[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 18 (Tuesday, February 2, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EQUAL 
                         EDUCATIONAL STATUS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 2, 1999

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the University of the 
District of Columbia Equal Educational Status Act. The University of 
the District of Columbia (UDC) is the only publicly funded institution 
of higher education in the District of Columbia. The District, like 
most large cities, has a large population which requires access to a 
publicly funded open admissions institution to go to any institution at 
all.
  Under existing law, UDC is, by definition, a Historically Black 
University that qualifies for Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCU) funds because it meets the three salient 
requirements: (1) UDC was created from colleges established before 
1964; (2) it served primarily black people; and (3) it is an accredited 
institution. Though technically an HBCU, UDC was denied the funding 
benefits of HBCU status because of a factual error. In the HBCU 
provision of Title III, UDC is discussed in the same section with 
Howard University, and it explicitly indicates that the University 
receives a direct payment from the federal government. This has never 
been true, and in any case, the District itself no longer receives a 
federal payment.
  The importance of HBCU funding and status is that there is an annual 
appropriation for HBCUs. I have attempted to get HBCU funding for UDC 
before. The only reason that UDC has not been included is that no extra 
funds were available to accompany the request, and the entry of UDC was 
seen as diminishing the appropriations available for the 103 existing 
HBCUs. I would remove this impediment by proposing that an amount to be 
determined from the $17 million in the President's budget for college 
bound D.C. students be allotted to UDC. The amount in the President's 
budget is not based on specific underlying assumptions about the 
available pool of students to go out-of-state. The $17 million is 
sufficient to allow some funds to go to desperately needed technology 
and infrastructure at the University. This is now possible to satisfy 
the needs of all our students--those prepared to go out-of-state as 
well as the larger number of students who will not be able to take 
advantage of the scholarship proposal.
  I support the proposal of Congressman Tom Davis, Chair of the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia who, acting on suggestions 
from District and area business people, is writing a bill for public 
and private funds to pay the difference between in-state and out-of-
state tuition for D.C. residents outside the District. I am pleased 
that in addition to federal funds, private business in this area is 
also raising funds for this effort. Mr. Davis' staff and mine have 
begun working together on a joint UDC-scholarships approach. I have 
also discussed this idea with Mayor Tony Williams and have asked and 
gathered his suggestions about how funding for UDC should be targeted. 
Mayor Williams also supports the UDC-scholarship approach.
  Working with the White House, we have been able to secure funds 
sufficient not only for the scholarship proposal but also for the needs 
of the majority of D.C. students who could not possibly take advantage 
of out-of-state opportunities. A scholarship--only approach would leave 
the largest number of college bound D.C. students stranded with access 
only to a university severely injured by the fiscal crisis. I am 
pleased that with adequate funding, there is no reason to ignore the 
demographics of D.C.'s typical student population in need of public 
higher education.
  Who is the typical college bound D.C. resident? The profile of UDC 
tells the story. Two-thirds of UDC students work; many are single 
parents with obligations to young children; many go to college after 
years in the workforce; others could not afford living expenses away 
from D.C.; and many can only attend an open admissions university. The 
Davis proposal was never meant to be, nor could it substitute for, a 
public university which serves the residents of this city in this city.
  UDC funds would not be used for the operations of UDC but would be 
carefully targeted to urgently needed infrastructure needs that have no 
hope of finding the needed priority in the D.C. budget for years. The 
city is constantly being asked why our young people are not being 
trained for rapidly growing technological jobs in the region but they 
are left with antiquated computers and other hopelessly out-of-date 
technology.
  Further, deferred maintenance has produced pitiful results, such as 
elevators that don't work, that are shameful in a public institution. 
Part of the reason for UDC's condition is that it took an enormously 
hard hit during the fiscal crisis. Its budget went from $69,631 million 
in fiscal year 1994 to $40,148 million this year, not counting huge 
reductions that began early in the decade. In the one year since 
February 1, 1998, the number of full-time faculty has plummeted from 
375 to 246, not counting enormous cuts to which the University has been 
subjected throughout this decade.
  The University was forced to close for three months in 1996, a 
calamity that would have destroyed most colleges and universities. Yet, 
D.C. residents are voting with their feet and returning to UDC. Despite 
the University's hardships, entering freshmen enrollment rose 
dramatically by 70% in only one year, from 661 in fall 1997 to 1125 in 
fall 1998. Today, the University's enrollment of 5,284 represents, an 
11% increase in one year.
  Some emphasize the undeniable fact that UDC needs money. Others 
indicate that District youngsters need increased opportunities for 
higher education, a truism if ever there was one. However, I told UDC 
students who visited the Capitol yesterday that it is wrong to pit 
individual justice against institutional justice. I say the same thing 
to my colleagues--we must do the right thing and assure that we have a 
win-win for higher education for our young people in this city.

                          ____________________