................     4
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
      District of Columbia, accompanied by Chartese Day, Student,
      George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.....................     5
    Hon. James M. Jeffords, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
      and Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
      Pensions.......................................................     8
    Hon. Anthony A. Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia............    16
    Maureen A. McLaughlin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
      Planning and Innovation, Office of Postsecondary Education,
      U.S. Department of Education...................................    18
    Patricia McGuire, Chairwoman, Government Relations Committee,
      Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area.    21
    Dr. Julius F. Nimmons, Jr., President, University of the District
      of Columbia....................................................    23
    Lucio A. Noto, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
      Mobil Corporation..............................................    25

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Davis, Hon. Thomas M.:
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Jeffords, Hon. James M.:
        Testimony....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    McGuire, Patricia:
        Testimony....................................................    21
        Prepared statement with attachments..........................    50
    McLaughlin, Maureen A.:
        Testimony....................................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Nimmons, Jr., Dr. Julius F.:
        Testimony....................................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    75
    Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes:
        Testimony....................................................     5
    Noto, Lucio A.:
        Testimony....................................................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    87
    Williams, Hon. Anthony A.:
        Testimony....................................................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    39

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statement of Paul Strauss, U.S. Senator, District of
      Columbia (Shadow)..............................................    29

     H.R. 974--THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT AND S. 856--THE
    EXPANDED OPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENTS
                                  ACT OF 1999

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
           Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
                     and the District of Columbia, Subcommittee
                            of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:39 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
    Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Voinovich and Durbin.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

        Senator Voinovich. Good morning. The hearing will come to
    order.
        First, I want to apologize to everyone for the delay of the
    hearing this morning. One of the most frustrating things about
    being a U.S. Senator as contrasted to being the governor of the
    State of Ohio is that when I was Governor, I controlled my
    agenda and time; in the Senate, I am at the mercy of other
    people.
        We welcome you to this hearing for the purpose of hearing
    two very worthy proposals--S. 856, the Expanded Options in
    Higher Education for District of Columbia Students Act, and
    H.R. 974, the District of Columbia College Access Act.
        Senator Jeffords will be coming over after he is finished
    with his meeting, but we have with us this morning
    Representatives Davis and Norton, who are sponsors of H.R. 974,
    and we are very pleased to have you here. I want to
    congratulate you on the hard work and success in moving this
    important concept forward. I know that we are all working
    toward the same goal--providing students in the District with
    greater postsecondary opportunities.
        I believe the tuition assistance concept that we will
    discuss here this morning is a welcome step toward providing
    the District's young people with a range of opportunities
    available to every other college-bound student in the Nation.
        By itself, this is an exciting program, but when we
    consider the Pell Grants, the Federal Supplemental Educational
    Opportunity Grants, the Federal Stafford Loans, the Federal
    PLUS Loans, and the Federal Perkins Loans, which are already
    available to college-bound students, and then include the
    private sector's new initiative, the D.C. College Access
    Program, it presents a fantastic opportunity for District
    students.
        We can say to a ninth-grader in the city: You can go to
    college. To many students have thought that a college education
    was beyond their reach. But this new program, combined with the
    private sector scholarship and existing Federal aid, shows the
    District of Columbia's young people that college is in their
    futures if they are willing to work hard.
        H.R. 974 and S. 856 are similar, and we are going to
    explore the different approaches of the two bills. I would like
    to applaud the sponsors of both bills for including tuition
    assistance grants to students who choose to attend private
    universities in the area. There are many great institutions in
    the metropolitan Washington area. I strongly support giving
    District students the opportunity to attend some of the finest
    schools in the Nation and am further delighted that students
    benefit from these schools while at the same time remaining at
    home.
        Finally, I would like to applaud the private sector for
    stepping up to the plate for education. More than a dozen
    regional corporate citizens, including The Washington Post and
    Mobil Corporation, are successfully racing toward a $20 million
    goal--think of that--$20 million to help the District's public
    high school students prepare for and enter and graduate from
    college.
        From my experiences as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of
    Ohio, I am confident that the public-private partnership is one
    of the most important components of revitalizing any city. The
    quality education available in a city will dictate in large
    part the flow of residents into or out of a city.
        Cleveland is the only city in the country that has been
    named an All-America City three times within a 5-year period.
    But when I was Mayor, I said to the citizens of our town that
    we truly are not an All-America City until we have an all-
    America school system. I think that is the message to all of
    our urban areas throughout this country. That is where the real
    challenge is today, in my opinion, in education.
        The D.C. College Access Program is the perfect private
    sector complement to the tuition assistance program we are
    discussing today. The D.C. College Access Program will provide
    professional counsel to all D.C. public high school students
    and last-dollar financial awards to young people with the
    greatest financial need.
        Often, money is important, but it is having that expert at
    the school who knows all the programs and can counsel that
    youngster and his or her parents about how to take advantage of
    the programs that are there.
        This program is largely based on a program with which I am
    very familiar, the Cleveland Scholarship Program, which has
    helped nearly 90,000 high school students go on to college in
    Cleveland.
        Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here
    this morning, and before I introduce them, I would like to
    recognize the Subcommittee's distinguished Ranking Member,
    Senator Durbin, for an opening statement.
        Senator Durbin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN

        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. I
    am glad that we are having this hearing.
        Let me say at the outset that I want to salute Mayor
    Williams. I believe that he has done an excellent job working
    with the various control boards and others that have an
    influence on the future of the District of Columbia. You are
    definitely moving in the right direction. I have seen dramatic
    progress in a short period of time, and I have every confidence
    that will continue.
        Let me also add that the subject of this hearing, this
    tuition bill, is one which I whole-heartedly endorse as a part
    of the President's budget and the legislative creation of
    Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton as well as Congressman
    Davis and Senator Jeffords, who will join us soon.
        The young people in the District of Columbia are at a
    unique disadvantage in that they do not have opportunities that
    we have in Illinois and many other States to attend public
    institutions of higher learning and qualify for lower tuition
    rates as in-State residents. I am anxious to find a way to give
    them that opportunity.
        I think that what we should focus on here, as well as the
    concept of tuition for D.C. residents, is how it will be paid
    for. By luck of the draw, I end up being the minority spokesman
    not only on this Subcommittee which authorizes the District of
    Columbia, but also on the Appropriations Committee for the
    District, so I have in both capacities more connection with the
    District than some Members of the Senate.
        This afternoon, we will have a hearing on the D.C.
    appropriations bill, and there will be a proposal made that $17
    million be taken out of the Labor-HHS appropriation and given
    to the District of Columbia to pay for this tuition program.
    That is where I take exception. To take money out of the Labor-
    HHS appropriation bill at this moment in time is wrong for the
    following reasons.
        We are $8 billion short of meeting last year's spending
    goals under the budget resolution passed by the Republican
    Majority. It means that we face at this moment cuts at the
    National Institutes of Health, and in health and education
    programs across America, to the tune of $8 billion. I am hoping
    that we can make up that difference, but to take $17 million
    out of that appropriation at this moment and give it to the
    District of Columbia for tuition programs makes no sense when
    the D.C. City Council has announced that they have $59 million
    they cannot figure out what to do with--not to improve the
    safety of streets, not to improve the schools in the District
    of Columbia, not to deal with the real life issues that people
    in the neighborhoods care about. So they want to give the $59
    million away in tax cuts.
        So here we are, subsidizing the District of Columbia for a
    program where they already tell us they have $59 million, and
    declare a dividend and give it back to the taxpayers in the
    District of Columbia. They have the money to pay for this
    tuition program. We do not need to take it out of Labor-HHS.
        Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
        I would now like to call on two of our panelists and start
    with Representative Tom Davis.

       TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN
    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
         ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
                           GOVERNMENT REFORM

        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich, Senator Durbin,
    and Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to
    testify before you today, and thank you, Chairman Voinovich,
    for scheduling this hearing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Davis appears in the Appendix on
    page 30.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would like to ask unanimous consent that my entire
    statement be put in the record, and I will just address three
    or four issues straight up.
        First, I think this is a good regional bill. It not only
    helps the District of Columbia. We are dealing with a region
    right now which is growing, where there is a shortage of high-
    tech workers and educational opportunities for people in the
    District of Columbia. We want them to be part of the growing
    economy, and right now, education is out of the reach of many
    of these D.C. residents. This is an opportunity to allow
    affordable college opportunity for kids who in many cases do
    not have that opportunity now.
        As more and more people go to college and choose college as
    an option, it will become more of the thing to do. That is how
    you slowly change the culture in the inner cities, and I think
    this is a giant step toward doing that by making college
    affordable to them. They are still competing in the out-of-
    state schools as out-of-staters, so the admission criteria are
    a little tougher, although I understand there is some
    entertainment of perhaps reserving a few slots for District of
    Columbia students out of the out-of-state pool in a couple of
    neighboring States, and I think that will help.
        We support clarifying language in terms of Congressional
    Budget Office scoring that defines residency more tightly than
    we did on the House side. Had we had the benefit of the
    Congressional Budget Office study, I think we would have made
    that change ourselves, so we would welcome any language you add
    to do that.
        One question is do you do this in 50 States, or do you do
    this in 2 States. I think reasonable people can differ on this,
    and I think that if we go to conference on this, we would
    maintain some flexibility. Our goal here, though, was to
    provide as many affordable opportunities as we could for
    District of Columbia students, and 50 States obviously provide
    more opportunity than you will get in just 2 States. The
    rationale for 2 States is that Virginia and Maryland are next
    door, and these are the States from which the District
    originally came from, although there are universities in West
    Virginia and Delaware that are closer than many schools in
    Virginia.
        On income caps, if I live in Virginia, and my kid gets into
    the University of Virginia or George Mason or William and Mary,
    there is not an income cap on my kids being able to pay in-
    State tuition through a university system; neither is there in
    Maryland. Why should there be for the District of Columbia if
    what we are trying to do is equalize educational opportunities
    for children in the District of Columbia as it is around the
    rest of the country?
        We are, as I noted in my statement, basically the State
    Government for the City of Washington, and there are certain
    responsibilities that go with that. Although the city does not
    get a vote on the floor of the House or the Senate, they do pay
    Federal income taxes, and it is a unique jurisdiction by nature
    of the Constitution. I think it sometimes calls for some unique
    solutions to some of the problems that confront it, and I think
    this legislation offers that.
        Finally, I think this should be administered by the
    District Government. This will be a priority. We want to try to
    entrust the city with more local decisionmaking. We have a new
    mayor, and I think it would be a slap in the face to put this
    in the Department of Education, where it could get buried along
    with a lot of other programs. The city needs this program; I
    think they want this program; they will benefit from it. And if
    the money does not cover all the opportunities, they can sort
    out the appropriate prioritization of who should go and should
    not, and at that point, the income caps. These are decisions
    the city should make, not here at the Federal Government level.
    Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Congressman. We really
    appreciate the fact that you highlighted the issues that we are
    going to be discussing here today.
        Now I would like to call on Representative Norton, please.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
      FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARTESE DAY,
          STUDENT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA

        Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Durbin, I appreciate
    that you have called such an early hearing and for inviting Tom
    Davis and me to testify about a bill that we have worked very
    closely on in a most bipartisan form of collaboration.
        We have also worked very closely with the President and
    with the First Lady and with the Department of Education, all
    of whom have given this bill priority.
        I do want to correct the record. Mr. Durbin is under the
    impression that there would be money removed from the Labor-HHS
    appropriation and given to the District of Columbia. Never is
    money given to the District of Columbia. This money is in the
    Labor-HHS appropriation because it was added by President
    Clinton specifically to deal with this program. In other words,
    this is money that but for this program would never have been
    in the Labor-HHS budget.
        We have worked very closely with the administration. The
    administration regarded this idea as a very important one, so
    that when Tom Davis and I began to work on the bill, the
    administration worked with us and worked with us with respect
    to the money, and the only reason it is in Labor-HHS is because
    it is an education bill, and that is why it is proper to
    transfer it, just to get it out at this point if that can be
    done.
        I want to say how grateful I am that Senator Jeffords has
    taken a special interest in this bill. Senator Jeffords has
    shown nothing less than dedication to education issues in the
    District of Columbia, both when he chaired the Appropriations
    subcommittee and since he has never stopped or dropped that
    interest. I want to say that there is not a dime's worth of
    difference--perhaps I should say a million dollars' worth of
    difference--between his bill and ours. In any case, Tom and I
    are certain we can work those differences out, because his bill
    and ours virtually amount to a consensus bill.
        I would like to focus on two questions, briefly, which I
    think might clarify other questions. One is the purpose of the
    bill, and the other is the administration of the bill.
        Actually, the bill has three purposes. What we are trying
    to do here is create a virtual State university system. We have
    a State university; we just do not have the kind of system that
    the residents of the 50 States have, and thus, the Framers in
    deciding that there should be a city that was not a part of a
    State for the convenience of the National Government left us
    without the mechanism for a State education system. It is the
    National Government which of course, has the capital at its
    convenience, which should, it seems to me, contribute to making
    up for this gap, which has had such an effect in denying equal
    access to higher education for the residents and for the young
    people of the District.
        The second purpose of the bill is to assist our own State
    university, the University of the District of Columbia. We do
    that by a one-time-only contribution to allow it to be a funded
    Historically Black College and University. Then, of course,
    once having become formally an HBCU college, it becomes
    automatically eligible for those funds.
        I cannot overemphasize how important it was that UDC be a
    part of this bill if we care about who is going to go to
    college in the District of Columbia. Many more will qualify to
    go to our open admissions university than will go out of State.
    Two-thirds of UDC students work, most of them could not go out
    of State, and we are very pleased that they have been included
    for a modest amount in this bill.
        We never intended and could never have intended this bill
    to deal with the many problems of UDC, but it is most
    appropriate that they be a part of the bill.
        A third purpose of the bill, of course, is to encourage
    residents to remain in this city. You can imagine what kind of
    incentive it is when a parent finds children in the 10th or
    11th grade and realizes what is going to happen in a few years
    and how much that is going to cost the parents. All you have to
    do is walk across the line to Virginia, which has 39 State
    college and universities, or to Maryland which has 35. We think
    that is one reason we lost three times as many people in the
    1990's as we lost in the 1980's, with the problems of the city,
    and then, with these additional disabilities, people just left.
    This will help us keep people.
        Let we move to administration. With locally-driven
    purposes, we think local administration makes the best sense.
    Indeed, we think that the few differences between the Jeffords
    bill and ours are best settled and most rationally settled
    through local administration rather than through mandates from
    Congress when we really have absolutely no experience of the
    kind that would guide us in writing hard mandates into the
    bill.
        Income and geographical elements come to mind particularly.
    I do not think we can reliably or responsibly draw either kind
    of line, but I think that Mayor Williams and his appointees
    could. I think we could get anomalies and unintended results,
    and I think we could even get unused funds in the early years,
    because we have no idea who will apply, we have no idea who
    will be incentivized to apply, we have no idea who will
    transfer. The unknowns multiply.
        As an example of unintended results, I cite section 5(c)(2)
    from the Jeffords bill which makes perfectly rational sense. In
    the Private University section, he says that in order to limit
    the amount of money, for rational purpose, they should be from
    adjacent counties. There are only two adjacent counties--Prince
    George's and Montgomery. We are not sure what happens to
    Virginia here, since you have to cross the river, and none of
    them is adjacent. Yet a number of the private institutions that
    will qualify are in Virginia.
        What is most disturbing, however, is that language like
    that would keep any Historically Black College or University
    from qualifying to receive students based on this money. For
    Hampton, where we have sent 150 students this year--none of
    those students could get this money because it is not in an
    adjacent county.
        Those are the kinds of things that could easily be worked
    out, though, below. We think that those issues are best
    calibrated at home rather than on the basis of guesstimates. We
    think that even income limits could fluctuate. We could have a
    year, particularly in the early years with the start-up
    required, where the income limits might be higher. Income
    should always drive this from the bottom up, with the lowest
    income getting the money first, and if there is money left
    over, to others, of course, based on income. But I do not think
    we would want to say here, with no experience, what that should
    be.
        What we have in the Jeffords bill and in our bill is a
    consensus about all of the major elements. I want to say to
    you, Mr. Chairman, that parents and students are absolutely
    besieging my office, so much so that I have already spoken with
    Mayor Williams and asked him to do early action in case we do
    get the bill out so that we might even get some of the money
    flowing as early as the winter semester.
        Senator Voinovich. Representative Norton, could you wind
    up, please?
        Ms. Norton. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
    ask if the student who accompanies me here could speak for a
    minute or two about the bill.
        Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
        I want to point out that Senator Durbin will have to leave,
    so I would like to move along and give him a chance to question
    the panel. And I would love to have you respond to his
    comments.
        Please go ahead.
        Ms. Day. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee.
        My name is Chartese Day, and I am a D.C. resident and a
    student. I am here today to ask for your full support of H.R.
    974, the District of Columbia College Access Act.
        I am a sophomore at George Mason University, a State school
    located in Fairfax, Virginia. I chose to attend this fine
    institution of learning because it is the only school in the
    country with an integrative and interdisciplinary studies
    degree program, New Century College.
        Although I have a deep love for my educational pursuits, I
    am disheartened about the unequal status of the District of
    Columbia which places our students at a grave disadvantage.
    Every year, thousands of students in the 50 States and the
    District of Columbia set out for college. But there is a
    divider between these two groups of students that should be
    eliminated.
        Students within the 50 States have the opportunity to
    attend in-State colleges and universities at in-State rates
    which are considerably cheaper than out-of-State rates.
    However, District of Columbia students do not have this
    privilege. Instead, we must pay astronomically high rates at
    private colleges within our city boundaries and very high rates
    at State colleges.
        Last year, my family paid $18,000 in out-of-State tuition
    fees compared to $8,000 for in-State tuition--and my mother is
    a single parent as are many District of Columbia parents.
        I was lucky that my mother worked hard for the means to
    send me to college last year. Many other students are not as
    fortunate as I and instead must sacrifice their dreams of
    higher education.
        Last year, I had to pay $10,000 more in tuition simply
    because the District of Columbia is not a State and does not
    have a State university system.
        Today I am here to ask that you accept and support H.R.
    974, The District of Columbia College Access Act, because it
    allows District of Columbia students to take advantage of in-
    State tuition rates at out-of-State colleges and universities.
        In addition, I would like to ask that you also accept and
    support the grandfather clause within the bill as currently
    written, which would extend these privileges to District of
    Columbia students like me, already enrolled in colleges and
    universities.
        I did not ask to be born and raised in the District of
    Columbia. My mother gave birth to me here. However, I am a
    proud Washingtonian and have a strong love for this
    extraordinary city which is the Nation's Capital. In the past,
    I have been denied Statehood, I have been denied a vote in
    Congress. I ask today that I no longer be denied a right to
    receive an affordable higher education simply because I do not
    live in a State.
        Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.
        [Applause.]
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. That was a very
    eloquent statement, and we are glad to have it. It is nice to
    have someone here who can talk about the experience that they
    have had and not having the opportunity that other students
    around the country do have. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Senator Jeffords.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
      STATE OF VERMONT, AND CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH,
                     EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

        Senator Jeffords. It is with some trepidation that I follow
    the previous speaker, because I am sure I cannot top her
    dissertation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords appears in the
    Appendix on page 36.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am very pleased to be here. I think it is very exciting
    that we are considering doing what should be done for the young
    people of the District of Columbia. I am very positive that we
    will be able, as mentioned by Ms. Norton, to reach a compromise
    here, but I do have some matters that I think need attention. I
    would therefore ask that my entire statement be included in the
    record and will go through a shorter version.
        Under the able leadership of the House, which has endorsed
    this bill without a dissenting vote, I certainly looked at it
    with care. The legislation that I have introduced and the
    measure approved by the House share the same goal, that is, the
    goal to provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with a
    greater range of options in pursuing postsecondary education by
    having the Federal Government offer support which, in other
    areas of the country, is provided by State Governments.
        I am delighted at the level of interest and support that
    the D.C. tuition concept has received. Although the House and
    Senate bills are aimed toward the same objective, they differ
    in the design and administration of the program and the scope
    of the benefits provided. I would like to lay out the reasoning
    behind the approach I took, particularly regarding the scope of
    the program.
        Briefly, my legislation has three components. One, it picks
    up the difference in cost between in-State and out-of-State
    tuition for D.C. residents who attend public postsecondary
    institutions in Maryland and Virginia. Two, it provides
    additional support to the one public postsecondary education
    institution in the District of Columbia, the University of the
    District of Columbia. And three, it offers support to those
    students choosing to attend private institutions in the
    District and neighboring counties, providing grants up to
    $2,000 to help defray tuition costs.
        I have nothing against reaching for the sky, but I will say
    that this proposal does not cover all the ground that the
    version approved by the House does. Basically, I felt that, in
    launching a brand-new program, it was best to develop a fairly
    simple foundation and try it out. I have also found it far
    easier to expand an effort in the future than it is to roll it
    back.
        Moreover, I believe it is important to assure the program
    is reasonable in cost. With the tight discretionary spending
    caps enacted in 1997, there is not any ``free'' money. Spending
    in one area will mean fewer dollars are available in another. I
    therefore tried to design a program that would fall into the
    range of the $17 million provided in the President's budget
    request for the D.C. tuition initiative. Based on preliminary
    estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, I believe that my
    legislation will achieve this goal if the residency provisions
    are tightened to avoid providing benefits to unintended
    recipients.
        If there is a desire to make larger amounts available in
    order to finance a more generous program, then I believe those
    funds need to come from a source other than the Federal
    discretionary accounts. I have long favored a regional
    education approach to the D.C. metropolitan area. During the
    last Congress, I introduced legislation calling for the
    establishment of a regional education and workforce training
    system in the metropolitan area. The financing mechanisms was a
    commuter tax, and needless to say, that idea did not get very
    far.
        Nevertheless, I do not think such an approach should be
    ruled out as a means to offer additional support for students
    through a D.C. tuition assistance program. It has the
    additional advantage of ensuring that the funds are used to
    benefit the metropolitan area rather than simply being sent to
    Richmond or Annapolis as the present funds are. A tax rate as
    low as one-half of one percent would provide about $100 million
    annually--an amount that would be more than adequate to extend
    the in-State tuition to all 50 States or to provide larger
    grants to students attending private institutions, or to
    support UDC.
        Beyond that, it would also help fund the project that is
    now being called PREP, which is a regional educational system
    which could also improve education for grades K through 12.
        The House-passed bill provides that the mayor will
    administer the program, while my legislation gives that
    responsibility to the Secretary of Education. I chose that
    route because the Department of Education has a great deal of
    experience with student financial aid and has well-established
    relationships with every institution of higher education in the
    country.
        The mayor, on the other hand, would have to start from
    ground zero to develop the expertise and relationships
    necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the program.
    Particularly during the start-up phase of the program, I
    believe it is necessary to have experienced hands in charge. In
    putting together this program, mechanisms will have to be
    developed to deal with issues such as determining student
    eligibility, monitoring enrollment status, and tracking in-
    state and out-of-state tuition rates.
        There are a number of pressing education issues facing the
    District of Columbia at this time, including the need to better
    manage special education programs. I do not want to be in the
    position of placing a new administrative responsibility on the
    District of Columbia at this time, particularly when a viable
    alternative is available.
        At the same time, I understand the reasoning behind housing
    this program in the mayor's office. In fact, my legislation
    leaves this open as a possibility. In seeking a middle ground,
    my suggestion would be that the Secretary of Education be in
    charge of the program during the critical initial years when
    the basic operational system is designed and put into place.
    Then, after 3 or 4 years, the program could be transferred to
    the mayor upon his request. If he wanted to leave it there, he
    could leave it there.
        At the end of the day, the precise language of any
    particular provision of my bill is not the issue. What is
    important is that we enact legislation which offers to District
    of Columbia students the best deal we can afford through a
    program which operates effectively and efficiently.
        An investment in education is one of the most important
    investments that we as a society and we as individuals can
    make. There are boundless opportunities in the D.C. area for
    individuals with education and training beyond high school.
    D.C. residents should not be left behind in obtaining the
    capacity to take advantage of these opportunities.
        I hope the Subcommittee will find aspects of my proposal
    useful in this regard, and I look forward to continuing to work
    with the Members in any way I can to assist in this very
    important project.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
        I really think it is wonderful that, with all the other
    responsibilities that you have, you are interested in doing
    something for the District of Columbia and have been thinking
    about this for quite some time.
        Because Senator Durbin has some other things to do, I will
    invite him to ask his questions first.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me explain that I am chair of the Illinois Delegation,
    which meets once a month in a bipartisan fashion to discuss our
    State issues, and so that is where I am headed, and I am sorry
    I cannot stay for the rest of this hearing, but I will review
    the testimony.
        I would like to make one observation and then ask perhaps
    two very quick questions.
        First, Congressman Norton, when you speak of the
    President's budget and the budget resolution before Congress,
    we are dealing with a theory and a fact. The theory of the
    President's budget was that we would have an additional $10.4
    billion to spend in Labor-HHS in the next fiscal year. The fact
    in the House budget resolution is that we are cut $8 billion.
    That is the difference between theory and fact. The $17 million
    the President called for in this program was part of a budget
    which had $10 billion more to spend than we face now in
    Congress with the budget resolution, and that is the reason why
    I think that distinction should be made.
        I would like to go to one particular issue here that seems
    to be an issue of disagreement. Beyond the question of whether
    or not a resident of the District of Columbia can attend
    colleges outside of Maryland and Virginia under this program,
    speak to the means-testing issue, if I could ask you to, and
    since both Senator Jeffords and Congresswoman Norton are
    familiar with 1-minute speeches in the House, if you could each
    take 1 minute to tell me why you think, Senator Jeffords, there
    should be a means test, and you believe, Congresswoman Norton,
    that there should not be a means test, I would appreciate it.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, it is also combined with who
    administers the programs. I think you have to keep that in mind
    as well. But in my judgment, the ability for people to move
    around and the ability to be able to take advantage of the
    situation makes it essential that we start out in a sort of
    conservative manner rather than opening it totally up to
    everyone.
        So I would hope that we would at least start off with a
    means test just to see what the response is, rather than just
    going ahead with it from the start.
        Senator Voinovich. Congresswoman Norton.
        Ms. Norton. I do not think there is a difference between
    Senator Jeffords and myself. I am not opposed to a means test.
    My position is simply that we should look to see who applies
    and then apply any means test that may be necessary at that
    point. We are in a start-up program particularly because we are
    in a start-up program. To put a means test on it now without
    knowing anything about the incomes of the people who may apply
    or whether we will have leftover money because we put to low a
    means test on it does not seem to me to make a lot of sense.
        What I think we should do is instruct the mayor to do what
    he would do anyway, which is that if there is not enough money
    to go around--and there may be in the first year--I emphasize
    that--there may be in the first year--then of course, this
    money ought to be distributed on a means basis. If we put a
    figure in the bill, however, then I would like to know what we
    do if in fact we find that there are some students who would
    qualify, who might be over that income, and the money is there,
    but we deny it to them because Congress has put a means test on
    without the data available to indicate whether that is
    reasonable under all the circumstances.
        So I do not disagree with means test. I just do not think
    we are in a position to put it on, and we should let it be done
    at the local level.
        Senator Durbin. If I could ask one follow-up, Senator
    Jeffords, that seems like a valuable suggestion, that if we put
    a means test--and we have established the figure of $17
    million, for example--and applying the means test, we find we
    do not have sufficient applicants to meet the $17 million
    maximum, could we put language in here which would allow it to
    expand, then, to raise the income level to meet the $17
    million?
        Senator Jeffords. You certainly could do that, and I have
    no disagreement with that. What I do not want to do is have an
    open-ended one and then have to send out notices to a few
    thousand young people saying, sorry, we do not have enough
    money to let you participate. I think it is better to start out
    in a cautious manner until we know what the demand is.
        Moving around in this area is so flexible, you can just
    walk across the line, and you have an entirely different
    educational option. I do not know how much that will happen,
    but that is going to be a problem, regardless of the means-
    testing. So I would be very cautious starting out.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
        Getting at some of the issues in terms of the differences
    in the legislation, Senator Jeffords, you would like to limit
    the States' involvement in this to Maryland and Virginia; is
    that correct?
        Senator Jeffords. That is our recommendation, again, to
    start off in a rather cautious way, rather than expanding those
    options, until we know what the demand is going to be. Sure, I
    would like D.C. students to come to Vermont--I have no problem
    with that--but I think we should start off making sure that we
    take care of the local institutions that have the willingness
    to provide for young people. Again, if the resources are there,
    that is another issue.
        I would point out that I feel very strongly that since the
    city is now prospering--even thinking about tax cuts--that we
    should be mindful that the funding for this program comes from
    discretionary funds that are available to all the young people
    in the United States. If we cut into those funds, it could be a
    problem. That is why I suggest alternative ways of funding to
    expand the horizons dramatically not only for college-bound
    students but also for K through 12 assistance in the
    metropolitan area.
        Senator Voinovich. One of the observations that I have
    made, and it is just anecdotal, is that I think there have been
    some complaints by the citizens of Maryland and Virginia that
    some of their kids have difficulty getting into their State
    schools. If you add the District of Columbia youngsters to that
    pool, it might make it more difficult for them to get in. In
    Ohio, for example, we have out-of-State students, and some of
    our own students are sometimes not as good academically as they
    should be, and they are asked to stay out for a year or two or
    go to some other school for a while. And I hear from the
    parents who say we should keep all these out-of-Staters out in
    order to give our own kids an opportunity.
        I think the concept of expanding it beyond the two States
    would give the youngsters an option to reach out across the
    country and have, I think, perhaps more of an opportunity to
    get in than they might have if they were restricted just to
    those two States.
        Would you like to respond to that?
        Senator Jeffords. Again, I would only say that it is a
    matter of who is paying for it. If you have $17 million
    allocated out of the White House budget, that is fine, or if
    the resources can come from D.C. general funds or whatever else
    with respect to their other priorities, I think you can adjust
    those boundaries to match your resources.
        Senator Voinovich. Representative Norton.
        Ms. Norton. If I could respond to that as well, there was a
    front-page story in The Washington Post a couple of months ago
    that said that Maryland and Virginia are turning down their own
    residents for their State colleges in record numbers,
    apparently because the cost of college education today is
    sending so many people to apply to State colleges. I do not
    disagree in principle with Maryland and Virginia, but I think
    the point you raise, Senator, is an important one to bear in
    mind, that we could get another one of these unintended
    consequences with Maryland and Virginia tightening up on their
    own residents. Does that mean they are going to be open to the
    District of Columbia when we bring a whole new pool that would
    not have applied but for this bill?
        Congressman Davis wanted me to tell you he had a vote, and
    that is why he had to leave.
        Delaware and Virginia have parts of the State that are
    closer than many of the State universities in Maryland and
    Virginia. Again, we might well get where the Senator wants us
    to get, but could we get there not with statutory language but
    on the basis of local administration?
        Senator Voinovich. I would like you to comment also on the
    difference of opinion about how the program should be
    administered. Why is it that you feel you would rather have it
    in the mayor's office than have it operated by the Department
    of Education, and do you have any suggestions as to how this
    might be compromised?
        Ms. Norton. I do, because I think that here, there is
    really very little difference. I think one bill says to be
    administered by the mayor in consultation with the Department
    of Education, and the other says to be administered by the
    Department of Education in consultation with the mayor.
        I am sensitive to what the Senator said about not wanting
    to load another bureaucracy onto the District of Columbia. I do
    believe that putting the matter in the mayor's office on a home
    rule basis is the most efficient way to do it, and I think that
    the consultation with the Department of Education would indeed
    result in the sharing of their expertise of the kind that the
    Senator wants to see happen. He says they are the people who
    have some experience--that is absolutely right--and we have a
    very long history now, especially during this administration,
    of dealing directly on just this kind of consultive basis with
    the Department of Education. They are over in the District all
    the time, sharing with us in all manner of ways and helping to
    set up and reform our own operations.
        So I really do not think there is a lot of difference,
    because the consultation is going to occur no matter which is
    chosen on a home rule basis, on a local autonomy basis. I would
    hope it would be placed in the District of Columbia with people
    from the Department of Education consulting and helping us to
    set up a program.
        Senator Voinovich. Senator Jeffords.
        Senator Jeffords. Just a brief comment. I would point out
    that the District of Columbia education system is finally
    coming along. It had one of the worst systems in the country,
    and it is now moving up rapidly. They had huge problems to deal
    with in the K through 12 area.
        My suggestion to have the program administered to the
    Department of Education at least temporarily, and then, later
    on, give the option to the mayor. If he says, ``I would like to
    take it over,'' he could take it over. That approach would
    relieve a very burdened educational system right now from
    having to take on the very difficult job of trying to
    administer all the new higher education aspects. I feel very
    strongly that it should start out with the Department of
    Education and then let the mayor, if he desires to take it
    over, have that option.
        Senator Voinovich. In other words, your thought is that the
    program would be run by the U.S. Department of Education?
        Senator Jeffords. Yes.
        Senator Voinovich. And you mentioned that the school
    district is overburdened and has real challenges. It was my
    understanding that this program would be operated out of the
    mayor's office and not out of the----
        Senator Jeffords. No. It would be operated out of the
    Department of Education. It could be either way. I do not think
    we have any strong feelings about what building it is in.
        Senator Voinovich. My thought--maybe I misunderstood--is
    that the District of Columbia Department of Education would not
    be running this, but that it would be in the mayor's office,
    and the thought was that he would be assisted by, perhaps,
    people from the U.S. Department of Education.
        The point I am making is that we are not going to be
    putting an extra burden on the back of the local school
    situation.
        Senator Jeffords. I understand, and I think that is wise. I
    would guess you ought to talk to the Department of Education or
    the Secretary of Education to get from them their perspective
    on what would be the best way of how to handle that
    responsibility if they have it.
        Senator Voinovich. Do either of you wish to make any
    further comments before we move to the next panel?
        Ms. Norton. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
    hearing.
        Senator Voinovich. I have one last question. I have
    received some letters of support and E-mails for this
    legislation, but we have received several letters in opposition
    to the concept for fear of its impact on UDC. Would you like to
    comment on that?
        Ms. Norton. Yes. Initially, there was some concern about
    the impact on UDC, and we cannot say what the impact will be on
    UDC except to say that there are two different pools of
    students. I indicated that two-thirds of the students at UDC
    work, and most of them could not leave town to go away to
    school if they wanted to. Many of them have family obligations
    here. In any case, we do not want to take the position in this
    city that in order to build up one part of our State university
    system, we want to deny educational opportunities to
    youngsters.
        I am pleased that President Nimmons, the president of UDC,
    while a fierce advocate for his own institution, took the
    position that UDC should be for this bill, that UDC could
    compete for students. In any case, this bill is to serve the
    students of the District of Columbia. We have gotten UDC into
    this bill in a way that it would never have gotten into the
    bill but for this bill.
        In other words, UDC has gotten an opportunity it never
    would have had if this bill to allow students to go out-of-
    State had not been put in. So if anything, UDC is ahead of the
    game precisely because students in the District of Columbia may
    get the opportunity to go out-of-State as well as have the
    choice of going to UDC.
        Senator Jeffords. UDC can be a tremendous asset to this
    community, but it may have to change its direction in some way
    as far as how it handles the matter of curricula and so on. But
    I think it will be improved and will thrive under the
    arrangement that has been set up rather than in any way be
    disadvantaged by it.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much, both of you.
        Our next panel includes Mayor Anthony Williams and Maureen
    McLaughlin.
        Mayor Williams, it is nice to see you again. I had the
    opportunity of spending many hours with the mayor when he
    visited with me in Cleveland, and Mayor Williams, I am hopeful
    that you have some good ideas on how the private sector can be
    of some help to you here in the District.
        Mayor Williams. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Voinovich. We also have with us Maureen McLaughlin,
    who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and
    Innovation with the Office of Postsecondary Education at the
    U.S. Department of Education. We are glad to you have with us
    today. We have been talking about who should run the program
    and so on, and we will be interested in hearing from you.
        I would now like to call on Mayor Williams.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS,\1\ MAYOR, DISTRICT OF
                                COLUMBIA

        Mayor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mayor Williams appears in the
    Appendix on page 39.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would also like to thank Senator Durbin for having been
    here and for you spending his time and attention on this
    important aspect of the District of Columbia's recovery.
        I have said since my inaugural that our job here in the
    District of Columbia is to show that democracy can work in the
    District and on the road to full recovery and the realization
    of democracy to build community, to build the public/private
    sector partnerships that we saw, to invest in education as a
    foundation for what we want to do. In that respect, I agree
    with what our Congresswoman has said in that our students in
    the District are at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to
    access to higher education.
        I believe the College Access Act will help amend this
    discrepancy and put the District's students and their parents
    on an equal footing with the residents of the 50 States.
        As you have mentioned, the new D.C. College Access Program,
    a public/private partnership between area corporations and
    public schools will now be offering up to $2,000 in financial
    aid to qualified District students. As you know, similar
    efforts in Cleveland--where I visited last week--have seen 93
    percent of involved students continue on to college or to
    vocational school.
        But the D.C. CAP will not meet all of our needs. The
    District of Columbia College Access Act can make higher
    education feasible for all those in need of cutting university
    costs by 50 percent or more.
        As we know, in recent years, we have lost tens of thousands
    of residents to surrounding suburbs in Virginia and Maryland.
    With the rising costs of higher education, the District stands
    to lose more and more families who relocate to other States to
    take advantage of a State higher education system.
        Today in the District of Columbia, only one in three high
    school freshmen goes on to attend postsecondary education. But
    we know that a highly educated workforce is essential if we are
    to lay the economic foundation for the recovery that I talked
    about.
        One provision of the proposed bill that is of utmost
    importance is the absence, I believe, of a means test. For
    residents of the 50 States, in-State tuition rates are not
    pegged to income. For example, in the State of Washington, if
    Bill Gates want to send his children to the University of
    Washington, he would pay in-State tuition. I believe there
    should not be a means test here in the District of Columbia.
        I think that in the case of establishing a means test to
    begin with, you are going to have some disappointed families.
    If we were to have no means test, gauge the demand, process the
    requests and send denials on the basis of limited means, we
    would still have some disappointed folks. If we are going to
    have some disappointed folks, it seems to me we should at least
    have a program and a process where we exhaust all the resources
    available, because I think it would be tragic in the first year
    of the program to have sent away some folks without assistance
    and yet at the same time, ironically, have some money leftover.
        Also, while I think there are two different ways to do
    this, I believe that putting this in the mayor's office is the
    way to go--not that we do not have other things to do, but I do
    believe that economic development--and I think this is an
    economic development tool and investment in children--it
    certainly is about investment in children--are cornerstones of
    our administration's efforts. Arranging the process and the
    operations in this way would not overburden the school system,
    because as you correctly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the schools
    are not the responsibility of the mayor.
        In fact, the staff of my office have already met with
    Deputy Assistant Secretary McLaughlin to discuss the
    Department's experience in administering the scholarship
    program, and we appreciate all the Department has done for us
    and look forward to working with them to make this College
    Access Program work.
        Further, again, this is going to be pegged to means
    available. Ideally, I would like to see this apply to all 50
    States. As Congresswoman Norton mentioned, and some other
    testimony is evidence, there is some notion that confining this
    to the two adjoining States puts pressure on in-State residents
    in other States. You would relieve that pressure by allowing
    our students to attend anywhere in the country. Furthermore, I
    think it once again, in the spirit of this act and legislation,
    situates our students similar to students in any other State.
        I also believe that we must recognize in this bill the
    needs of our private institutions in the City that have done a
    good job to support our students. The assistance in some of the
    measures before you help to address that concern. They have
    done a lot to provide scholarship assistance, in-kind and other
    assistance for our graduates here in the District of Columbia.
    There is precedent in Virginia and other States for providing
    assistance to private universities, and I believe we should do
    this here.
        I also believe--and I have done this in my own budget on a
    local basis--that we have to support the University of the
    District of Columbia as a key element of an overall State
    education system. I believe that we are doing this by providing
    initial capital funding, I believe we are doing this by
    providing for the first time an investment in endowment. We are
    also going to launch this summer the introduction of my
    nominations for a board of trustees of national caliber. All of
    these are efforts to support the university as it works to
    focus its mission as a flagship academic institution while also
    providing--regrettably, but we need to do this--remediation for
    many of our high school students. In addition, UDC is a
    continuing education arm for employees who are looking for
    upward mobility and the kind of work-to-work upward mobility
    that every city has to provide.
        That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy
    to answer any questions you may have.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much, Mayor Williams. I
    think you really hit on some of the issues that are of
    controversy. Thank you.
        Ms. McLaughlin.

        TESTIMONY OF MAUREEN A. MCLAUGHLIN,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT
       SECRETARY FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INNOVATION, OFFICE OF
         POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Ms. McLaughlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
    have the opportunity to appear before you today to share the
    administration's views on H.R. 974 and S. 856. I will summarize
    my testimony and submit the longer version for the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. McLaughlin appears in the
    Appendix on page 42.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The administration strongly supports providing all District
    of Columbia residents access to a broad array of choices in
    postsecondary education similar to those available to residents
    of the 50 States. This would enable all District residents to
    attend affordable colleges and universities with a range of
    missions and strengths, and to tailor their educational
    experiences to meet their individual goals and needs.
        To recognize the importance of this initiative, the
    administration included $17 million in its fiscal year 2000
    budget. Since that time, we have worked hard to ensure that
    this idea becomes a reality. We appreciate the bipartisan
    support that has surrounded this legislation from the start,
    and thank you for the opportunity to work with you on the
    structure of the program.
        The administration is particularly pleased with three
    aspects of the bills before Congress. First, each bill
    addresses a critical shortage of public postsecondary education
    options in the District of Columbia by allowing residents to
    attend out-of-state public institutions at in-State tuition
    rates. This cornerstone provision would enable D.C. residents
    to enjoy the same diversity of affordable public postsecondary
    education that has been available to residents of all 50 States
    for many years.
        Second, the administration is pleased that both bills would
    provide grants to District of Columbia residents who choose to
    attend private colleges in or around the city. Many strong
    colleges and universities are located right here in the
    District of Columbia and surrounding areas. Yet in many cases,
    District of Columbia residents have not been able to attend
    these institutions because of limited resources. Forty-eight of
    the 50 States recognize the importance of providing
    opportunities for their students to attend private colleges in
    their States and provide subsidies for this purpose.
        Third, the administration continues its strong support for
    the University of the District of Columbia and is pleased that
    Congress has appropriated Federal financial support for the
    university. We recently worked with Congress to ensure that
    funds would be available to UDC without reducing funding for
    other Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We are now
    working with UDC to enable it to receive these funds in the
    near future.
        Our goal is to provide greater access to a broad array of
    institutions of higher education to District of Columbia
    residents and to design the program in a manner that ensures
    congressional support over the years to come. We need to ensure
    that the tuition benefits that are provided are consistent,
    reliable and predictable.
        To do this, the program must be designed in a way that will
    generate support for sufficient funding each year. In that
    vein, the Congress has some concerns about the high cost of the
    House-passed bill and offers several suggestions for developing
    a program that meets the needs of District residents while
    ensuring sustainability over time.
        The Department of Education estimates that H.R. 974 will
    cost $37 million in fiscal year 2000 and that S. 856 would cost
    $17 million in fiscal year 2000. We believe that the cost of
    the program as structured in S. 856 is more sustainable over
    time. A significant portion of the cost of the House-passed
    bill--almost $11 million--relates to the provision that would
    allow students to pay in-State tuition amounts at any public
    institution across the country rather than limiting the scope
    to public institutions in Maryland and Virginia as supported by
    the administration and included in S. 856.
        This aspect of H.R. 974 would provide a wider range of
    choices to District residents than are available to residents
    of any of the 50 States. Limiting tuition subsidies to
    residents attending public institutions in Maryland and
    Virginia would be more consistent with the options available to
    residents of any State.
        There are 30 public colleges and universities in Maryland
    and Virginia, five of which have open admission policies.
    Furthermore, the administration of the program will be more
    complex if the administering entity must work with institutions
    of higher education from all 50 States rather than institutions
    in just two States.
        Details regarding the costs of that particular provision
    are provided in my written testimony.
        The administration also feels strongly that limited Federal
    resources must be targeted first to those students with greater
    need for assistance. Under H.R. 974, if funding is insufficient
    to cover the demand for tuition assistance, award amounts would
    be decreased for all eligible students. As drafted, the mayor
    would have no opportunity to utilize any other mechanism for
    targeting funds.
        It is critical to the future of this program that the
    wealthiest D.C. residents do not obtain tuition assistance from
    a limited amount of funds at the expense of lower- and middle-
    income District of Columbia residents. Accordingly, we believe
    that some kind of priority funding mechanism, such as the means
    test contained in S. 856, must be included in the legislation
    ultimately enacted by Congress.
        As I mentioned previously, we are very supportive of
    providing grants to students who choose to attend private
    colleges and universities. We believe, however, that H.R. 974
    structures these grants in a way that is more generous than
    similar grants provided to residents of States. In most States,
    the grants are not available to students attending private
    institutions outside the States, the grants are not as large as
    $3,000 per year, and they are typically provided on the basis
    of need or merit. S. 856 provides benefits that are more
    similar to other States.
        We also believe, as do many others, that the residency
    requirements for students receiving benefits under either bill
    should be tightened to ensure that these benefits go to people
    with long-term commitments to the District of Columbia and not
    to students who come to the District of Columbia merely for the
    purpose of attending college.
        Finally, because administering this program will be a
    complicated task, we would like to see H.R. 974 modified to
    provide maximum flexibility for the mayor and the Secretary of
    Education to determine how to best administer this program.
    Furthermore, we believe there must be adequate Federal
    authority added to the final legislation to monitor the program
    to ensure accountability of Federal funds. This is especially
    true because the program is likely to be supported exclusively
    by Federal funds.
        In closing, let me again express how pleased we are about
    the level of support and commitment that has been generated by
    H.R. 974 and S. 856. The bills complement the efforts of the
    private sector, including the D.C. College Access Program.
    Working together, we can strengthen the Nation's Capital by
    realizing the potential of all D.C. high school students.
        I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may
    have.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
        Mayor, would you like to comment about some of the things
    that Ms. McLaughlin talked about--differences of opinion with
    the bill and the Department's approach to it?
        Mayor Williams. In regard to this notion that if District
    students are given access in the 50 States at the rates that we
    are talking about to our private institutions, it would situate
    District students better than students in other States, I would
    just argue that while the spirit of this legislation is to
    situate us like any other State, we are not yet a State, and we
    are among the most taxed people on the Planet, and we are the
    Nation's Capital. All of those are special and unique
    circumstances which I think, while they do not require,
    certainly they contemplate a different kind of special, custom
    solution because we are the Nation's Capital.
        Also, Senator Jeffords talked about using this as a
    launching pad and an initial model. I think everything we do in
    the District of Columbia should be about investing in academic
    development, and investing in children is a key part of that. I
    think that we in the District, as we invest in the University
    of the District of Columbia, should think about, by leveraging
    this Federal funding, local funding in the future to expand
    this program. That is certainly something that I would look at.
        If it could be shown, for example, that for $3,000 a year,
    you have a family living in the District, paying over a period
    of time far more in taxes, that is a good return on investment.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you both very much.
        Our third and final panel includes Lucio Noto, Chairman and
    Chief Executive Officer of Mobil Corporation; Dr. Julius
    Nimmons, President of the University of the District of
    Columbia; and Ms. Patricia McGuire, Chairwoman of the
    Government Relations Committee of the Consortium of
    Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area.
        I am glad to have all of you here. Mr. Noto, I had an
    opportunity to meet with you prior to the hearing, and again
    thank you and the other private sector folks for stepping
    forward and participating in a very ambitious scholarship
    program to aid District of Columbia students.
        I am not sure about my time. I am supposed to preside at 1
    o'clock, and I will hear back in about 5 minutes. So what I
    would like to do is to move quickly through your testimony, and
    if you could summarize, I would be grateful, and I apologize to
    you for the long wait that you have had in order to present
    your testimony before the Subcommittee.
        I would like to call first on Ms. McGuire.

       TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA MCGUIRE,\1\ CHAIRWOMAN, GOVERNMENT
        RELATIONS COMMITTEE, CONSORTIUM OF UNIVERSITIES OF THE
                      WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA

        Ms. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
    here with President Julius Nimmons from UDC on behalf of the
    Consortium of Universities which includes 12 major colleges and
    universities in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
    Virginia, including UDC and my own institution, Trinity
    College. I also acknowledge the presence here today of Dr.
    Charlene Drew Jarvis, President of Southeastern University and
    Member of the Council of the District of Columbia, and the many
    students from all of our institutions who are here in the room
    with us.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. McGuire with attachments appears
    in the Appendix on page 50.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I have prepared testimony which I would ask be entered into
    the record, and I will summarize a few key points in
    recognition of your time.
        First, let me point out Chart A in the written testimony
    shows that the Consortium enrolls more than 7,000 D.C.
    residents as full-time undergraduate students, including 4,300
    D.C. students in the three public universities and 2,700 D.C.
    residents in the nine private institutions, which is 39 percent
    of all District of Columbia residents in our institutions,
    which is twice the national average for private college
    attendance.
        The Consortium supports Congressman Davis' bill, but we do
    want to be sure that this initiative also supports students who
    choose to attend college close to home, thus augmenting and not
    eroding the District of Columbia's talent pool and future
    workforce, which is the goal of any State's higher education
    program.
        We have welcomed in particular that part of this
    legislation that strengthens UDC and that supports D.C.
    students who choose private colleges here.
        We support the Davis bill and needs-testing and the
    geographic situation. I would like to offer a particular
    comment about the Tuition Assistance Grant Program for students
    who are D.C. residents attending private colleges. We ask the
    Senate to adopt the $3,000 TAG provision of the Davis
    legislation which, in our testimony, we illustrate mirrors
    existing programs in Maryland and Virginia and elsewhere in the
    Nation. A smaller TAG would unfairly discriminate against D.C.
    students who stay at home to attend private institutions. While
    we do not favor a needs test, the simple fact exists that with
    one of the highest poverty rates in the Nation, the District of
    Columbia already has a surfeit of students with great economic
    need, and many District of Columbia students cannot afford the
    luxury of travel to out-of-State institutions.
        Contrary to popular myths, many if not most of the D.C.
    students who choose private colleges in the District of
    Columbia are not wealthy elites. Private universities in D.C.
    already provide millions of dollars in grants to D.C.
    residents, and even this extensive aid is not enough. The Davis
    TAG grant would supplement, not supplant, the millions we are
    already investing in higher education of D.C. students.
        To illustrate, let me call your attention to our own
    experience at Trinity College, one of the District's historic
    colleges, a 100-year-old Catholic college with a primary
    mission to women, now serving a student body that is more than
    60 percent African American and Latino. Forty percent of our
    1,500 students are D.C. residents; 28 percent of last year's
    freshman class were graduates of D.C. public schools. Full-time
    D.C. students at my institution receive average institutional
    grants of $6,900. Trinity grants to D.C. students exceed $1
    million, which is 6 percent of Trinity's tiny budget of $16.5
    million. Last year, Trinity's institutional grant support for
    D.C. freshmen exceeded the total combined amount of Pell Grants
    and Federal loans taken by those same students.
        Even with this considerable institutional aid, many of our
    D.C. students still face great financial stress. Some of our
    18-year-old freshmen from D.C. work 30 to 40 hours a week--too
    many hours for young students who should be concentrating on
    their studies. Some of them have to drop out for financial
    reasons. The difference of $3,000 through an in-State grant
    program would help to ensure academic persistence and academic
    success for students who are most at risk--low-income African
    American and Hispanic students who are graduates of the
    District of Columbia public schools who are striving to change
    their economic circumstances through earning a degree at the
    local college they choose for educational reasons.
        We disagree with the CBO report that grossly inflated the
    likely cost of the TAG program. Based on our current enrollment
    of D.C. residents, we project an outer maximum of 3,000
    participants in the TAG program. Chart C in my written
    testimony presents the bottom line. Based on regional high
    school graduation projections, we estimate the peak cost of the
    TAG portion of this program would be about $7.3 million in the
    year 2003, for about 2,400 participants.
        Regarding residency, we believe the loophole discovered by
    the CBO could easily be closed, either with a longer residency
    requirement or to require the student to be a D.C. resident at
    the time of enrollment or to require parental residency.
        We urge this Subcommittee to amend H.R. 974 to clarify and
    strengthen the legislation. We urge you to enact the bill with
    the full understanding of the opportunities that exist right
    there in the Nation's Capital, which has been and continues to
    be one of the best college towns anywhere in the world.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Dr. Nimmons, it is a pleasure to welcome you here today. I
    have been a fan of our Historically Black Colleges, and am not
    sure if you are familiar with my work in Ohio at Central State,
    but it looked like we were going to be losing one of our
    Historically Black Colleges, and we went to work, and it is now
    back on its feet, and I think it has a bright future. We are
    lucky to have--and you may know him--Dr. John Garland, who is
    our president, whom we brought from Washington.
        I commend you for your leadership and the contribution that
    your institution is making to the District, and I would like to
    hear your testimony.

        TESTIMONY OF DR. JULIUS F. NIMMONS, JR.,\1\ PRESIDENT,
                 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Dr. Nimmons. Thank you, Senator. I am familiar with that
    situation, and Mr. Garland, the new president, did come from
    UDC. At one point, he was with us.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Nimmons appears in the Appendix
    on page 75.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
    first that I sit here at a great disadvantage. Among all the
    stakeholders in this noteworthy initiative, the University of
    the District of Columbia is the most needy and the most
    vulnerable of all, and I am concerned that in speaking out for
    our great institution, I stand the risk of appearing as a
    dissenter, when in fact I am deeply grateful that you are
    willing to put significant resources into supporting higher
    education for the citizens of the District of Columbia and that
    we are able to come together on this issue.
        I am sincerely appreciative of this opportunity to voice
    the University's position on the tuition assistance bill and of
    the efforts of the 106th Congress to elevate higher education
    to the highest of priorities for the citizens of the District
    of Columbia.
        Both the House and the Senate would like to put forth
    strong legislation that equalizes for District residents higher
    educational opportunities enjoyed by all other U.S. citizens.
    By design, the legislation would provide significant benefits
    for middle class, above-average students, and this is good for
    the city because it is one step in maintaining a solid middle
    class presence. Yet for the thousands of low-income students
    who continue to suffer poor educational attaintment, whose
    parents can barely pay for daily living essentials such as
    housing and food, and who must rely on UDC to assist them in
    their quest for social participation and self-sufficiency, a
    major investment in the University is warranted. I am certain
    that we do not want to end up with what amounts to separate but
    unequal educational opportunity for the majority of the
    citizens of the Nation's Capital.
        Congresswoman Norton has worked very diligently on our
    behalf to secure current year enhancement funding for the
    University in the amount of $1.5 million, and she has advocated
    aggressively for our inclusion in the Department of Education's
    Title III program. We are truly grateful for this support.
        I want to emphasize that the University is the State's
    system of higher education for the city. Upon first hearing of
    the proposed legislation, I have to tell you that the
    University community was terribly upset, for it appeared that
    another blow had been dealt to the institution. You see, we
    take great pride in what we have been able to accomplish. We
    have been hit hard at every turn in our plans to reconfigure
    the University into a modern, cutting-edge institution having
    to go so far as to shut down, albeit briefly, in order to
    regroup and move forward.
        Under the proposed legislation, the Congressional Budget
    Office has estimated that the University will require at least
    $40 million to raise UDC's quality to the level of the premier
    public universities across the country. And they are right--we
    need more than $40 million to elevate the University to 21st
    Century standards. For the past 30 years, Title III Higher
    Education Act provisions allowed Historically Black Colleges
    and Universities over $1 billion in enhancement funding. The
    University has never received any of this funding--$60 million
    that we should have had, but which was denied us because of
    concerns that our HBCU sister institutions would individually
    suffer some reduction in their annual payments if UDC were
    added to the eligible pool.
        As we became an HBCU, Title III was rewritten to include a
    restriction prohibiting the University from participating based
    on the erroneous notion that the University received an annual
    direct appropriation from Congress as does Howard University at
    $200 million per year. Nowhere in the language of the Federal
    payment authorization or subsequent appropriations bills
    accompanying this authorization does UDC appear. A very serious
    injustice was done to us.
        Although surrounded by more than 11 higher education
    institutions, residents of the District of Columbia are not
    enrolled in these institutions in significant numbers. Roughly
    100 District of Columbia residents are enrolled at the
    undergraduate level in each of these nationally-focused
    institutions with the exception of Howard University, Trinity
    College, and Southeastern University, with roughly 1,400
    undergraduate District residents, respectively. Strayer College
    also enrolls a significant number of D.C.'s adult population.
        Thus, UDC enrolls from 4 to 57 times the number of District
    residents present in the other institutions; 81 percent of our
    undergraduate students are District residents.
        UDC currently offers a program in three of the five
    fastest-growing jobs requiring an associate's degree, five of
    the seven fastest in the bachelor's level; 12 of the fastest in
    the baccalaureate level; and four of the five fastest-growing
    jobs requiring a master's degree. The institution is responding
    to regional demand for trained talent in high-demand areas
    while placing otherwise neglected minorities on the path to
    full participation. And our students remain in the area,
    sustaining the middle class base we all covet.
        In summary, it is time for the University of the District
    of Columbia to receive the kind of financial investment that
    allows it to prosper and thrive. Your commitment in funding to
    the University is a proactive step in the right direction. Give
    us a chance to grow and develop without interruptions, without
    seriously damaging budget reductions. Give us all the modern
    technologies, equipment and infrastructure we need to get the
    job done.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        Our next panelist is Lucio Noto, who is Chairman of the
    Board and Chief Executive Officer of Mobil.
        Mr. Noto, again, thank you for being here today and thank
    you for your leadership.

    TESTIMONY OF LUCIO A. NOTO,\1\ CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF
                  EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOBIL CORPORATION

        Mr. Noto. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
    opportunity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Noto appears in the Appendix on
    page 87.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am here representing 16 Washington, D.C. area private
    companies and foundations who have created an organization
    known as DC-CAP, the College Access Program, to help some of
    the District of Columbia's public high school students achieve
    the kind of future that we are confident they can.
        The reason I am here talking in favor of a tuition
    assistance program is because those of us who created this
    program see tuition assistance and CAP as forming three legs of
    a stool: Counseling, choice, and financial assistance. Choice
    is an essential element of that stool, and that is why we are
    active in trying to support the bill that you are currently
    considering.
        There are many people we want to thank for putting us
    together and getting us to do what we did. I especially want to
    mention Donald Graham of The Washington Post, who could not be
    here this morning--he is at a board meeting--but without his
    push and his leadership, the private sector could not have done
    its piece.
        What has the private sector done? We have raised about $16
    million on our way to an initial goal of $20 million. What are
    we going to do with that money? We are going to try to fund
    three things.
        First, we are going to pay for a counselor at every D.C.
    public high school. Why do we want to do that? Kids need to
    understand that college is a realistic objective for them, both
    in terms of financial calculations and also in terms of
    personal aspirations. And second, kids and parents need a lot
    of help navigating through a very complex system of aid,
    admission, and what-have-you. We are going to do that.
        Third, we are going to give last-dollar financial help to
    kids who do get into college, up to $2,000 a year for 5 years
    to a student who qualifies--again, out of the D.C. public
    school system.
        You might ask why are we doing this. We are not doing this
    for altruistic reasons. We are doing this because we think it
    makes good business sense. We need qualified kids to come out
    of the D.C. public school system, period. We need employment.
    One hundred fifty thousand jobs go begging each week in The
    Washington Post technical job want ad section.
        No. 1, corporations, believe it or not, feel that they do
    have an obligation to give back to the communities where we
    operate and where we make a living.
        And No. 3, for a company like Mobil, at least, if we do not
    have a vibrant and successful metropolitan area close to our
    headquarters location, I could not attract and retain and keep
    the kind of talent that I want.
        So we are here because we think it makes good sense.
        I cannot make any comment on all the discussion that I have
    heard this morning about means testing, 50 States versus 2, do
    not hurt this school, do this, do that. I have to tell you, if
    my company ran that way, we would be bankrupt.
        This is a good idea. It needs to be pushed, and it needs to
    be brought to fruition soon, before the July recess. We want to
    get these counselors whom we are paying for into the schools
    for next year. We want to get financial assistance that will
    come out of the CAP program into the kids' hands when they
    graduate at the end of the semester that ends in June 2000. We
    need the tuition assistance program to give these kids the
    choice that they should legitimately have. Put them on par with
    most of the other communities in this country.
        Now, I am preaching to the converted when I talk to you,
    Mr. Chairman, because I know that you were involved with two
    model programs in Cleveland and Columbus that, frankly, we in
    the private sector have looked at as examples of what we could
    do here, and I congratulate you for that, and I know that I do
    not have to sell you on that.
        At the end of the day, we need your help to get this thing
    moving. I cannot believe that we cannot put four bright people
    in a room representing both sides of the argument on means
    testing, on 50 States versus 2 States, and on some of the other
    complexities which I am afraid we are manufacturing, and get
    the thing settled and get it settled quickly. I will tell you
    frankly, in my company, if they could not do that, I would fire
    them.
        So please, I urge you, let us not get mixed up in what
    school is going to get what, and how we have to help UDC's
    budget. Those may be very legitimate issues, but that is not
    the purpose here. We are here to help the kids, and we need
    your assistance.
        I thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. If I were still Governor, we would get
    it done that quickly. [Laughter.]
        But I am not, and I do believe that we have some good
    people who really care about this program, and I can assure you
    and everyone else here that I am going to do everything in my
    power to get everyone into a room and see if we cannot get this
    worked out ASAP and get it done, certainly, for sure, before we
    get out of here in August, so that it is done, because it is
    going to take time to put things in place and make sure all of
    the t's are crossed and i's dotted so that when we launch the
    program, we do not end up with problems. That is really
    important, that when we do launch it, we have anticipated as
    many of the problems as we can, so it does not hit some land
    mines somewhere along the way and become discredited, and we go
    back to accusations and so forth.
        Mr. Noto. Mr. Chairman, the reason I think it is very
    important--as I told you, we have raised about $16 million, and
    we are on our way to $20 million. We have 16 groups already
    involved in that effort, and you will see their names listed in
    my written testimony. I am very grateful to them. You will see
    the usual suspects. You will see those people who have done a
    lot for the District of Columbia over time. And we have so much
    new business flourishing in this area that if we can keep the
    momentum going on this, I think we can get a lot more money
    from a lot of companies who have not joined that list yet who
    make a very good living in this area.
        So I would urge you to remember that we are bringing
    private money, and we can bring some incremental private money
    if the momentum goes right.
        Senator Voinovich. I will help you go after them.
        Mr. Noto. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Let me say one other thing to you. I
    think it is important that the business community contact
    Senator Durbin, because he has some real questions about the
    budgetary viability of this proposal.
        One thing that I have come to recognize in my political
    career is a thing called leveraging. One reason why I am
    interested in this program, Mr. Noto, is because of the fact
    that you and other people in the private sector are stepping
    forward. And quite frankly, I look at the Federal Government's
    involvement in this program as doing our part to continue to
    encourage you to do your part. I think that if we were not to
    go forward with this legislation, and we flubbed this
    opportunity to move forward, it would be very discouraging to
    you and other members of the private sector.
        So I think it is very important that you get that across to
    Senator Durbin and others who may be having a problem with
    this, because where can you spend $17 million of Federal
    money--and we know that as the years go on, it may be more--and
    at the same time generate over $20 million in the private
    sector? I think that is a terrific deal; I would love to see
    the Federal Government involved in more programs like that.
        Mr. Noto. Hear, hear.
        Senator Voinovich. So we are going to move on it as quickly
    as we can.
        I want to thank all of you for being here today. We are
    going to launch something here that is very important not only
    to the District of Columbia but to this country.
        Thank you.
        The meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL STRAUSS, U.S. SENATOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                    (SHADOW)
        Chairman Voinovich, Senator Durbin, and Members of the Senate
    Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and
    the District of Columbia, I am Paul Strauss, the Shadow U.S. Senator
    elected by the voters of the District of Columbia.
        For years, District residents have been denied basic rights that
    citizens in the rest of the Nation have enjoyed. In every State in the
    Nation, there is a university system supported by that State's
    Government. In the District of Columbia, there is not a comparable
    system in place. We have a State University--but no State University
    system. ``House Resolution 974--The District of Columbia College Access
    Act'' is a crucial step towards establishing equality for District
    residents by affording them a myriad of educational opportunities. A
    Senate bill, ``Senate 856--Expanded Options in Higher Education for
    District of Columbia Students Act of 1999,'' takes steps in the same
    direction but with some differences. I urge the Senate to adopt the
    version submitted by the House.
        The House and Senate versions (H.R. 974 and S. 856 respectively),
    focus on the same basic objectives. However, several components warrant
    special attention. First, the program should focus on national access,
    and not regional access. S. 856 limits access to public institutions in
    Maryland and Virginia. H.R. 974 allows access to public institutions in
    each of 50 States. In order to best serve the college-bound residents
    of the District, we must provide options beyond Maryland and Virginia.
    Additionally, the Senate bill limitation will likely create a strain on
    the Maryland and Virginia public university systems that will
    disadvantage residents of those States.
        Second, the program should promote participation by all colleges
    and universities in the District. A critical factor in creating equal
    educational opportunities for District residents is to advocate for
    full participation of those institutions of higher learning within the
    District borders. We are fortunate to have some of the finest
    universities in the Nation right here in our own backyard. The
    residents of the District are entitled to the education available from
    these institutions while not being excluded solely because of financial
    situations.
        Third, the program should be administered by the local government,
    and not by the Federal Government. The mayor's office should have
    discretion to determine the procedure and criteria used in
    administering all funds within this bill. The Department of Education,
    while perhaps capable of providing guidelines, does not have the
    resources necessary to distribute the funds to District residents in
    the most effective manner. Any formal involvement by an entity of the
    Federal Government would only serve to hinder the efficiency of the
    administration of the program. Our local government currently in place
    is fully equipped to administer the program to its own citizens.
        Finally, the program should not require initial means testing or
    income caps. There is no data to predict what the response level from
    District residents will be to this program. It would be a grave mistake
    to establish an income cap as a marker of eligibility for the program.
    This cap could create a situation where funds are available for
    distribution, but where the only otherwise eligible candidates are
    refused funding from the program simply because of the income bracket
    of their family. This means testing policy will likely prove to be
    highly inefficient.
        The Nation's Capital should be a place where all residents of the
    United States would be proud to call home. We should encourage
    residents to remain in the District, and encourage any American living
    outside the District to select their Capital as their home. Congress
    denies us Statehood, but D.C. residents need not be denied the benefits
    of a State educational system. Congress denies us equal representation,
    they should not deny us a quality education.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.060