[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 75 (Monday, May 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3465-H3469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 974) to establish a program to afford high school 
graduates from the District of Columbia the benefits of in-State 
tuition at State colleges and universities outside the District of 
Columbia, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 974

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

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

     SEC. 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS FUND.

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

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Applications.--Any qualified graduate seeking a 
     scholarship under the Program

[[Page H3466]]

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

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM AND FUND.

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

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first of all my thanks to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) for permitting the expeditious consideration of this bill. My 
gratitude as well to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) and all the cosponsors and those who have expressed 
encouragement and support for our efforts.
  I would also like to thank some of the staff people who have worked 
so hard on this legislation: My former staff director Peter Sirh, staff 
director and counsel Howie Denis, communications directory Trey Hardin, 
Anne Mack Barnes, Jon Bouker the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia's staff, and Noah Woofsy of the legislative counsel's office.
  Today we take a giant step forward in our quest to enhance 
educational opportunities in the Nation's capital. My

[[Page H3467]]

thanks to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee I chair, and all the others who have 
expressed encouragement and support for our efforts.
  The bill we consider today, H.R. 974, the District of Columbia 
College Access Act, reflects the constitutional reality that Congress 
is the de facto State legislature for the District of Columbia. The 
city by its very nature lacks the capacity for a university system of 
higher education as that concept is understood in the 50 States. The 
same choices and opportunities simply do not exist for students and 
parents here as exist elsewhere in the United States. This has too 
often led to an out-migration of population in order to take advantage 
of the higher educational opportunities all other Americans enjoy as 
residents of a particular State.
  A strong element in all of our reform legislation since the creation 
of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia has been directed at 
stopping the bleeding of the population out of the District. This is 
critical for us all, as you cannot have a healthy Washington region 
without a healthy city.
  The District has lost hundreds of thousands of residents in recent 
decades, particularly middle-income taxpayers. The Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia has helped to lead a strong bipartisan evident in 
Congress to change that. Our efforts have included economic 
development, such as facilitating the MCI Center and the new convention 
center project. We have encouraged home ownership with the $5,000 tax 
credit for first-time homebuyers. We have improved personal safety, 
water quality and financial stability itself. Congress can be proud of 
its efforts to revitalize the Nation's capital.
  Congress, in full cooperation with the city and the Federal 
Government, has in fact restructured relationships so as to have the 
Federal Government assume many of the functions normally performed by 
States, such as care for felony prisoners. This has put the District on 
a glide path to recovery. It is now in a better position to improve 
delivery of municipal services.
  I am pleased to commend those leading local foundations and companies 
that have banded together in an extraordinary and historic effort to 
assist District students. The legislation we are voting on today is 
essential to those great efforts in the private sector.
  It is my strong belief that this is the best money the Federal 
Government will ever spend in this city.
  Mayor Williams has characterized H.R. 974 as ``very, very important 
legislation not only in improving education but in bringing our city 
back.'' This bill can be a shining example of a bipartisan urban 
agenda.
  While giving graduates more choices, subject to the caps and limits 
in the bill, this legislation fully respects and leaves untouched 
college admission policies and standards.
  The bill will enable District residents who are high school graduates 
to attend public institutions at in-State rates in other States in the 
union. We have included tuition assistance grants as another option for 
other colleges in D.C., Virginia and Maryland. This is yet another 
incentive to encourage local population stability through educational 
enhancement. This TAG program is highly successful in Virginia and many 
other States.
  H.R. 974 helps to level the playing field for District high school 
graduates. I was deeply moved by the reaction to this bill as I saw it 
in the eyes of students at Eastern High School, not far from our 
Capitol building. These students need and deserve a break. They need 
and deserve the same opportunities that students in other school 
systems in other States across this land have.
  As the students took my hand, looked into my eyes and thanked me for 
introducing this bill, I knew we were on the right track. Fighting for 
educational opportunity legislation is one of the reasons I entered 
public life. I look forward to working with colleagues who share this 
vision for the future as we move this bill to the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The District of Columbia College Access Act before us is but one 
example of a series of bipartisan bills benefiting the residents of the 
Nation's capital on which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and I 
have worked since he became chair of the Subcommittee on the District 
of Columbia. I want particularly to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for his indispensable leadership on legislation that has been critical 
to the rescue of the Nation's capital from fiscal crisis. I 
particularly appreciate his work on H.R. 974, the District of Columbia 
College Access Act, a bill that signals the move of the Subcommittee on 
the District of Columbia from crisis to rebuilding.
  May I also take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) who has treated the city's problems with great attention 
and urgency, always moving bills quickly and helpfully; the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) whose assistance and wise counsel has been 
much appreciated; and the members of the subcommittee, all of whom 
support H.R. 974 and have contributed to this and other bills that have 
rescued the Nation's capital.

                              {time}  1415

  The committee, the subcommittee and the administration have worked 
closely together on H.R. 974 in an indispensable collaboration. We have 
worked closely with officials of the administration including Mrs. 
Clinton, Secretary Richard Riley and Assistant Secretary Scott Fleming 
in crafting H.R. 974.
  I want to particularly thank the President, who included funds for 
this bill in his own budget, raising substantially the amount that 
would otherwise have been available.
  In its three features, H.R. 974 goes a considerable distance toward 
offering District residents and students the State public higher 
education available to residents of the 50 States. Funds are authorized 
for grants for students to attend State colleges and universities 
anywhere in the United States at in-State rates for a limited private 
college alternative, such as some States offer to broaden the State's 
option, and for the District's own public admissions university, the 
University of the District of Columbia.
  The central feature of H.R. 974 is authorization for funding for 
students to attend any State college or university where admission has 
been granted at in-State tuition rates. This provision is essential 
because unlike every State in the Union, the District has only one 
public institution of higher education, an open admissions university. 
One size does not now and never has fit all in higher education and 
certainly not in today's fast-moving technological society.
  In addition, the in-State tuition provision is critical to keeping 
and attracting taxpayers, the sine qua non for the continuing recovery 
of the city. The cost of higher education is so high today that it 
alone drives many parents with children out of the city.
  H.R. 974 also provides more limited funding for private colleges in 
the District, Maryland and Virginia, just as States often offer some 
funding for private college attendance in order to increase the 
diversity of options students need today.
  Encouraged by H.R. 974, the private sector is raising an even larger 
amount to help District students prepare for and attend college. 
Business leaders in the District and the region approached the 
chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and me some months 
ago, disturbed that many students in the District did not go to college 
or dropped out for lack of funds. These leaders have raised nearly $20 
million in private funds to supplement money D.C. parents and students 
raise or win on their own. They suggested that in-State tuition rates 
could greatly enhance the educational opportunities they were raising 
funds to expand. Thus, H.R. 974 is a true public-private effort with 
the private sector, more than equaling what we do here today.
  The symmetry and opportunities in this bill take higher education in 
the Nation's Capital a great distance toward providing D.C. residents 
with equal opportunity, compared with opportunities routinely available 
the residents of the States. Many students can now go out of State. 
Some will remain in the District to get limited

[[Page H3468]]

funding to attend private colleges and universities in the district or 
go to Maryland and Virginia with such funds. Many more will attend the 
District's own open-admissions State university that allows any student 
to qualify for admission to college. The UDC pool of students will not 
be able to take advantage of the in-State provision. Two-thirds of UDC 
students work, many have families, many go to college after years in 
the work force. Despite severe financial hardships resulting from the 
fiscal crisis including a 6-week shutdown, entering freshman enrollment 
rose dramatically by 70 percent in only 1 year. This extraordinary 
growth is the best evidence that D.C. residents must also have their 
own State university in addition to the out-of-State options provided 
in this bill.
  In the State tuition and UDC provisions, H.R. 974 tries to achieve a 
mirror image of what D.C. parents and students would have if they lived 
in other jurisdictions. Residents who have stuck with the city during 
the tough times when so many have left deserve some encouragement to 
remain. The fact that there is near unanimous support in the city for 
this bill is some indication that it is probably already having the 
effect of encouraging residents to remain in the District. What we do 
here today is a step along the way of assuring equal citizenship for 
District residents.
  H.R. 974 addresses a critical educational deficit that not only 
affects students and other residents, but the revitalization of the 
city itself. No longer will D.C. youngsters be the only Americans 
without access to the full complement of the State university systems 
that are routinely available to the residents of every State as a 
matter of right.
  I want to again not only express my personal thanks to the leaders of 
my committee and the members of my subcommittee. I want also to assure 
the House that the parents and the children of the Nation's Capital are 
particularly grateful for the opportunities provided in the District of 
Columbia College Access Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just note, as my colleague, this does not level 
the playing field for District students as opposed to other States, but 
it goes a long way toward that. They still have to compete to get into 
these university systems out-of-State as out-of-State students, which 
in many cases is an admissions hurdle that one would not get if they 
lived within that State; so they are not taking in-State slots, they 
are taking out-of-State slots.
  But should they achieve that, should they overcome that obstacle, 
this legislation simply says they would then only have to pay in-State. 
At least it makes that dream affordable for them, and that is all this 
legislation does.
  We are giving to the students in the District of Columbia, our 
Nation's Capital, the same affordable educational opportunities that we 
are finding in the other 50 States. It is a modest step forward, but it 
is a very important one if we are to integrate our kids in our District 
with the rest of the region, have them pick up jobs we need to fill in 
this region. The Northern Virginia Technology Council recently 
estimated that there were 18,000 available jobs that we could not find 
qualified applicants to fill.
  We want the District of Columbia to be part of this regional economy 
as well. There is no reason that they should not be given the equal 
opportunity and affordable educational opportunities this legislation 
offers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just very proud to support this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the words of our chairman, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), this bill in and of itself will 
encourage youngsters to go to college in the first place who simply 
would never have tried, despite their qualifications. They know full 
well that they have the money only for a semester or for a year, and 
now with this bill, providing 4 years of tuition to go to college, what 
we have here is a bill that encourages youngsters to do well in school, 
in junior high school and in high school.
  The District of Columbia College Access Group that is supplementing 
our own efforts with private funds has indicated that it was astonished 
at how many of our youngsters simply drop out of college after getting 
into college and earning the right to go to college. The gentleman from 
Virginia has indicated something very important here, and that is that 
these youngsters have to get into college in the first place. So here 
we have an incentive to do well enough to get into college, and what 
this will do for youngsters is indicated by reference to the 
gentleman's own premier university, the University of Virginia, one of 
the best colleges in the United States.
  Well, a youngster in Virginia, no matter what the family income, from 
the richest to the poorest, pays less than $5,000 to go to one of the 
best universities in the United States. If a youngster from my side of 
the river applies to go to University of Virginia, those parents must 
come up with about three times that amount of money, or $16,000. 
Imagine what it means to my taxpayers to know that they can encourage a 
youngster to compete to go to UVA or to go to University of Maryland 
and that the parents will be able to afford that.
  I want to mention something else to the gentleman. The gentleman from 
Virginia and I have fought very hard for this bill to be nationwide, 
and I want to inform the gentleman that he and I are going to have to 
continue that fight.
  Our bill says that if one gets into the University of Michigan, if 
one gets into a junior college in Texas, they can take this money and 
have it follow the student, and we are going to have to fight for that 
provision. And I think that is a very important provision, as much as I 
admire the roster of colleges in Maryland and Virginia, but I want to 
encourage youngsters to fly, to broaden their horizons, and this is a 
provision we are going to have to fight for.
  One of the reasons that I want us to fight for this provision is that 
they have other bills introduced which do not have nationwide 
application, but the reason they do not have nationwide application is 
because there is a need to make sure that there is enough money. The 
bill that the gentleman and I have worked on recognizes that it may be 
necessary to circumscribe the bill based on the amount of money. So the 
chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and I have delegated 
to the mayor of the District of Columbia, whomever he appoints, the 
task of drawing the bill in to fit the funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has 
acted wisely in this regard, not only for home rule reasons, because, 
of course, the mayor and those closest on the ground know best, but 
because we do not want to have the first year or two some of these 
funds go unused because we have prematurely circumscribed who can, in 
fact, get these funds. How silly we would feel if, because some 
youngsters may get scholarships to private schools, they do not want to 
go to school in Maryland and Virginia, we have leftover funds from this 
bill that could desperately be used by a student who has achieved 
admission to the University of Michigan or the University of Alabama, 
but cannot go because from on high, in the capital of the United 
States, we have without any data and any way to get any data 
circumscribed how the bill should be drawn.
  Let me finally say that the gentleman has often spoken with good 
reason about the extraordinary number of jobs in the region, one of the 
fastest-growing technological regions in the country that has jobs that 
cannot be filled, and they are all the way from jobs way down on the 
technological ladder to way up. Our own State university has not had 
the technology to adequately prepare students for these jobs with the 
grant to allow UDC to become a historically black college and 
university. We go a long step toward preparing youngsters for jobs in 
the regions since that money will be used for technology and 
infrastructure and, of course, within State tuition, allowing our 
youngsters access to some of the best schools in the United States. We, 
of course, allow them to get the preparation necessary to make our 
regional jobs available to everyone in our region

[[Page H3469]]

including the residents of the District of Columbia.
  I want to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that his own 
hard work on this bill has been absolutely indispensable. Where we have 
worked together trying to fashion a bill that he and I could both agree 
upon, we have reached out to the residents in order to find what their 
concerns were from the private colleges who wanted to make the kind of 
private college alternative available here that is available in 
Virginia. We have reached out to UDC where there are students who 
cannot possibly take advantage of out-of-State tuition and because we 
have worked so closely together and worked with the Secretary of 
Education and with members of the administration, we have reached a 
bill that we think fits and serves the residents of the District of 
Columbia.
  He spoke, the chairman spoke, about the students at Eastern High 
School, and I do not believe that he exaggerated when he spoke about 
how absolutely thrilled these youngsters were to think of going to 
school outside of the District of Columbia, to have their opportunities 
broadened so spectacularly with one bill.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the members 
of my committee and the leadership of the full committee for a 
Herculean effort not only in designing this bill but in working with 
the Speaker and the minority leader to bring this bill forward so that 
it could get and achieve early passage so early in the 106th Congress.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just add one final point 
and that is this, if we really want to change the culture in this city 
where education becomes the thing to do for high school students, where 
it becomes matter of fact that one goes to high school and they move on 
to college or higher education, this is the kind of legislation that is 
needed because right now it is only a dream and not an achievable dream 
for many.
  To be able to go to a quality private or State university system and 
have an array of choices and have that affordable to someone, we think 
will break that cycle and will encourage more people to go in.
  The contrast between the surrounding suburbs where sometimes over 90 
percent of the kids who graduate from high school go on to higher 
education and in the city is astounding. This, I think, could help 
change that around by making it truly achievable. Again, I commend my 
friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 
her efforts in this and look forward to prompt passage.
  Ms. NORTON. I could not agree more with the words of the gentleman, 
and so much so that I want him to know that I will be working with the 
city to see if residents can use this bill beginning with this school 
year.
  If they tool up, I think that they can make it happen, even though 
our fiscal year begins October 1 and school usually begins in August 
and September. I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for 
his great assistance on this bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 974, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table

                          ____________________