[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27694-27701]
[From the U.S. 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 
concur in the Senate amendment to 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.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia College 
     Access Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to establish a program that 
     enables college-bound residents of the District of Columbia 
     to have greater choices among institutions of higher 
     education.

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (i) the Mayor shall award grants to eligible institutions 
     that enroll eligible students to pay the difference between 
     the tuition and fees charged for in-State students and the 
     tuition and fees charged for out-of-State students on behalf 
     of each eligible student enrolled in the eligible 
     institution.
       (2) Maximum student amounts.--An eligible student shall 
     have paid on the student's behalf under this section--

[[Page 27695]]

       (A) not more than $10,000 for any 1 award year (as defined 
     in section 481 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1088)); and
       (B) a total of not more than $50,000.
       (3) Proration.--The Mayor shall prorate payments under this 
     section for students who attend an eligible institution on 
     less than a full-time basis.
       (b) Reduction for Insufficient Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--If the funds appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (i) for any fiscal year are insufficient to award 
     a grant in the amount determined under subsection (a) on 
     behalf of each eligible student enrolled in an eligible 
     institution, then the Mayor shall--
       (A) first, ratably reduce the amount of the tuition and fee 
     payment made on behalf of each eligible student who has not 
     received funds under this section for a preceding year; and
       (B) after making reductions under subparagraph (A), ratably 
     reduce the amount of the tuition and fee payments made on 
     behalf of all other eligible students.
       (2) Adjustments.--The Mayor may adjust the amount of 
     tuition and fee payments made under paragraph (1) based on--
       (A) the financial need of the eligible students to avoid 
     undue hardship to the eligible students; or
       (B) undue administrative burdens on the Mayor.
       (3) Further adjustments.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), the Mayor may prioritize the making or amount of 
     tuition and fee payments under this subsection based on the 
     income and need of eligible students.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible 
     institution'' means an institution that--
       (A) is a public institution of higher education located--
       (i) in the State of Maryland or the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia; or
       (ii) outside the State of Maryland or the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia, but only if the Mayor--

       (I) determines that a significant number of eligible 
     students are experiencing difficulty in gaining admission to 
     any public institution of higher education located in the 
     State of Maryland or the Commonwealth of Virginia because of 
     any preference afforded in-State residents by the 
     institution;
       (II) consults with the Committee on Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, and the Secretary regarding expanding 
     the program under this section to include such institutions 
     located outside of the State of Maryland or the Commonwealth 
     of Virginia; and
       (III) takes into consideration the projected cost of the 
     expansion and the potential effect of the expansion on the 
     amount of individual tuition and fee payments made under this 
     section in succeeding years;

       (B) is eligible to participate in the student financial 
     assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); and
       (C) enters into an agreement with the Mayor containing such 
     conditions as the Mayor may specify, including a requirement 
     that the institution use the funds made available under this 
     section to supplement and not supplant assistance that 
     otherwise would be provided to eligible students from the 
     District of Columbia.
       (2) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means 
     an individual who--
       (A) was domiciled in the District of Columbia for not less 
     than the 12 consecutive months preceding the commencement of 
     the freshman year at an institution of higher education;
       (B) graduated from a secondary school or received the 
     recognized equivalent of a secondary school diploma on or 
     after January 1, 1998;
       (C) begins the individual's undergraduate course of study 
     within the 3 calendar years (excluding any period of service 
     on active duty in the Armed Forces, or service under the 
     Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) or subtitle D of 
     title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12571 et seq.)) of graduation from a secondary school, 
     or obtaining the recognized equivalent of a secondary school 
     diploma;
       (D) is enrolled or accepted for enrollment, on at least a 
     half-time basis, 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;
       (E) if enrolled in an eligible institution, is maintaining 
     satisfactory progress in the course of study the student is 
     pursuing in accordance with section 484(c) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(c)); and
       (F) has not completed the individual's first undergraduate 
     baccalaureate course of study.
       (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001).
       (4) Mayor.--The term ``Mayor'' means the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia.
       (5) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has 
     the meaning given that term under section 14101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (d) 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 
     to enable an eligible student to enroll in the institution.
       (e) Applications.--Each student desiring a tuition payment 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     eligible institution at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the eligible institution 
     may require.
       (f) Administration of Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Mayor shall carry out the program 
     under this section in consultation with the Secretary. The 
     Mayor may enter into a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement with another public or private entity to administer 
     the program under this section if the Mayor determines that 
     doing so is a more efficient way of carrying out the program.
       (2) Policies and procedures.--The Mayor, in consultation 
     with institutions of higher education eligible for 
     participation in the program authorized under this section, 
     shall develop policies and procedures for the administration 
     of the program.
       (3) Memorandum of agreement.--The Mayor and the Secretary 
     shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement that describes--
       (A) the manner in which the Mayor shall consult with the 
     Secretary with respect to administering the program under 
     this section; and
       (B) any technical or other assistance to be provided to the 
     Mayor by the Secretary for purposes of administering the 
     program under this section (which may include access to the 
     information in the common financial reporting form developed 
     under section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1090)).
       (g) Mayor's Report.--The Mayor shall report to Congress 
     annually regarding--
       (1) the number of eligible students attending each eligible 
     institution and the amount of the grant awards paid to those 
     institutions on behalf of the eligible students;
       (2) the extent, if any, to which a ratable reduction was 
     made in the amount of tuition and fee payments made on behalf 
     of eligible students; and
       (3) the progress in obtaining recognized academic 
     credentials of the cohort of eligible students for each year.
       (h) GAO Report.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     monitor the effect of the program assisted under this section 
     on educational opportunities for eligible students. The 
     Comptroller General shall analyze whether eligible students 
     had difficulty gaining admission to eligible institutions 
     because of any preference afforded in-State residents by 
     eligible institutions, and shall expeditiously report any 
     findings regarding such difficulty to Congress and the Mayor. 
     In addition the Comptroller General shall--
       (1) analyze the extent to which there are an insufficient 
     number of eligible institutions to which District of Columbia 
     students can gain admission, including admission aided by 
     assistance provided under this Act, due to--
       (A) caps on the number of out-of-State students the 
     institution will enroll;
       (B) significant barriers imposed by academic entrance 
     requirements (such as grade point average and standardized 
     scholastic admissions tests); and
       (C) absence of admission programs benefiting minority 
     students;
       (2) assess the impact of the program assisted under this 
     Act on enrollment at the University of the District of 
     Columbia; and
       (3) report the findings of the analysis described in 
     paragraph (1) and the assessment described in paragraph (2) 
     to Congress and the Mayor.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the District of Columbia to carry out 
     this section $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal 
     years. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
       (j) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with 
     respect to payments for periods of instruction that begin on 
     or after January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary 
     may provide financial assistance to the University of the 
     District of Columbia for the fiscal year to enable the 
     university to carry out activities authorized under part B of 
     title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1060 
     et seq.).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the District of Columbia to carry out 
     this section $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
       (c) Special Rule.--For any fiscal year, the University of 
     the District of Columbia may receive financial assistance 
     pursuant to this section, or pursuant to part B of title III 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965, but not pursuant to both 
     this section and such part B.

     SEC. 5. PRIVATE SCHOOL PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (f) the Mayor shall award grants to eligible institutions 
     that enroll eligible students to pay the cost of tuition and 
     fees at the eligible institutions on behalf of each eligible 
     student enrolled in an eligible institution. The Mayor may 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (2) Maximum student amounts.--An eligible student shall 
     have paid on the student's behalf under this section--
       (A) not more than $2,500 for any 1 award year (as defined 
     in section 481 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1088)); and
       (B) a total of not more than $12,500.

[[Page 27696]]

       (3) Proration.--The Mayor shall prorate payments under this 
     section for students who attend an eligible institution on 
     less than a full-time basis.
       (b) Reduction for Insufficient Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--If the funds appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (f) for any fiscal year are insufficient to award 
     a grant in the amount determined under subsection (a) on 
     behalf of each eligible student enrolled in an eligible 
     institution, then the Mayor shall--
       (A) first, ratably reduce the amount of the tuition and fee 
     payment made on behalf of each eligible student who has not 
     received funds under this section for a preceding year; and
       (B) after making reductions under subparagraph (A), ratably 
     reduce the amount of the tuition and fee payments made on 
     behalf of all other eligible students.
       (2) Adjustments.--The Mayor may adjust the amount of 
     tuition and fee payments made under paragraph (1) based on--
       (A) the financial need of the eligible students to avoid 
     undue hardship to the eligible students; or
       (B) undue administrative burdens on the Mayor.
       (3) Further adjustments.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), the Mayor may prioritize the making or amount of 
     tuition and fee payments under this subsection based on the 
     income and need of eligible students.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible 
     institution'' means an institution that--
       (A)(i) is a private, nonprofit, associate or baccalaureate 
     degree-granting, institution of higher education, as defined 
     in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001(a)), the main campus of which is located--
       (I) in the District of Columbia;
       (II) in the city of Alexandria, Falls Church, or Fairfax, 
     or the county of Arlington or Fairfax, in the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia, or a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia located within any such county; or
       (III) in the county of Montgomery or Prince George's in the 
     State of Maryland, or a political subdivision of the State of 
     Maryland located within any such county;
       (ii) is eligible to participate in the student financial 
     assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); and
       (iii) enters into an agreement with the Mayor containing 
     such conditions as the Mayor may specify, including a 
     requirement that the institution use the funds made available 
     under this section to supplement and not supplant assistance 
     that otherwise would be provided to eligible students from 
     the District of Columbia; or
       (B) is a private historically Black college or university 
     (for purposes of this subparagraph such term shall have the 
     meaning given the term ``part B institution'' in section 
     322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1061(2)) the main campus of which is located in the State of 
     Maryland or the Commonwealth of Virginia.
       (2) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means 
     an individual who meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (F) of section 3(c)(2).
       (3) Mayor.--The term ``Mayor'' means the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (d) Application.--Each eligible student desiring a tuition 
     and fee payment under this section shall submit an 
     application to the eligible institution at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such information as the eligible 
     institution may require.
       (e) Administration of Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Mayor shall carry out the program 
     under this section in consultation with the Secretary. The 
     Mayor may enter into a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement with another public or private entity to administer 
     the program under this section if the Mayor determines that 
     doing so is a more efficient way of carrying out the program.
       (2) Policies and procedures.--The Mayor, in consultation 
     with institutions of higher education eligible for 
     participation in the program authorized under this section, 
     shall develop policies and procedures for the administration 
     of the program.
       (3) Memorandum of agreement.--The Mayor and the Secretary 
     shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement that describes--
       (A) the manner in which the Mayor shall consult with the 
     Secretary with respect to administering the program under 
     this section; and
       (B) any technical or other assistance to be provided to the 
     Mayor by the Secretary for purposes of administering the 
     program under this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the District of Columbia to carry out 
     this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years. 
     Such funds shall remain available until expended.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with 
     respect to payments for periods of instruction that begin on 
     or after January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 6. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Personnel.--The Secretary of Education shall arrange 
     for the assignment of an individual, pursuant to subchapter 
     VI of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, to serve as 
     an adviser to the Mayor of the District of Columbia with 
     respect to the programs assisted under this Act.
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--The Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia may use not more than 7 percent of the funds made 
     available for a program under section 3 or 5 for a fiscal 
     year to pay the administrative expenses of a program under 
     section 3 or 5 for the fiscal year.
       (c) Inspector General Review.--Each of the programs 
     assisted under this Act shall be subject to audit and other 
     review by the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Education in the same manner as programs are audited and 
     reviewed under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App.).
       (d) Gifts.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia may 
     accept, use, and dispose of donations of services or property 
     for purposes of carrying out this Act.
       (e) Funding Rule.--Notwithstanding sections 3 and 5, the 
     Mayor may use funds made available--
       (1) under section 3 to award grants under section 5 if the 
     amount of funds made available under section 3 exceeds the 
     amount of funds awarded under section 3 during a time period 
     determined by the Mayor; and
       (2) under section 5 to award grants under section 3 if the 
     amount of funds made available under section 5 exceeds the 
     amount of funds awarded under section 5 during a time period 
     determined by the Mayor.
       (f) Maximum Student Amount Adjustments.--The Mayor shall 
     establish rules to adjust the maximum student amounts 
     described in sections 3(a)(2)(B) and 5(a)(2)(B) for eligible 
     students described in section 3(c)(2) or 5(c)(2) who transfer 
     between the eligible institutions described in section 
     3(c)(1) or 5(c)(1).

  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. Speaker, we have traveled a long way with the D.C. College Access 
Act. From March 4 when we introduced it, to markup in our subcommittee, 
unanimous approval in the Committee on Government Reform chaired by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton); to House passage on May 24, and 
then on to October 19, passage in the Senate with friendly amendments 
which we are pleased to accept today. I am deeply proud of our hard 
work.
  My thanks to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton), the ranking member of the subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia and all of the original cosponsors: The gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran). My thanks to Speaker Hastert, Chairman Dan Burton and Majority 
Leader Dick Armey for their support and for permitting expeditious 
consideration of this. And my thanks to the Clinton administration and 
the Department of Education for working with us in a bipartisan spirit 
of cooperation to work out our differences and move this thing through 
for consideration.
  My thanks to the D.C. Appropriations Chair Ernest Istook and his 
Senate counterpart, Kay Bailey Hutchison, for including the money in 
the budget recommended by the administration. And my thanks to my own 
counterpart in the Senate, George Voinovich, for his patience and 
persistence in having such an excellent hearing and markup and for 
shepherding the amendments. And to Senator Fred Thompson, chairman of 
the Senate committee, for his support. My thanks as well to Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Durbin and Senator Warner for helping us to continue 
to keep this legislation on track and work to improve it.
  And my thanks to some of the staff people who worked on this landmark 
law: My own staff director and counsel, Howie Denis; my chief of staff, 
Peter Sirh; and Jon Bouker of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia's staff.
  I am grateful to those leading regional foundations and companies 
that have come together in an extraordinary and historic effort to 
assist District of Columbia students. The legislation we are passing 
today is essential to those great endeavors in the private sector.

[[Page 27697]]

  In 1995, the District of Columbia faced a crisis of epic proportions. 
Congress, in passing the control board legislation, with its creation 
of the position of chief financial officer, and then in 1997 with the 
passage of the D.C. Revitalization Act and its related reforms, 
embarked on a critically important process to address the crisis in a 
truly bipartisan way. The legislation before us today would not be 
possible but for the progress the city has achieved with the initiative 
of Congress and the executive branch working together, and, I might 
add, with the leadership of Tony Williams and the city council.
  The city's return to the private financial markets is solid evidence 
that what Congress did produced credible numbers and better 
performance. Key elements of our reforms include Federal assumption of 
certain functions performed by State governments, and incentives for 
economic development and private sector jobs. The economic recovery of 
the Nation's capital benefits the entire region and country by 
realizing the vision which has so often been expressed. The new MCI 
Center and the Convention Center project, a tax credit for first-time 
homebuyers, enhanced public safety and water quality are just some of 
the improvements we have seen.
  Two months ago, Speaker Hastert and I attended a moving ceremony at 
the Edison Friendship public charter school in the District. Majority 
Leader Armey, Education Chairman Bill Goodling, Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison and Paul Coverdell were with us. The Edison school and many 
other charter schools represent another great success story in the 
District that Congress has helped us achieve.
  We know that many concerns remain. Many of them are addressed in the 
budget and others will be dealt with later.
  The bill before us today will enable District residents to attend 
public colleges and universities in Virginia and Maryland at in-State 
tuition rates. We have included tuition assistance grants as another 
option for private colleges in and adjacent to the District in those 
counties, including historically black colleges and universities in 
Virginia and Maryland. The CBO estimate fits within the money this bill 
authorizes and which the appropriators have included in their bill.
  Mayor Williams has said that this bill is very, very important not 
only in improving education but in bringing the city back. I believe it 
is the best money we can spend and is a shining example of what a 
bipartisan urban agenda can achieve. H.R. 974 will level the playing 
field for District high school graduates. It will give them the key to 
higher education in this region.
  Back on March 4 when I introduced the bill, we went to Eastern High 
School with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. It is not 
far from the Capitol. We announced the proposal to students and 
faculty. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and Mayor 
Williams were with me at the time. I was deeply moved by the reaction 
of the students. I will never forget how many took our hands and looked 
into our eyes and thanked us for introducing this measure. This gives 
them hope for the future, hope for an affordable college education, 
something that is enjoyed by students in 50 States in the United States 
but is not a reality in our Nation's capital.
  Fighting for educational opportunity is one of the reasons I entered 
public life. I am proud of so much that we have been able to do in the 
Nation's capital for the almost 5 years that I have had the privilege 
of serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. 
Economic development, public safety, the real estate market and so many 
other aspects of city life have changed for the better and the city is 
working to improve itself. This is something that I think ultimately 
had to happen and is happening. But nothing has given me more 
satisfaction than working to improve educational opportunities for the 
city's youth. We need a healthy city to have a healthy Washington 
region.
  This bill, expanding higher educational choices, is an enormous leap 
forward. It is our vision for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 974, the D.C. College Access Act, facing its final 
House consideration today, is a splendid and near typical example of 
the bipartisan way in which the gentleman from Virginia and I have 
worked together since he became chair of the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia 4 years ago. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for his unflagging and indispensable leadership and for the 
energetic work of his staff, especially Peter Sirh and Howie Denis, who 
worked hand in hand with my own able legislative director, Jon Bouker, 
every step of the way until we have gotten to final passage today.
  H.R. 974 marks a turning point in our approach to lifting the 
Nation's capital from fiscal crisis and in affording its citizens a way 
to overcome the handicap of being without a State to assist it in 
offering higher education. Because of the importance of higher 
education today and its links to full and equal citizenship, the D.C. 
College Access Act is a bill of historic proportions and ranks as one 
of the most important pieces of legislation for District of Columbia 
residents in our history. I am especially pleased that final passage of 
H.R. 974 today will allow Mayor Tony Williams and the city, working 
together with the Department of Education, to have the program up and 
running next fall.

                              {time}  1600

  Both the House and Senate and the administration have worked closely 
and collegially on H.R. 974. All deserve credit and praise today. I 
want to thank Senator George Voinovich, Government Affairs Subcommittee 
Chair; Senate ranking member, Richard Durbin; and Senator Jim Jeffords 
for their vital work in helping to craft an acceptable compromise 
between the Senate and House versions of the bill and for securing 
unanimous passage in the Senate on October 20,1999.
  I also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who has 
consistently supported and pressed forward bills benefiting the 
District; the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), whose valuable assistance has been unfailing; and 
appropriation chairs, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and Kay 
Bailey Hutchinson for their critical support in assuring necessary 
funding for the program; and, of course, Secretary of Education Dick 
Riley for indispensable work on this bill in both houses.
  I want particularly to recognize the President who included funds for 
this bill in his fiscal year 2000 budget, not only opening the way for 
the bill to pass today, but also assuring that there would be 
sufficient funds to do the job.
  H.R. 974 offers District residents State public higher education 
alternatives similar to those available to other Americans as a matter 
of right. The central feature of H.R. 974 is an authorization for the 
Federal Government to pay the difference between the cost of in-state 
and out-of-state tuition fees for D.C. residents permitting students, 
once admitted, to attend public colleges and universities outside of 
the District and at in-state rates.
  The mayor will administer the in-state tuition program in 
consultation with the Department of Education. In addition to full in-
state tuition, the bill authorizes $2,500 per student for D.C. 
residents to attend private colleges and universities in the District 
and in certain counties surrounding the District.
  The bill also contains an authorization granting the District's own 
State university, the University of the District of Columbia funded 
historical black college and university status in recognition of the 
fact that many D.C. students prefer to attend their own State 
university or for a variety of reasons cannot attend college outside of 
the District. UDC has already received HBCU funds beginning in fiscal 
year 1999.
  Young people graduating from D.C. high schools now will be treated as 
are students in the 50 States. To qualify, a student must live in the 
District for 12

[[Page 27698]]

months before beginning college, must have graduated from high school 
after January 1, 1998, must begin college within 3 years of graduation, 
must be pursuing her first undergraduate degree and must be enrolled at 
least half time. The college must also sign a formal agreement with the 
mayor's office.
  The bill we consider today contains three important protections 
negotiated with the Senate. First, the mayor will have the latitude to 
expend the in-state tuition program to the 50 States subject to cost 
instead of a blanket confinement to scarce slots in Maryland and 
Virginia. Second, students who will be freshmen, sophomores, and 
juniors when the program begins next year will qualify for in-state 
tuition rates. I appreciate that Senators Voinovich and Durbin worked 
with us on this provision inasmuch as the Senate version of the bill 
originally applied only to freshmen.
  District residents are particularly enthusiastic about the expansion 
of this particular provision because typically many go to college with 
just enough money for 1 year, yielding a high college dropout rate 
because of inability to meet college expenses. Third, institutions in 
counties close to the District including HBCUs in Maryland and Virginia 
where many D.C. residents often attend will be eligible.
  It is important to note that our work on H.R. 974 is bolstered by an 
extraordinary private sector effort which is raising an even larger 
amount to help District students prepare to attend college and to 
supplement the costs beyond the tuition costs offered in this bill. 
Business leaders led by Don Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, 
and Lucio Noto, CEO of Mobil Oil, have already gotten commitments of 
$17 million and plan to raise $20 million in private funds to 
supplement the funds authorized by H.R. 974. This bill is a true 
public-private effort with the private sector more than equaling what 
we do here today.
  The final passage of H.R. 974 today is a milestone in the effort to 
provide equal rights and citizenship for D.C. residents. This bill 
fills a unique and large educational gap that has had a particularly 
harmful effect on families here. Inequality in higher education 
opportunity hampers the continuing revitalization of the Nation's 
capital because, without the array of State offerings for higher 
education, residents have an incentive to move out of the District to 
neighboring jurisdictions.
  As college costs have escalated, higher education opportunities have 
significantly affected, indeed caused, flight from the District. 
Consequently, the city has been left with many residents unable to meet 
their needs or talents to access to appropriate institutions from 
junior and specialized colleges to 4- year institutions. Thus, many 
have been left without the education necessary to contribute to the 
city's tax base. With the passage of H.R. 974, District residents will 
no longer be the only Americans among the States without access to the 
necessary choices for higher education today.
  I want to express my personal thanks once again to the leaders of my 
committee and subcommittee and appropriation committees, as well as 
their counterparts in the Senate and the administration. I want to also 
express the gratitude of the parents and the children of the District 
who have let me and my office know in no uncertain terms that they 
enthusiastically and overwhelmingly support H.R. 974 and that they look 
forward to the historic opportunities provided by the District of 
Columbia College Access Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the vice chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and original sponsor of this 
legislation, who helped shepherd it through the subcommittee.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 974, the 
District of Columbia College Access Act, as amended by the Senate. I 
want to add my congratulations to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) for the inception of the bill and carrying it through with his 
leadership inch by inch. I want to also commend the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her leadership in that; and 
as a matter of fact as has been mentioned and should be reiterated, 
this is an excellent example of bipartisan cooperation for the benefit 
of the United States on both sides of the aisle in both Houses with 
several committees on both sides who have shepherded this bill through.
  And I do want to add my thanks also to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking 
member. But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has been there from 
the beginning, and his wonderful staff and the minority staff have been 
there and the cosponsors; and I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran), who is also a cosponsor of this bill.
  This higher education bill provides an opportunity for District of 
Columbia residents who are high school graduates to attend colleges in 
Maryland and Virginia at in-state tuition rates. I am pleased to be an 
original cosponsor of the D.C. College Access Act. I believe that it 
offers an extraordinary value. It will ensure that the most 
economically disadvantaged students in our Nation's Capital are going 
to have access to a variety of colleges, and it is going to go a long 
way toward ensuring that the Metropolitan Washington area has a well-
educated workforce.
  Access to college is one of the greatest achievements of our American 
education system. Escalating costs of our Nation's colleges and 
universities have created anxiety about college affordability. As a 
matter of fact, I know firsthand about that disease called ``mal 
tuition,'' paying those bills. In terms of anxiety, paying for college 
ranks with how to pay for health care or housing or how to cover the 
expenses of taking care of an elderly relative.
  From issues that affect women to children at risk, I have always 
tried to raise my voice in support of equality of opportunity. Well, 
the D.C. College Access Act will provide equal opportunities for 
students in the District. There is little doubt that high school 
graduates who live in the District have far fewer college choices than 
students in other parts of the country. Residents in all 50 American 
States have a network of State-supported colleges to attend, and this 
College Access Act will level the playing field for residents in the 
District of Columbia.
  I have received many letters of support from my constituents in 
Montgomery County, Maryland, for H.R. 974. Montgomery College, a 
community college, is particularly interested in playing a major role 
in serving District residents. The college already enrolls nearly 150 
District of Columbia residents, and even at their most costly out-of-
state tuition rate with plans to expand the Tacoma Park, Maryland 
campus, the college expects to better accommodate more students from 
the District.
  So again I want to reiterate my strong support for the bill and the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 974. With the swift passage of this bill, we 
are continuing a strong and necessary investment in education which 
will help America stay on top and help us to maintain our economic 
vitality into the 21st century.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is not only a cosponsor of the bill but is 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia 
whose leadership was important in assuring funding for this bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia, who so ably represents the people of the District 
of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, the students of the District of Columbia are at a unique 
educational disadvantage today. They are the only students in the 
entire continental United States who do not have access to the State 
college and university system that every other American family is able 
to avail themselves of. I am not endorsing the concept of statehood, 
which would be perhaps one way to achieve that objective, although we

[[Page 27699]]

would still then have to find the resources that would be necessary to 
build a comparable college system; but I am endorsing the notion that 
we should do everything we can to establish a level playing field for 
those students who grow up in the District of Columbia, and this 
legislation will accomplish that objective.
  There are some extraordinarily gifted young men and women in the 
District of Columbia, but we will never fully realize their potential 
until they have access to the excellence that our college and 
university systems are able to provide; and by expanding their access 
to the colleges and universities in Virginia and Maryland particularly, 
they will have that kind of opportunity which is bound to benefit all 
of us, our economy, our society.
  As the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) so well 
knows, those students, those young men and women are, in fact, going to 
enrich the campuses and the classrooms of the colleges and universities 
in Virginia, as the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) realizes 
that the same will happen in Maryland. We are doing ourselves a service 
with this legislation, and that is why the D.C. appropriation act 
includes $17 million to fund this authorization.

                              {time}  1615

  This is a good idea. It will be one of the legacies that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) will be able to point to with 
pride, as I am sure his able assistants, Peter and Howard will as well, 
and John on the staff of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton). It takes a lot of work, it takes a lot of commitment to 
get legislation through as quickly as this was, but this provides a 
true incentive so that we will see the real talent and potential of the 
young men and women of the District of Columbia fully realized. It is 
good legislation, and we should pass it unanimously.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague from Virginia for his 
eloquent remarks and also his help in the appropriations process and 
from all aspects as we worked to improve the district. The gentleman 
has been a true colleague in the essential part, as that term implies, 
in terms of working together to make these kinds of things happen for 
the region, because we recognize this is not just a city issue, it is a 
justice issue, but it is also a regional issue of great import, and I 
thank him.
  Let me go briefly and talk about some of the changes in this bill 
from the Senate that were changes from the House version that passed 
earlier. These Senate amendments enable D.C. residents who are high 
school graduates the opportunity to pay in-state tuition rates upon 
admission to state colleges in Virginia and Maryland only. They would 
have to be admitted as out of state students, so they are competing in 
a larger pool, although the States themselves of Virginia and Maryland 
have the opportunity to create select pools for District residents 
should they choose to do that. But they will not be taking from in-
state students in Virginia and taking in-state places.
  The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition would be 
paid from new Federal money being authorized and appropriated, up to 
$10,000 per individual in any award year.
  This also provides tuition assistance grants of $2,500 for D.C. 
resident high school graduates who will be attending private colleges 
in D.C. and adjacent counties in Virginia and Maryland and funding of 
$5 million is authorized for this in FY 2000. It also includes private 
historically black colleges in Virginia and Maryland. This was an 
amendment that my colleague Senator Warner put on in the other body.
  I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) on working also for the University of the District of 
Columbia, that they are not lost in this. In fact, they are a 
beneficiary of this legislation as well. She has given them HCBU status 
and additional funding for the University of the District of Columbia 
so they can hone and I think make greater their role for education than 
they do today in the District. That should not be lost sight of as 
well.
  What UDC does not have and cannot be by itself, as no university can 
be by itself, is a state university system. It will be one component of 
the educational equation for D.C. residents, but it will now have 
assistance from other areas as well, and, with this additional money, I 
think its role will be strengthened in offering educational 
opportunities to students from the District of Columbia.
  There is no means test in this legislation, but if an authorized, 
appropriated amount is insufficient, there is a ratable reduction, and 
if a ratable reduction is necessary, the mayor, the local leaders 
there, will have the ability to prioritize based on income and need of 
eligible students. So we will be having the city make that, and it will 
not be Congressionally mandated, should we have more people use this 
legislation than are currently foreseen as doing so.
  Actually, I think that would be a good thing. We hope this is 
utilized, because I think the more people who are able to use this and 
go to college, the better off we all are. Residents in the 50 states 
already have a network of state supported colleges to attend. This bill 
levels the playing field for students in the District of Columbia. High 
school graduates would have to be a D.C. resident for at least one year 
prior to eligibility, and they would have to begin undergraduate 
courses within 3 years of high school graduation, excluding active 
military service. This applies to those receiving recognized equivalent 
of secondary school diplomas. It provides for an incentive for 
population stability in the Nation's capital. It gives graduates more 
choices. It does not affect admissions policies or standards. Regional 
companies and foundations are helping students qualify for college 
admission, and this legislation compliments that effort.
  My friend from the District of Columbia mentioned Lou Nodo at Mobil 
Corporation, Don Graham at the Washington Post. Steve Case at America 
OnLine has been another leader, and many other companies in the region 
I think have contributed private dollars that will compliment this 
effort.
  We have had extraordinary bipartisan Congressional and administration 
cooperation, as my colleague from Maryland noted. This will commence 
applying to students who graduated in January and June of 1998. The 
city will run the program with Federal oversight. Disbursements will be 
made directly to the eligible colleges, and UDC, as I noted before, 
will receive $1.5 million additional per year if it does not receive 
funds as a historically black college under the Higher Education Act 
from this legislation.
  Once again though, the basic concept is to give children in the 
District of Columbia the same educational opportunities for an 
affordable college education that all of our children enjoy in the 50 
states, an affordable college education. This will help narrow the gap 
between the very rich and the very poor in an information age, and 
education is the key to narrowing that gap.
  In Fairfax County, across the river from the District, over 90 
percent of those who will be graduating from high school this year or 
are eligible to graduate from high school, will go on to higher 
education. In the District of Columbia, those 18-year-olds, if they 
graduate on time, it will be less than 25 percent, a huge disparity. 
One of the reasons for this is for many of these kids there is no hope 
or opportunity of an affordable college education. This legislation 
takes an important step in giving them hope for the future.
  I will just note in Fairfax County today our unemployment rate is 
under 2 percent, it is about 1.8 percent. It is about 3\1/2\ times that 
in the District of Columbia. Over the last 10 years, our economy 
regionally has grown. Our Nation has prospered. My Congressional 
district has prospered. But in the bottom quarter of economic strata 
there has been very little movement, and in places in the District 
there has been little movement. The way to equalize this is through 
educational opportunities, and it is not by the government

[[Page 27700]]

coming in with greater subsidies. That is a last resort. Giving people 
equal opportunity is the best resort. That is what this legislation 
does.
  It guarantees a quality of opportunity by allowing college and 
technology educations to be affordable for everyone. When the 
educational opportunities are equal, when college is affordable for 
D.C. residents, as well as Maryland and Virginia residents, we are 
going to see more District of Columbia students attending college, 
being trained for the jobs of the future, so they can start businesses, 
earn good salaries, support their children, return a tax base to the 
District of Columbia, and make our Nation's Capital the city it 
deserves to be and has the potential to become.
  This legislation is a giant step forward. It is not the whole 
equation, but it is a vital part of the equation, Mr. Speaker. I urge 
my colleagues to pass this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank my good partner in the 
District in this House, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for 
the way he has worked steadfastly on this bill. When we met small 
problems along the way, and they were almost always small, we simply 
gathered our forces and with his staff and mine and he and me, we kept 
charging forward.
  The way in which we worked on this bill should be noted as well, 
because when we got to the Senate and found that there were 
differences, instead of squaring off, we simply closed in and Senate 
and House worked together until we got a bill that both of us could in 
fact support.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to place this bill in its historic context. I 
believe it fair to say that this bill belongs in the category of bills 
that have made an historic difference to the District of Columbia, 
bills like the Home Rule Act, the Revitalization Act, and my tax 
benefits such as the $5,000 home buyer credit.
  This bill brings the kind of benefits to the District that will have 
the same kind of broad effect on individuals, as well as the city 
itself. It keeps the city's demographics intact, and yet it aids 
individuals. It is a win-win in all of the ways that matter.
  This bill, as the chairman has indicated, did not overlook the 
residents of the District of Columbia who cannot leave this town. Many 
of them have family obligations, many of them do not want to leave the 
District, so UDC receives historically black college and university 
funded status, something the university has sought for decades, and 
receives in this bill only because this bill opened opportunities in 
other ways and the chairman was willing to work with me to make sure 
that in this particular way we filled this gap for students who remain 
in the District.
  It is a win-win for youngsters who have friends in other states 
across the United States and see them having a choice of institutions, 
from junior college, to all kinds of specialized schools, to 4-year 
colleges, and see themselves with a struggling state university, one 
that many of them love, but simply does not provide them the array of 
choices that youngsters in the 50 states have.
  It is a win-win for the region because all of us understand that our 
region has no borders and that when we work together and open 
opportunities for District residents, the entire region benefits.
  It is a win-win for private business, which has stepped in with its 
own version of the D.C. College Access Act, a private version which 
inspired in many ways the public version which we pass today.
  Mr. Speaker, everywhere I go in the city I meet the same response to 
this bill. I go in the poorest sections of the city all the time, and I 
go into the sections of our city where people have many opportunities, 
and the only way you would know the difference is by the color of their 
skin, because you certainly will not know it by the way in which they 
have received this bill.
  This bill is of the very first priority to District residents, the 
District residents who would have no other opportunity to go to 
institutions of the kind that will be available to them except through 
this bill, and residents who have other opportunities, but would as 
soon move out of the District than be left to pay the difference, to 
pay the fine, as it were, of remaining a District resident once their 
children get ready for college.
  Like my tax bills, this bill draws a big circle around the city and 
all gathered to join it. This bill is not one that we might have 
thought would pass even a couple of years ago, but with the city 
returning to full health, it is just the kind of response from the 
Congress that will encourage the city to do what it needs to do, 
because the sine qua non of this bill is that there is no free ride and 
no free lunch. You cannot get access to this bill unless you graduate 
from high school. What this bill will do will be to encourage 
youngsters who did not see any reason to go through all the work to 
graduate from high school because there was nothing there afterwards 
for them. Now there is the same thing that there would be if they lived 
in any of the 50 states.
  I speak, I know, for the residents of the District of Columbia and 
every ward of the city when I express my gratitude to the chairman and 
to all who have worked on this bill and to the Congress of the United 
States for what I hope will be final passage unanimously today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge unanimous 
passage of H.R. 974.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague, I have enjoyed working 
with her on this legislation. I think it is landmark. I appreciate the 
support of the other Members, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the other 
sponsors, many from the region, some outside it, and the support of the 
administration. Without all of us working together, putting aside some 
of the jurisdictional issues, we would not be where we are today.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act.
  This legislation would allow high school graduates from the District 
of Columbia to pay in-State tuition rates at public colleges and 
universities in Maryland and Virginia. Specifically, the bill would 
allow District students to apply for up to $10,000 a year, subject to a 
$50,000 cap, to offset the difference between in-State and out-of-State 
tuition rates. Furthermore, students who choose to attend private 
schools in the District and the adjacent Maryland and Virginia counties 
may also apply for up to $2,500 to offset the cost of their private 
tuition.
  Although the District of Columbia Appropriations Act has not been 
signed into law, I am pleased the latest version contains $17 million 
for this important initiative.
  As many of you know, I graduated high school just across the border 
in Prince Georges County in 1957. My parents were from very modest 
means and quite frankly were not in the financial position to help me 
pay for college. I consider myself lucky though. Lucky because when my 
stepfather, who was in the Air Force, was transferred up to Andrews Air 
Force Base our family settled in Maryland.
  Going part time I was able to go to the University of Maryland. I 
used to go to school during the day and at night I worked first as a 
file clerk at the Central Intelligence Agency and then on Capitol Hill. 
It was not always easy balancing school and work and it took me 6 years 
to earn my undergraduate degree. However, I was able to do it because I 
had in-state tuition and I consider my decision to attend the 
University of Maryland as one of the best decisions I have made in my 
life.
  The legislation that we have before us affords high school graduates 
in the District of Columbia the same opportunity that I had. The 
opportunity to attend an excellent university at a reasonable cost.
  I would like to thank Congressman Davis and Congresswoman Norton for 
all their work on this legislation which I am pleased to cosponsor. 
Additionally, I would like to thank D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee 
Chairman Istook and Ranking Member Moran for including funding for this 
legislation in their bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and as

[[Page 27701]]

a cosponsor of this legislation, I rise to encourage my colleagues to 
support H.R. 974, the District of Columbia College Access Act.
  The Washington metropolitan area is one of America's leading centers 
for high technology. Telecommunications giant MCI was founded here. In 
the suburbs lies America Online, the MAE East, and several powerful and 
growing engines of the global internet economy. Yet, that growth, and 
these opportunities, lie beyond the reach of young people in the 
Nation's Capital City, who lack affordable access to many of this 
region's institutions of higher learning.
  We can change this situation for the better, for the betterment of 
our country, and for the betterment of the young people of this great 
city.
  I want the young people of the District of Columbia to have a 
fighting chance to achieve the American dream. I want for the global 
internet economy to be their economy too, and to be of their making.
  The D.C. College Access Act simply provides the young people of the 
District of Columbia an opportunity to have access to discounted ``in-
state' tuition rates to public and private educational institutions in 
the state of Maryland, the commonwealth of Virginia, and here in the 
District of Columbia.
  The D.C. appropriations bill recently adopted by the House provides 
$17 million toward this program. I hope that the President will support 
that appropriation.
  I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for 
developing this important legislation. And I also hope that my 
colleagues will support this bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton of Texas). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the 
House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, 
H.R. 974.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________