A bill to amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to reauthorize for 2 additional years the public school and private school tuition assistance programs established under the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill. This bill passed out of full committee on July 14.

The bill before us totals $560 million in Federal funds and $8.2 billion in local funds. Within this total, the District expects to receive approximately $1.9 billion in Federal grant funds.

The bill is the product of hard work by every member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I personally want to thank each of them for their input into the bill. I especially want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for his advice, counsel, and support in the development of this bill. I enjoyed working with him on behalf of the city of Washington.

The subcommittee held hearings and visited many local sites, including the District of Columbia public schools and charter schools, and police and fire department facilities, to name just a few. We developed this bill with the input from members of the subcommittee, other House Members, the Mayor and city council, and interested citizens.

I believe that this bill continues Congress's commitment to our Nation's Capital. As with every piece of legislation, there are many deserving projects that could not be accommodated within our funding allocation, but this is a balanced and equitable bill, a bill that everyone can and should support.

I am pleased to note that the District of Columbia continues to make significant progress in improving both its financial and program management. This is the seventh balanced budget the District has submitted to Congress for review; and, once again, the District received a clean audit from the city's independent auditors. The city also had a recent upgrading in its bond rating by Moody's Investors Service to an A rating, and this is the first time the city has received an A rating from all three of the major rating agencies. It should be remembered that it was not long ago that the city's credit rating was the lowest of the low. Mayor Williams and the city council should be commended for their actions.

After detailed review of the budget, the bill continues the Federal commitment began in 1997 for funding the District of Columbia courts as well as the Defender Services and the Court Services and the Defender Supervision Agency and the Public Defender Service. The bill also provides $118.9 million for other high-priority District and congressional programs projects.

Among these: $25.6 million for the recently authorized and very successful resident tuition support program; $15 million for emergency planning and security costs; $10 million for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority to continue the combined sewer overflow project; $3 million for continued work on the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative; as well as $7 million for the capital development in the District to complete construction of a multiagency unified communications center, which benefits police, fire, EMS, and other city agencies; $6 million for a new public library learning center initiative; and $5 million for foster care improvement.

At the city's request, the bill also changes the city's reserve requirement from 7 to 6 percent. This change frees up additional resources, provides the city with more flexibility in balancing its budget, and does so without impacting the city's favorable bond rating.

As I noted earlier, the District has accomplished much, but still more needs to be done. We are particularly troubled by some of the more intractable problems facing the District that seem to revolve around its children. If this bill has a theme, it is to continue to make sure to help the children of the District of Columbia. To help address this issue, this bill also includes $5 million for the recently established foster care improvement program, additional money for family literacy, and $6 million for the new library/learning center initiative subject to a 1-to-1 match by the District.

Over the past year, we visited many of the city's schools, and I can tell my colleagues from personal observation

there is a real need to improve student and teacher performance. In these visits, I was struck by the very poor physical condition of some of the District's schools and by the lack of resources available to students, especially in their school libraries. This is a new initiative, and it is designed to enhance and restore District of Columbia elementary school libraries as fully functioning learning centers and, in doing so, bring together local, Federal, and potentially private resources. This initiative, when implemented, will enhance our ability to provide critical educational resources the city's children deserve in order to receive a quality education.

This bill also fully funds the school improvement program authorized last year. This bill maintains the three-pronged commitment made last year to both the District schools, the District of Columbia charter schools, and $14 million for opportunity scholarships for students in underachieving schools. This three-pronged approach is designed to improve academic performance, while promoting school choice and more potential parent involvement.

Mr. Chairman, this bill also retains the general provisions from last year's bill, which are the same as the President's request.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important to move this bill through the appropriations process as quickly as possible so as to allow the District to spend its own funds to operate the programs and projects in the bill at the beginning of the fiscal year in October.

Let me personally thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her comments earlier in the day during the debate on the D.C. rule. She is an incredible leader of this city, and it has been a pleasure to work with her. I do appreciate her cooperation by not offering an amendment, because I know in her heart she continues to be a principal advocate on behalf of the city, and I am grateful for her support and her action in that regard.

To summarize, Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us is a fiscally responsible, balanced bill that deserves bipartisan support. It was not done alone. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and I count on some key people. I would like to thank them for helping to put this bill together. The subcommittee led by our clerk, Joel Kaplan, Martha Foley, and Clelia Alvarado for their professional work on the bill. I also want to thank Nancy Fox from my staff and Michelle Anderson-Lee from the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Fattah) staff for their hard work.

At this point I will include for the Record a table detailing the various accounts included in the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY04.003

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of the committee, who is vice chairman of the committee and has served on the committee for 10 years.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, it is. I wanted to thank my distinguished colleague for bringing this issue to my attention. Let me say from the onset that I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's position on the issue. It is my understanding that the Committee on Government Reform has a 30-day review period in which to approve or disapprove all legislative provisions enacted by the city council.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I have watched the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) stand on an appropriations bill, and I know his heart is in the right place; and, reluctantly, I do rise in opposition to his amendment.

The entire Federal portion of the bill is only $560 million. Within this total, the committee had to make some hard funding choices. It reduced a number of things that are key priorities to the Members of Congress and to the city's leadership. An additional 1 percent reduction in this bill would, I think, seriously hinder the District's ability to effectively manage its program at a time when the District government is sincerely making major improvements to its financial and program management.

I will not go through any examples, but I do rise in opposition. I understand where his heart is.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for yielding me this time.

We are not going to tarry long this time, and that is itself an extraordinary victory and feat of leadership. Members should know that I have seen this. The smallest appropriation often take the longest period of time to get through this House, much to the consternation of Members.

I spoke during the Committee on Rules about the extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who have always been wonderful captains of the ship, pressing to get this appropriation out, understanding what a waste of time it would be for Members to involve themselves deeply in this matter, often going to extraordinary lengths to clear this bill. They have been just where they always were.

The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) deserves a lot of credit for his invaluable assistance to the Committee on Appropriations and to me with this bill, and I have already given my thanks to the Committee on Rules, who gave us the cleanest bill under the circumstances.

But the real applause belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). I can

say to both of them that I do not believe we have gotten this bill through in as short a period of time since I have been in Congress. This is my seventh term.

I want to thank them for the exceptionally smooth and efficient way they have handled the D.C. appropriation now for 2 years. It has affected the operations of the District of Columbia, not only the efficiency of this House.

I want to thank them for their regard for self-government in the District of Columbia. I want to thank them for their respect for the efficiency of the House of Representatives itself and the processes. There are very few Members that care beans about this. That is no insult to you, Members. I don't care beans about your districts either. That is your job.

And finally, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their keen understanding of the need to move the bill to get the city's own money to the bill, and that has been what has been most important about the way in which they have handled this bill. We cannot spend a red cent of our own money until the House says so, and almost all of this bill consists of our own money.

The District has always deserved self-respect for running its own affairs. That is the way we believe in this country, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the city today, and most of the Members of the House agree, has really earned congressional respect. I think a real tribute is due to Mayor Tony Williams, Chair of the Council Linda Cropp and the entire D.C. Council for the way they have improved the city, I mean in every important way, from the city operations, the day-to-day operations, to its bond rating.

They have taken this city from fiscal crisis, now to more than a balanced budget, to a better financial position than our far-richer surrounding States, not because they have managed to raise significant revenue, but because of the very conservative prudence with which they have run the D.C. government.

I mean, they still have a structural deficit, which means that we have high taxes and high debt because of the structural relationship with the Federal Government, and I appreciate that this entire region and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have gone on to a bill to help us correct the structural deficit.

So to be prudent, even though you are carrying a federally imposed structural deficit is to deserve high praise. In Virginia, they have just gone through a terribly long period, and they finally had to raise taxes in order to assure their financial standing and keep their bond rating. Maryland, they are still struggling with gambling, something we are not going to have in the District of Columbia in order to pull it out of crisis.

The D.C. economy is run so well that people are moving in, not moving out. The city has become so attractive, that you cannot find a scrap of land on which to build any longer. We are building all through the inner city, the poorest wards of the city, because of the way in which the city is now being run.

Finally, to let me give you a sense of the District's financial prudence, I appreciate that the committee is going to allow the District to save for its emergency and contingency fund not 7 percent of it budget but 6 percent. Now, that is interesting, because going down from 7 percent to 6 percent is not going to affect its bond rating, because it is still the strictest conditions for an emergency and contingency fund in the United States, or pretty close to it.

The District is going to have 2 years instead of 1 year to repay any funds it happens to withdraw, does not withdraw from this bond, 2 years instead of 1 year to repay the fund, and that still makes these conditions among the strictest in the country. Forty-five States with similar emergency contingency funds have no replenishment requirement; and yet, the District must pay it back if it uses it within 2 years.

And among the six States which do require you to replenish any money you take out of the contingency fund, no State requires you to pay back as readily as our fund does.

But, Mr. Chairman, perhaps what I am most proud of is that the District has the highest rating. You have alluded to that in its history, an A rating. This is a city that 8 years ago was in virtual bankruptcy, and I would like to read what Moody's, one of the three investment houses that has given the District an A rating, has said. ``The upgrade reflects the sustained improvement in the District's economy and property tax base, as well as the District's multiyear record of improved financial management, controls and results. In addition, the District's elected leadership has demonstrated a commitment to maintaining this balance,'' that enviable language from investment houses.

The District has done this with the assistance of Congress. It has done it with the structural deficit. It is not because it struck it rich. It is because of conservative budgeting and financial management. We have taken the lead as a city, but we have done it with a partnership, with a Congress, that is now paying off.

I am proud to represent the city. I believe that the city has made us proud of our Capital, and I am particularly grateful to the Chair and to the ranking member for their contribution to what the District has achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words and acknowledgement of the chairman. I particularly appreciate the strong leadership he has given this bill from its inception and the continuing strong leadership he has afforded this absolutely vital bill to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Led by my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 has

always passed with bipartisan sponsors in the House and Senate and consistently strong support from Members of both bodies. We are particularly indebted to the chairman, who, because of the importance of higher education to those who live and work in this white-collar region, has always made this bill a priority of the committee.

This year he performed an additional critical act of leadership. When a problem arose in the Senate after the bill was approved in committee, he forged an acceptable compromise. The champions of the bill in the Senate have been a chairman, Senator George Voinovich and his ranking member, Senator Dick Durbin of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, as well as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Senator Susan Collins and the ranking member, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express special gratitude to President Bush, who came to office several years after the law was in effect, saw the evidence of its exceptional success, and has continued to fund it in his budget at authorized levels.

The act, which partially funds college tuition through tuition access grants, or TAG, gives D.C. residents opportunities for college attendance that other Americans already enjoy through their State university systems. Because the District has no State university system, TAG substitutes for such a system by allowing D.C. residents to attend the public colleges in the States at instate tuition rates, subsidized up to $10,000. In the alternative, our students may receive $2,500 to attend private colleges at historically black colleges or universities in the city or region or other private colleges, provisions that also imitate what some States allow.

Already some 6,000 D.C. students have attended more than 150 colleges nationwide because of funds provided by the act. There are two particularly gratifying results from the first years of the Act. First, college attendance in the District has increased by 28 percent compared with only 11 percent nationally. Second, the act has been important to keeping tax-paying residents in the city and stemming the large and disastrous taxpayers' losses of the past three decades, particularly of parents who often left for the suburbs when their children were in reach of college age, rather than deny their children the benefits of a lower-cost, high-quality State university system. The high cost of tuition is a significant reason many residents left the District and others refuse to settle here.

The evidence of the success of the program and the return on the dollar to residents, to the city itself and to the Federal Government is not in dispute. Close monitoring by the GAO, by the committee and by our office have shown that TAG has been well run. TAG is universally popular among D.C. residents and businesses because of the act's simultaneous and immediate benefits to higher education in the District and, therefore, to the economic stability and viability of the city itself.

The program is an unqualified success and continues to exceed all expectations. The program has proved itself in becoming a valuable catalyst to where it is most needed. TAG deserves reauthorization, and I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I want to say that the two gentlemen from which we just heard on the bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who just spoke, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) who has led the bill, are both from this region.

This may be the most white-collar region in the United States. When District of Columbia residents did not have access to its State university system, it hurt the entire economy of the region because it meant the critical core of the region could not provide the same State university systems that are very beautifully provided in Maryland and Virginia. So one part of the region could not contribute to the economic viability of the region.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate particularly their work in understanding how vital the District's contribution was and is, and that it cannot be made except through higher education of the kind that is expected through this region.

Finally, a word about the Chair. This bill was finally passed in the Senate only in the lame duck session. It has been passed here because the chairman had smoothly led its passage in the House. It did not have a bit of controversy here. There were some changes made after some consultation with the House with the Senate, and all was well; and at the last minute a very small problem arose in the Senate. But when one person raises a problem in the Senate, that can mean the end of an entire bill. So I do want to say right here on this floor that the work of the chairman when we brought this to his attention that all efforts in the Senate to solve this one problem with one Member had failed for reasons no one could put their finger on, that his own creative sense of compromise is what rescued the bill in the Senate.

I want to express my deep appreciation for his work in the midst of the lame duck session, to think of what might be done, and then to speak with the Member in the Senate who raised an issue, and then to come forward with a compromise that has proved acceptable to all. We are very grateful for that, because without that work on the part of Chairman Davis, we would not be here.

This bill would not be authorized, and we would not be able to get the full amount which has already been passed by the appropriation committees on both sides into the President's budget when it comes here in January.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill--H.R. 4012--to amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition assistance programs established under the Act, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4012, legislation to reauthorize the District of Columbia College Access Act for 5 additional years.

The College Access Program has been a key component of the District's revitalization efforts in recent years. It is critical that Congress continue to support its partnership with the District in providing access to higher education resources.

Madam Speaker, Congress chose to establish the D.C. College Access Program in 1999 for two primary reasons. First, the program addresses the fact that the District of Columbia does not have a State university system for its high school graduates. The program essentially leveled the playing field for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital by enabling them to attend colleges and universities around the country at in-State tuition rates, which makes college education affordable for students coming out of the District of Columbia, something that really was not available to them prior to this.

The program's second purpose 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, thus depriving the District of much-needed stability and tax revenue.

I cannot tell my colleagues how many mothers and fathers have approached me to say thank you for not having to leave the District so our child could go to college, but thanks to this program, we can stay.

At a Committee on Government Reform hearing on the program last March, it was clear that the program has been more than a mere anecdotal success over the last 5 years. D.C. Mayor Tony Williams testified that since the creation of the program the number of high school graduates in the District continuing on to college has increased 28 percent. The national average over the same time period was 5 percent.

It was not too long ago we had high schools in the District sending more kids out to Lorton Prison than to college. College was not an affordable option for many of these kids in the District. What we see happening now is, as it becomes more affordable, we see kids getting in the spirit and we see a significant increase of District kids going on to higher education. With that, crime decreases, the economy is improving, the District is achieving financial stability.

The impact of the College Access Program is undeniable. According to a survey of high school graduates in the District, 75 percent of the students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of these grants makes the difference in their decision to attend college and was a key factor in deciding which college to attend. H.R. 4012 represents a shot at a better education and, in turn, a better life for countless D.C. students.

The District is not a State, and D.C. residents do not have access to the network of in-State universities like residents of other States. As I said before, this legislation also provides an incentive to families to stay in the District. This program operates hand-in-hand with the D.C. College Access Program, which is the private sector's College Access Program, providing college counseling to D.C. high school students and last dollar financial assistance to college-bound D.C. high school graduates. This is a double punch provided by the public and the private sectors and it has made a tremendous impact on the educational opportunities available to D.C. high school students.

It is equally clear that the students are becoming more aware and choosing to take advantage of these opportunities.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4012 and to continue to support a level playing field for high school graduates in the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 4012) to amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to reauthorize for 5 additional years the public school and private school tuition assistance programs established under the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4012.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4012, legislation to authorize the District of Columbia College Access Act for 2 additional years.

The College Access Program has been a key component of the District's revitalization efforts in recent years. It is critical that Congress continue to support its partnership with the District of Columbia in providing access to higher education resources and opportunities.

Congress established the D.C. College Access Program in 1999 for two primary reasons. First, the program addressed the fact that the District of Columbia does not have a State university system like most States do for its high school graduates. The program essentially leveled the playing field for high school graduates in the Nation's Capital by enabling them to attend colleges and universities around the country at instate tuition rates. This is State universities around the country.

The program's second purpose was to deter tax-paying families in the District from moving to surrounding States in order to take advantage of instate higher education options available to residents in other States that were not available to District residents at the time that would deprive the District of very much needed stability in tax revenue should they leave the jurisdiction.

I cannot tell you how many mothers and fathers have approached me to say thank you. We were going to have to leave the District of Columbia so our kid could go to college, but thanks to this program we can stay; or young people from the district that come up to me and say thank you for this act. I am now able to afford to go to a good college.

At a Committee on Government Reform hearing on this program last March, it is clear that the program has been more than an anecdotal success over the past 5 years. D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams testified that since creation of the program, the number of high school graduates in the District continuing on to college has increased 28 percent. The national average over the same period was an increase of approximately 5 percent.

The impact of the College Access Program is undeniable. According to a survey of high school graduates in the District, the vast majority of students who have received assistance through the program have indicated that the existence of the grants made a difference in their decision to attend college and was a key factor in deciding which college to attend.

H.R. 4012 represents a shot at a better education and, in turn, a better life for hundreds of D.C. students.

The House passed a 5-year authorization for the program in July, but after discussions with the other body, we have agreed to limit the reauthorization to 2 years while we in Congress continue to work with the city to refine the scope and the mission of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4012 and to continue to support a level playing field for high school graduates in the District.

I also want to acknowledge my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her help in starting this bill and working through this legislation today as we reauthorize it, and my colleague, the gentleman from Alexandria, Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has also been very helpful and instrumental in getting this legislation originally established and reauthorizing it today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleagues for their kind words and their efforts in working together on this legislation, and I would urge all Members to support the Senate amendments to H.R. 4012.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.