```

[House Report 110-112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-112

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

 
     TO EXTEND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

 April 30, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Waxman, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1124]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Officel

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1124) to extend the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Legislative History..............................................     3
Section-by-Section...............................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Rollcall Votes...................................................     3
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................     3
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................     3
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     3
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     4
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................     4
Unfunded Mandates Statement......................................     4
Earmark Identification...........................................     4
Committee Estimate...............................................     4
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...     4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported.............     6
Additional Views.................................................     8

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1124, a bill to extend the District of Columbia 
College Access Act of 1999, was introduced on February 16, 
2007, by Rep. Tom Davis and cosponsored by Rep. Danny K. Davis 
and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
    The bill reauthorizes for an additional five years the 
District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program (DCTAG). 
DCTAG will expire on September 30, 2007, unless reauthorized.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    In 1999, Congress passed P.L. 106-98, the District of 
Columbia College Access Act, authorizing the establishment of a 
Tuition Assistance Grant Program (DCTAG) in the nation's 
capital. DCTAG provides limited financial assistance to D.C. 
high school graduates pursuing higher education opportunities 
in other states. The original legislation authorized funding 
for the program for five years (FY00-FY05). In 2004, Congress 
reauthorized the College Access Act for an additional two 
years, through fiscal year 2007.
    The purpose of the District of Columbia College Access Act 
is to address the District of Columbia's lack of a state 
university system by providing D.C. high school graduates with 
access to higher education opportunities available to residents 
of other states. The District of Columbia is not a state and 
does not have a state education system to provide affordable 
higher education opportunities for its high school graduates.
    Additionally, the legislation was to deter tax-paying 
families in the District from moving to surrounding states in 
order to take advantage of in-state higher education options 
available to residents in other states. Such moves had been 
depriving the District of much needed tax revenue.
    DCTAG, administered by the mayor of the District of 
Columbia, authorizes the federal government to provide tuition 
scholarships to District high school graduates. Under the 
program, District students may attend public colleges or 
universities in the United States at or near the in-state 
tuition rate or receive $2,500 annually to attend certain 
private colleges within the Washington Metropolitan area or 
private Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). 
Funding under DCTAG is capped at $10,000 per year for public 
colleges, with a lifetime cap of $50,000 total per student. 
DCTAG serves as a substitute for an expanded university system 
in the District, which has only one public university, the 
University of the District of Columbia.
    DCTAG has doubled the total number of District students 
attending college since 1999-2000, the school year before the 
program started. For the most recent school year, 2005-2006, 
DCTAG provided over $30 million in college scholarships for 
over 4,700 students enrolled in universities and colleges in 45 
states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
To date the program has assisted 11,000 students.
    DCTAG is currently funded at $33 million. The President's 
budget and the District of Columbia's budget propose increasing 
funding for the program to $35.1 million for FY 2008.

                          Legislative History

    H.R. 1124 was introduced on February 16, 2007, and referred 
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
    The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and 
the District of Columbia, held a hearing on the bill on March 
22, 2007. On March 27, 2007, the Subcommittee held a markup to 
consider H.R. 1124, and forwarded the bill to Full Committee by 
voice-vote. On March 29, 2007, the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform held a markup to consider H.R. 1124, and 
ordered the bill reported by voice vote.

                           Section-by-Section

Section 1. 5-Year reauthorization of Tuition Assistance Programs

    This section would reauthorize the Tuition Assistance Grant 
Program for an additional five years, through fiscal year 2012. 
This section would amend sections 3(i) and 5(f) of the District 
of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 by striking ``each of 
the 7 succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each of the 12 
succeeding fiscal years.''

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 29, 2007, the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform held a markup to consider H.R. 1124, and 
ordered the bill reported by voice-vote.

                             Rollcall Votes

    No rollcall votes were held.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill provides limited financial assistance to D.C. high 
school graduates pursuing higher education opportunities in 
colleges and universities in other states. Legislative branch 
employees and their families, to the extent that they are 
otherwise eligible for the benefits provided by this 
legislation, have equal access to its benefits.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions 
of this report, and include addressing D.C.'s lack of a state 
university system by providing limited financial assistance to 
D.C. high school graduates pursuing higher education 
opportunities in other states.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the Committee must include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law 
proposed by H.R. 1124. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the 
Constitution of the United States grants Congress the power to 
enact this law.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                      Unfunded Mandates Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement on 
whether the provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. 
In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received 
a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    H.R. 1124 does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1124. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following cost estimate for H.R. 1124 from the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office:

H.R. 1124--A bill to extend the District of Columbia College Access Act 
        of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 1124 would amend the District of Columbia 
College Access Act of 1999 and reauthorize the District of 
Columbia tuition assistance grant (DCTAG) program for students 
who are residents of Washington, D.C. Current law authorizes 
the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary through 
fiscal year 2007, and H.R. 1124 would extend this authorization 
through fiscal year 2012. CBO estimates that the necessary 
appropriations would total $208 million over the 2008-2012 
period. Outlays would match this total over the same period. 
Enacting the bill would have no significant impact on direct 
spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1124 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1124 is presented in the following 
table. The cost of this legislation falls within budget 
function 500 (education, training, employment, and social 
services).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority \1\..................................       33        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................       33        0        0        0        0        0
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level.........................        0       30       41       44       46       47
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        0       30       41       44       46       47
Spending Under H.R. 1124:
    Estimated Authorization Level \1\.....................       33       30       41       44       46       47
    Estimated Outlays.....................................       33       30       41       44       46       47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2007 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the D.C. tuition assistance program.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
1124 will be enacted during 2007 and that the estimated amounts 
will be appropriated for each year.

Current law

    Under current law, DCTAG provides financial assistance to 
D.C. residents who attend public colleges outside of the 
District of Columbia, private postsecondary institutions in the 
District of Columbia, Maryland, or Virginia, or any 
historically black college or university. The private-school 
tuition grants are restricted to nonprofit institutions. 
Students who attend public schools receive assistance equal to 
the difference between the tuition paid by residents of the 
state in which the institution is located and the tuition 
charged to nonresident students, with an annual limit of 
$10,000 and a lifetime limit of $50,000. Private-school 
students receive a $2,500 maximum annual grant, with a lifetime 
limit of $12,500.
    According to data from the District of Columbia's State 
Education Office (SEO), the cost of DCTAG has grown 
substantially since the program's inception (academic year 
2000-2001). For the 2005-2006 academic year, the most recent 
year for which final data are available, just over 3,800 
students attending public institutions and 900 students 
attending private schools received awards. Both the number of 
participants and the size of average award have increased over 
time. Growth has been particularly high for students attending 
public schools.
    Current law authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary through fiscal year 2007. The Congress 
appropriated $33 million for this program in fiscal year 2007, 
although costs will likely exceed this total. Because costs for 
DCTAG were lower than the appropriated sums during the early 
years of the program, however, the SEO has been able to use 
carryover funds to supplement appropriated funds to make grants 
in recent years. As a result, the SEO has about $42 million 
available for the current academic year. The office has 
allocated just over $39 million for this award-year, but 
because not all students who receive award letters enroll in 
school, SEO's spending for financial assistance will likely be 
closer to $35 million. SEO also spends about 3 percent of its 
funds on operating costs.

Proposed extension

    H.R. 1124 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as 
are necessary for DCTAG through 2012. CBO assumes that the SEO 
would use all of its estimated $7 million in carryover funds in 
2008, so while program costs would probably total almost $38 
million, additional federal funds needed to cover those costs 
would total only $30 million. CBO estimates that the necessary 
appropriations and resulting outlays would total $208 million 
over the 2008-2012 period. (Federal funds are disbursed and 
outlays are recorded when the SEO receives the funds, not when 
it actually makes the grants.) Based on population and high 
school graduation projections from the Census Bureau and the 
National Center for Education Statistics, respectively, CBO 
estimates that the number of participants would continue to 
grow, but at a slower rate than in the early years of the 
program. In addition, some of the early growth was likely 
attributable to recruitment efforts, which would be expected to 
have a smaller effect as DCTAG matures.
    CBO estimates that a total of about 5,500 students annually 
would participate in the program by 2012. Based on data from 
the SEO and the College Board, CBO also estimates that the 
average cost per grant would continue to rise as the cost of 
tuition and fees at both public and private schools rises, 
although a growing share of the grants would be limited by the 
annual caps. On that basis, CBO estimates that the average cost 
per grant would reach $9,500 for public schools and about 
$2,350 for private schools by 2012, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary funds.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1124 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Previous CBO estimate: On March 14, 2007, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 343, a bill to extend the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999, as ordered reported by the 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
on February 15, 2007 . That bill also would authorize the 
appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the tuition 
assistance program through fiscal year 2012. The estimated 
costs for S. 342 are identical to those for H.R. 1124.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Justin Humphrey. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum. Impact on the Private Sector: Fatimot Ladipo.
    Estimate approved by: Peter A. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE XXXVIII OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBTITLE IX--COLLEGE ACCESS ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 27--COLLEGE ACCESS ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 38-2702. Public school program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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 (subject to 38-
2706) such sums as may be necessary for each of the [7] 12 
succeeding fiscal years. Such funds shall remain available 
until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 38-2704. Private school program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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 (subject to 38-
2706) such sums as may be necessary for each of the [7] 12 
succeeding fiscal years. Such funds shall remain available 
until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER TOM DAVIS

    We have traveled a long road with the District of Columbia 
College Access Act--from initial introduction on March 1, 1999 
until today. That journey took us through the predecessor 
Subcommittee, which I then chaired, to the full Government 
Reform Committee, to the House and Senate Floor, and then to 
the White House, where President Bill Clinton signed the 
measure on November 12, 1999. Every step of the way, the bill 
to create the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program was 
unanimously approved on voice votes. President Clinton included 
sufficient money in his budget submission that year, and a 
Statement of Administration Policy endorsed the approach we had 
taken in authorizing use of those funds.
    We should be deeply proud of the determined, bi-partisan 
effort which resulted in enactment of this measure and its 
reauthorization two years ago. Then, as now, we are grateful 
for the support of our Senate colleagues, particularly Senators 
Warner, Voinovich and Durbin. And city leaders have embraced 
the program and made it the success we know today. Both former 
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and the current Mayor, Adrian 
Fenty, have been strong supporters, and we appreciate their 
continued advocacy on behalf of the City's students.
    This law is a classic example of leveling of the playing 
field. Since the program went into effect, the graduation rate 
for public school students in the city has doubled. All 
District students have another strong incentive to stay in 
school.
    The five-year reauthorization before us today will enable 
District residents to continue to attend colleges and 
universities throughout the nation at in-state rates. The 
President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget includes sufficient funds 
to make that happen. No state, county or city is required to 
supplement its in-state tuition rate with local funds. This is 
a unique and highly successful federal investment. Suggestions 
to cap that investment or require funds from the City would 
penalize that success.
    In March of 1999, just after we introduced the first bill, 
Ms. Norton and I went to nearby Eastern High School to talk 
with students about their hopes for the future. I will never 
forget them. It was deeply moving. Many took our hands, looked 
deep into our eyes, and told us how much they wanted the 
opportunity to pursue higher learning. Their trust and the 
hopes of so many future District students hungry to seize their 
futures rest on what we do here today.
    I'm proud of all we have been able to accomplish for, and 
with, the Nation's Capital since 1995, when the city was 
literally bankrupt. Economic development, public safety, the 
real estate market, and so many other aspects of city life have 
changed for the better. But nothing has given me more 
satisfaction than working to improve the range of options for 
the District's students. Fighting for equal educational 
opportunity is one of the reasons I entered public life.
    We need a healthy city to have a healthy Metropolitan 
Washington Region. Reauthorizing this law, which has expanded 
higher educational choices, is an enormous leap forward. It is 
a critical element of our strategic vision for a vibrant 
future.

                                                         Tom Davis.

                                  

```