[Senate Hearing 106-252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-252
H.R. 974--THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT AND S. 856--THE
EXPANDED OPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENTS
ACT OF 1999
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
RESTRUCTURING AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
59-579 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Administrive Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director
Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Voinovich............................................ 1
Senator Durbin............................................... 3
WITNESSES
Thursday, June 24, 1999
Hon. Thomas M. Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform................. 4
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, accompanied by Chartese Day, Student,
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia..................... 5
Hon. James M. Jeffords, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
and Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions....................................................... 8
Hon. Anthony A. Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia............ 16
Maureen A. McLaughlin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Planning and Innovation, Office of Postsecondary Education,
U.S. Department of Education................................... 18
Patricia McGuire, Chairwoman, Government Relations Committee,
Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area. 21
Dr. Julius F. Nimmons, Jr., President, University of the District
of Columbia.................................................... 23
Lucio A. Noto, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
Mobil Corporation.............................................. 25
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Davis, Hon. Thomas M.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Jeffords, Hon. James M.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 36
McGuire, Patricia:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 50
McLaughlin, Maureen A.:
Testimony.................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Nimmons, Jr., Dr. Julius F.:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Noto, Lucio A.:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Williams, Hon. Anthony A.:
Testimony.................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 39
APPENDIX
Prepared statement of Paul Strauss, U.S. Senator, District of
Columbia (Shadow).............................................. 29
H.R. 974--THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT AND S. 856--THE
EXPANDED OPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENTS
ACT OF 1999
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
and the District of Columbia, Subcommittee
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:39 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich and Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order.
First, I want to apologize to everyone for the delay of the
hearing this morning. One of the most frustrating things about
being a U.S. Senator as contrasted to being the governor of the
State of Ohio is that when I was Governor, I controlled my
agenda and time; in the Senate, I am at the mercy of other
people.
We welcome you to this hearing for the purpose of hearing
two very worthy proposals--S. 856, the Expanded Options in
Higher Education for District of Columbia Students Act, and
H.R. 974, the District of Columbia College Access Act.
Senator Jeffords will be coming over after he is finished
with his meeting, but we have with us this morning
Representatives Davis and Norton, who are sponsors of H.R. 974,
and we are very pleased to have you here. I want to
congratulate you on the hard work and success in moving this
important concept forward. I know that we are all working
toward the same goal--providing students in the District with
greater postsecondary opportunities.
I believe the tuition assistance concept that we will
discuss here this morning is a welcome step toward providing
the District's young people with a range of opportunities
available to every other college-bound student in the Nation.
By itself, this is an exciting program, but when we
consider the Pell Grants, the Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants, the Federal Stafford Loans, the Federal
PLUS Loans, and the Federal Perkins Loans, which are already
available to college-bound students, and then include the
private sector's new initiative, the D.C. College Access
Program, it presents a fantastic opportunity for District
students.
We can say to a ninth-grader in the city: You can go to
college. To many students have thought that a college education
was beyond their reach. But this new program, combined with the
private sector scholarship and existing Federal aid, shows the
District of Columbia's young people that college is in their
futures if they are willing to work hard.
H.R. 974 and S. 856 are similar, and we are going to
explore the different approaches of the two bills. I would like
to applaud the sponsors of both bills for including tuition
assistance grants to students who choose to attend private
universities in the area. There are many great institutions in
the metropolitan Washington area. I strongly support giving
District students the opportunity to attend some of the finest
schools in the Nation and am further delighted that students
benefit from these schools while at the same time remaining at
home.
Finally, I would like to applaud the private sector for
stepping up to the plate for education. More than a dozen
regional corporate citizens, including The Washington Post and
Mobil Corporation, are successfully racing toward a $20 million
goal--think of that--$20 million to help the District's public
high school students prepare for and enter and graduate from
college.
From my experiences as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of
Ohio, I am confident that the public-private partnership is one
of the most important components of revitalizing any city. The
quality education available in a city will dictate in large
part the flow of residents into or out of a city.
Cleveland is the only city in the country that has been
named an All-America City three times within a 5-year period.
But when I was Mayor, I said to the citizens of our town that
we truly are not an All-America City until we have an all-
America school system. I think that is the message to all of
our urban areas throughout this country. That is where the real
challenge is today, in my opinion, in education.
The D.C. College Access Program is the perfect private
sector complement to the tuition assistance program we are
discussing today. The D.C. College Access Program will provide
professional counsel to all D.C. public high school students
and last-dollar financial awards to young people with the
greatest financial need.
Often, money is important, but it is having that expert at
the school who knows all the programs and can counsel that
youngster and his or her parents about how to take advantage of
the programs that are there.
This program is largely based on a program with which I am
very familiar, the Cleveland Scholarship Program, which has
helped nearly 90,000 high school students go on to college in
Cleveland.
Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here
this morning, and before I introduce them, I would like to
recognize the Subcommittee's distinguished Ranking Member,
Senator Durbin, for an opening statement.
Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. I
am glad that we are having this hearing.
Let me say at the outset that I want to salute Mayor
Williams. I believe that he has done an excellent job working
with the various control boards and others that have an
influence on the future of the District of Columbia. You are
definitely moving in the right direction. I have seen dramatic
progress in a short period of time, and I have every confidence
that will continue.
Let me also add that the subject of this hearing, this
tuition bill, is one which I whole-heartedly endorse as a part
of the President's budget and the legislative creation of
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton as well as Congressman
Davis and Senator Jeffords, who will join us soon.
The young people in the District of Columbia are at a
unique disadvantage in that they do not have opportunities that
we have in Illinois and many other States to attend public
institutions of higher learning and qualify for lower tuition
rates as in-State residents. I am anxious to find a way to give
them that opportunity.
I think that what we should focus on here, as well as the
concept of tuition for D.C. residents, is how it will be paid
for. By luck of the draw, I end up being the minority spokesman
not only on this Subcommittee which authorizes the District of
Columbia, but also on the Appropriations Committee for the
District, so I have in both capacities more connection with the
District than some Members of the Senate.
This afternoon, we will have a hearing on the D.C.
appropriations bill, and there will be a proposal made that $17
million be taken out of the Labor-HHS appropriation and given
to the District of Columbia to pay for this tuition program.
That is where I take exception. To take money out of the Labor-
HHS appropriation bill at this moment in time is wrong for the
following reasons.
We are $8 billion short of meeting last year's spending
goals under the budget resolution passed by the Republican
Majority. It means that we face at this moment cuts at the
National Institutes of Health, and in health and education
programs across America, to the tune of $8 billion. I am hoping
that we can make up that difference, but to take $17 million
out of that appropriation at this moment and give it to the
District of Columbia for tuition programs makes no sense when
the D.C. City Council has announced that they have $59 million
they cannot figure out what to do with--not to improve the
safety of streets, not to improve the schools in the District
of Columbia, not to deal with the real life issues that people
in the neighborhoods care about. So they want to give the $59
million away in tax cuts.
So here we are, subsidizing the District of Columbia for a
program where they already tell us they have $59 million, and
declare a dividend and give it back to the taxpayers in the
District of Columbia. They have the money to pay for this
tuition program. We do not need to take it out of Labor-HHS.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
I would now like to call on two of our panelists and start
with Representative Tom Davis.
TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich, Senator Durbin,
and Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to
testify before you today, and thank you, Chairman Voinovich,
for scheduling this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Davis appears in the Appendix on
page 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to ask unanimous consent that my entire
statement be put in the record, and I will just address three
or four issues straight up.
First, I think this is a good regional bill. It not only
helps the District of Columbia. We are dealing with a region
right now which is growing, where there is a shortage of high-
tech workers and educational opportunities for people in the
District of Columbia. We want them to be part of the growing
economy, and right now, education is out of the reach of many
of these D.C. residents. This is an opportunity to allow
affordable college opportunity for kids who in many cases do
not have that opportunity now.
As more and more people go to college and choose college as
an option, it will become more of the thing to do. That is how
you slowly change the culture in the inner cities, and I think
this is a giant step toward doing that by making college
affordable to them. They are still competing in the out-of-
state schools as out-of-staters, so the admission criteria are
a little tougher, although I understand there is some
entertainment of perhaps reserving a few slots for District of
Columbia students out of the out-of-state pool in a couple of
neighboring States, and I think that will help.
We support clarifying language in terms of Congressional
Budget Office scoring that defines residency more tightly than
we did on the House side. Had we had the benefit of the
Congressional Budget Office study, I think we would have made
that change ourselves, so we would welcome any language you add
to do that.
One question is do you do this in 50 States, or do you do
this in 2 States. I think reasonable people can differ on this,
and I think that if we go to conference on this, we would
maintain some flexibility. Our goal here, though, was to
provide as many affordable opportunities as we could for
District of Columbia students, and 50 States obviously provide
more opportunity than you will get in just 2 States. The
rationale for 2 States is that Virginia and Maryland are next
door, and these are the States from which the District
originally came from, although there are universities in West
Virginia and Delaware that are closer than many schools in
Virginia.
On income caps, if I live in Virginia, and my kid gets into
the University of Virginia or George Mason or William and Mary,
there is not an income cap on my kids being able to pay in-
State tuition through a university system; neither is there in
Maryland. Why should there be for the District of Columbia if
what we are trying to do is equalize educational opportunities
for children in the District of Columbia as it is around the
rest of the country?
We are, as I noted in my statement, basically the State
Government for the City of Washington, and there are certain
responsibilities that go with that. Although the city does not
get a vote on the floor of the House or the Senate, they do pay
Federal income taxes, and it is a unique jurisdiction by nature
of the Constitution. I think it sometimes calls for some unique
solutions to some of the problems that confront it, and I think
this legislation offers that.
Finally, I think this should be administered by the
District Government. This will be a priority. We want to try to
entrust the city with more local decisionmaking. We have a new
mayor, and I think it would be a slap in the face to put this
in the Department of Education, where it could get buried along
with a lot of other programs. The city needs this program; I
think they want this program; they will benefit from it. And if
the money does not cover all the opportunities, they can sort
out the appropriate prioritization of who should go and should
not, and at that point, the income caps. These are decisions
the city should make, not here at the Federal Government level.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Congressman. We really
appreciate the fact that you highlighted the issues that we are
going to be discussing here today.
Now I would like to call on Representative Norton, please.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARTESE DAY,
STUDENT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Durbin, I appreciate
that you have called such an early hearing and for inviting Tom
Davis and me to testify about a bill that we have worked very
closely on in a most bipartisan form of collaboration.
We have also worked very closely with the President and
with the First Lady and with the Department of Education, all
of whom have given this bill priority.
I do want to correct the record. Mr. Durbin is under the
impression that there would be money removed from the Labor-HHS
appropriation and given to the District of Columbia. Never is
money given to the District of Columbia. This money is in the
Labor-HHS appropriation because it was added by President
Clinton specifically to deal with this program. In other words,
this is money that but for this program would never have been
in the Labor-HHS budget.
We have worked very closely with the administration. The
administration regarded this idea as a very important one, so
that when Tom Davis and I began to work on the bill, the
administration worked with us and worked with us with respect
to the money, and the only reason it is in Labor-HHS is because
it is an education bill, and that is why it is proper to
transfer it, just to get it out at this point if that can be
done.
I want to say how grateful I am that Senator Jeffords has
taken a special interest in this bill. Senator Jeffords has
shown nothing less than dedication to education issues in the
District of Columbia, both when he chaired the Appropriations
subcommittee and since he has never stopped or dropped that
interest. I want to say that there is not a dime's worth of
difference--perhaps I should say a million dollars' worth of
difference--between his bill and ours. In any case, Tom and I
are certain we can work those differences out, because his bill
and ours virtually amount to a consensus bill.
I would like to focus on two questions, briefly, which I
think might clarify other questions. One is the purpose of the
bill, and the other is the administration of the bill.
Actually, the bill has three purposes. What we are trying
to do here is create a virtual State university system. We have
a State university; we just do not have the kind of system that
the residents of the 50 States have, and thus, the Framers in
deciding that there should be a city that was not a part of a
State for the convenience of the National Government left us
without the mechanism for a State education system. It is the
National Government which of course, has the capital at its
convenience, which should, it seems to me, contribute to making
up for this gap, which has had such an effect in denying equal
access to higher education for the residents and for the young
people of the District.
The second purpose of the bill is to assist our own State
university, the University of the District of Columbia. We do
that by a one-time-only contribution to allow it to be a funded
Historically Black College and University. Then, of course,
once having become formally an HBCU college, it becomes
automatically eligible for those funds.
I cannot overemphasize how important it was that UDC be a
part of this bill if we care about who is going to go to
college in the District of Columbia. Many more will qualify to
go to our open admissions university than will go out of State.
Two-thirds of UDC students work, most of them could not go out
of State, and we are very pleased that they have been included
for a modest amount in this bill.
We never intended and could never have intended this bill
to deal with the many problems of UDC, but it is most
appropriate that they be a part of the bill.
A third purpose of the bill, of course, is to encourage
residents to remain in this city. You can imagine what kind of
incentive it is when a parent finds children in the 10th or
11th grade and realizes what is going to happen in a few years
and how much that is going to cost the parents. All you have to
do is walk across the line to Virginia, which has 39 State
college and universities, or to Maryland which has 35. We think
that is one reason we lost three times as many people in the
1990's as we lost in the 1980's, with the problems of the city,
and then, with these additional disabilities, people just left.
This will help us keep people.
Let we move to administration. With locally-driven
purposes, we think local administration makes the best sense.
Indeed, we think that the few differences between the Jeffords
bill and ours are best settled and most rationally settled
through local administration rather than through mandates from
Congress when we really have absolutely no experience of the
kind that would guide us in writing hard mandates into the
bill.
Income and geographical elements come to mind particularly.
I do not think we can reliably or responsibly draw either kind
of line, but I think that Mayor Williams and his appointees
could. I think we could get anomalies and unintended results,
and I think we could even get unused funds in the early years,
because we have no idea who will apply, we have no idea who
will be incentivized to apply, we have no idea who will
transfer. The unknowns multiply.
As an example of unintended results, I cite section 5(c)(2)
from the Jeffords bill which makes perfectly rational sense. In
the Private University section, he says that in order to limit
the amount of money, for rational purpose, they should be from
adjacent counties. There are only two adjacent counties--Prince
George's and Montgomery. We are not sure what happens to
Virginia here, since you have to cross the river, and none of
them is adjacent. Yet a number of the private institutions that
will qualify are in Virginia.
What is most disturbing, however, is that language like
that would keep any Historically Black College or University
from qualifying to receive students based on this money. For
Hampton, where we have sent 150 students this year--none of
those students could get this money because it is not in an
adjacent county.
Those are the kinds of things that could easily be worked
out, though, below. We think that those issues are best
calibrated at home rather than on the basis of guesstimates. We
think that even income limits could fluctuate. We could have a
year, particularly in the early years with the start-up
required, where the income limits might be higher. Income
should always drive this from the bottom up, with the lowest
income getting the money first, and if there is money left
over, to others, of course, based on income. But I do not think
we would want to say here, with no experience, what that should
be.
What we have in the Jeffords bill and in our bill is a
consensus about all of the major elements. I want to say to
you, Mr. Chairman, that parents and students are absolutely
besieging my office, so much so that I have already spoken with
Mayor Williams and asked him to do early action in case we do
get the bill out so that we might even get some of the money
flowing as early as the winter semester.
Senator Voinovich. Representative Norton, could you wind
up, please?
Ms. Norton. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
ask if the student who accompanies me here could speak for a
minute or two about the bill.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
I want to point out that Senator Durbin will have to leave,
so I would like to move along and give him a chance to question
the panel. And I would love to have you respond to his
comments.
Please go ahead.
Ms. Day. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Chartese Day, and I am a D.C. resident and a
student. I am here today to ask for your full support of H.R.
974, the District of Columbia College Access Act.
I am a sophomore at George Mason University, a State school
located in Fairfax, Virginia. I chose to attend this fine
institution of learning because it is the only school in the
country with an integrative and interdisciplinary studies
degree program, New Century College.
Although I have a deep love for my educational pursuits, I
am disheartened about the unequal status of the District of
Columbia which places our students at a grave disadvantage.
Every year, thousands of students in the 50 States and the
District of Columbia set out for college. But there is a
divider between these two groups of students that should be
eliminated.
Students within the 50 States have the opportunity to
attend in-State colleges and universities at in-State rates
which are considerably cheaper than out-of-State rates.
However, District of Columbia students do not have this
privilege. Instead, we must pay astronomically high rates at
private colleges within our city boundaries and very high rates
at State colleges.
Last year, my family paid $18,000 in out-of-State tuition
fees compared to $8,000 for in-State tuition--and my mother is
a single parent as are many District of Columbia parents.
I was lucky that my mother worked hard for the means to
send me to college last year. Many other students are not as
fortunate as I and instead must sacrifice their dreams of
higher education.
Last year, I had to pay $10,000 more in tuition simply
because the District of Columbia is not a State and does not
have a State university system.
Today I am here to ask that you accept and support H.R.
974, The District of Columbia College Access Act, because it
allows District of Columbia students to take advantage of in-
State tuition rates at out-of-State colleges and universities.
In addition, I would like to ask that you also accept and
support the grandfather clause within the bill as currently
written, which would extend these privileges to District of
Columbia students like me, already enrolled in colleges and
universities.
I did not ask to be born and raised in the District of
Columbia. My mother gave birth to me here. However, I am a
proud Washingtonian and have a strong love for this
extraordinary city which is the Nation's Capital. In the past,
I have been denied Statehood, I have been denied a vote in
Congress. I ask today that I no longer be denied a right to
receive an affordable higher education simply because I do not
live in a State.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.
[Applause.]
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. That was a very
eloquent statement, and we are glad to have it. It is nice to
have someone here who can talk about the experience that they
have had and not having the opportunity that other students
around the country do have. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Jeffords.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT, AND CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH,
EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
Senator Jeffords. It is with some trepidation that I follow
the previous speaker, because I am sure I cannot top her
dissertation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords appears in the
Appendix on page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very pleased to be here. I think it is very exciting
that we are considering doing what should be done for the young
people of the District of Columbia. I am very positive that we
will be able, as mentioned by Ms. Norton, to reach a compromise
here, but I do have some matters that I think need attention. I
would therefore ask that my entire statement be included in the
record and will go through a shorter version.
Under the able leadership of the House, which has endorsed
this bill without a dissenting vote, I certainly looked at it
with care. The legislation that I have introduced and the
measure approved by the House share the same goal, that is, the
goal to provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with a
greater range of options in pursuing postsecondary education by
having the Federal Government offer support which, in other
areas of the country, is provided by State Governments.
I am delighted at the level of interest and support that
the D.C. tuition concept has received. Although the House and
Senate bills are aimed toward the same objective, they differ
in the design and administration of the program and the scope
of the benefits provided. I would like to lay out the reasoning
behind the approach I took, particularly regarding the scope of
the program.
Briefly, my legislation has three components. One, it picks
up the difference in cost between in-State and out-of-State
tuition for D.C. residents who attend public postsecondary
institutions in Maryland and Virginia. Two, it provides
additional support to the one public postsecondary education
institution in the District of Columbia, the University of the
District of Columbia. And three, it offers support to those
students choosing to attend private institutions in the
District and neighboring counties, providing grants up to
$2,000 to help defray tuition costs.
I have nothing against reaching for the sky, but I will say
that this proposal does not cover all the ground that the
version approved by the House does. Basically, I felt that, in
launching a brand-new program, it was best to develop a fairly
simple foundation and try it out. I have also found it far
easier to expand an effort in the future than it is to roll it
back.
Moreover, I believe it is important to assure the program
is reasonable in cost. With the tight discretionary spending
caps enacted in 1997, there is not any ``free'' money. Spending
in one area will mean fewer dollars are available in another. I
therefore tried to design a program that would fall into the
range of the $17 million provided in the President's budget
request for the D.C. tuition initiative. Based on preliminary
estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, I believe that my
legislation will achieve this goal if the residency provisions
are tightened to avoid providing benefits to unintended
recipients.
If there is a desire to make larger amounts available in
order to finance a more generous program, then I believe those
funds need to come from a source other than the Federal
discretionary accounts. I have long favored a regional
education approach to the D.C. metropolitan area. During the
last Congress, I introduced legislation calling for the
establishment of a regional education and workforce training
system in the metropolitan area. The financing mechanisms was a
commuter tax, and needless to say, that idea did not get very
far.
Nevertheless, I do not think such an approach should be
ruled out as a means to offer additional support for students
through a D.C. tuition assistance program. It has the
additional advantage of ensuring that the funds are used to
benefit the metropolitan area rather than simply being sent to
Richmond or Annapolis as the present funds are. A tax rate as
low as one-half of one percent would provide about $100 million
annually--an amount that would be more than adequate to extend
the in-State tuition to all 50 States or to provide larger
grants to students attending private institutions, or to
support UDC.
Beyond that, it would also help fund the project that is
now being called PREP, which is a regional educational system
which could also improve education for grades K through 12.
The House-passed bill provides that the mayor will
administer the program, while my legislation gives that
responsibility to the Secretary of Education. I chose that
route because the Department of Education has a great deal of
experience with student financial aid and has well-established
relationships with every institution of higher education in the
country.
The mayor, on the other hand, would have to start from
ground zero to develop the expertise and relationships
necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the program.
Particularly during the start-up phase of the program, I
believe it is necessary to have experienced hands in charge. In
putting together this program, mechanisms will have to be
developed to deal with issues such as determining student
eligibility, monitoring enrollment status, and tracking in-
state and out-of-state tuition rates.
There are a number of pressing education issues facing the
District of Columbia at this time, including the need to better
manage special education programs. I do not want to be in the
position of placing a new administrative responsibility on the
District of Columbia at this time, particularly when a viable
alternative is available.
At the same time, I understand the reasoning behind housing
this program in the mayor's office. In fact, my legislation
leaves this open as a possibility. In seeking a middle ground,
my suggestion would be that the Secretary of Education be in
charge of the program during the critical initial years when
the basic operational system is designed and put into place.
Then, after 3 or 4 years, the program could be transferred to
the mayor upon his request. If he wanted to leave it there, he
could leave it there.
At the end of the day, the precise language of any
particular provision of my bill is not the issue. What is
important is that we enact legislation which offers to District
of Columbia students the best deal we can afford through a
program which operates effectively and efficiently.
An investment in education is one of the most important
investments that we as a society and we as individuals can
make. There are boundless opportunities in the D.C. area for
individuals with education and training beyond high school.
D.C. residents should not be left behind in obtaining the
capacity to take advantage of these opportunities.
I hope the Subcommittee will find aspects of my proposal
useful in this regard, and I look forward to continuing to work
with the Members in any way I can to assist in this very
important project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
I really think it is wonderful that, with all the other
responsibilities that you have, you are interested in doing
something for the District of Columbia and have been thinking
about this for quite some time.
Because Senator Durbin has some other things to do, I will
invite him to ask his questions first.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me explain that I am chair of the Illinois Delegation,
which meets once a month in a bipartisan fashion to discuss our
State issues, and so that is where I am headed, and I am sorry
I cannot stay for the rest of this hearing, but I will review
the testimony.
I would like to make one observation and then ask perhaps
two very quick questions.
First, Congressman Norton, when you speak of the
President's budget and the budget resolution before Congress,
we are dealing with a theory and a fact. The theory of the
President's budget was that we would have an additional $10.4
billion to spend in Labor-HHS in the next fiscal year. The fact
in the House budget resolution is that we are cut $8 billion.
That is the difference between theory and fact. The $17 million
the President called for in this program was part of a budget
which had $10 billion more to spend than we face now in
Congress with the budget resolution, and that is the reason why
I think that distinction should be made.
I would like to go to one particular issue here that seems
to be an issue of disagreement. Beyond the question of whether
or not a resident of the District of Columbia can attend
colleges outside of Maryland and Virginia under this program,
speak to the means-testing issue, if I could ask you to, and
since both Senator Jeffords and Congresswoman Norton are
familiar with 1-minute speeches in the House, if you could each
take 1 minute to tell me why you think, Senator Jeffords, there
should be a means test, and you believe, Congresswoman Norton,
that there should not be a means test, I would appreciate it.
Senator Jeffords. Well, it is also combined with who
administers the programs. I think you have to keep that in mind
as well. But in my judgment, the ability for people to move
around and the ability to be able to take advantage of the
situation makes it essential that we start out in a sort of
conservative manner rather than opening it totally up to
everyone.
So I would hope that we would at least start off with a
means test just to see what the response is, rather than just
going ahead with it from the start.
Senator Voinovich. Congresswoman Norton.
Ms. Norton. I do not think there is a difference between
Senator Jeffords and myself. I am not opposed to a means test.
My position is simply that we should look to see who applies
and then apply any means test that may be necessary at that
point. We are in a start-up program particularly because we are
in a start-up program. To put a means test on it now without
knowing anything about the incomes of the people who may apply
or whether we will have leftover money because we put to low a
means test on it does not seem to me to make a lot of sense.
What I think we should do is instruct the mayor to do what
he would do anyway, which is that if there is not enough money
to go around--and there may be in the first year--I emphasize
that--there may be in the first year--then of course, this
money ought to be distributed on a means basis. If we put a
figure in the bill, however, then I would like to know what we
do if in fact we find that there are some students who would
qualify, who might be over that income, and the money is there,
but we deny it to them because Congress has put a means test on
without the data available to indicate whether that is
reasonable under all the circumstances.
So I do not disagree with means test. I just do not think
we are in a position to put it on, and we should let it be done
at the local level.
Senator Durbin. If I could ask one follow-up, Senator
Jeffords, that seems like a valuable suggestion, that if we put
a means test--and we have established the figure of $17
million, for example--and applying the means test, we find we
do not have sufficient applicants to meet the $17 million
maximum, could we put language in here which would allow it to
expand, then, to raise the income level to meet the $17
million?
Senator Jeffords. You certainly could do that, and I have
no disagreement with that. What I do not want to do is have an
open-ended one and then have to send out notices to a few
thousand young people saying, sorry, we do not have enough
money to let you participate. I think it is better to start out
in a cautious manner until we know what the demand is.
Moving around in this area is so flexible, you can just
walk across the line, and you have an entirely different
educational option. I do not know how much that will happen,
but that is going to be a problem, regardless of the means-
testing. So I would be very cautious starting out.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
Getting at some of the issues in terms of the differences
in the legislation, Senator Jeffords, you would like to limit
the States' involvement in this to Maryland and Virginia; is
that correct?
Senator Jeffords. That is our recommendation, again, to
start off in a rather cautious way, rather than expanding those
options, until we know what the demand is going to be. Sure, I
would like D.C. students to come to Vermont--I have no problem
with that--but I think we should start off making sure that we
take care of the local institutions that have the willingness
to provide for young people. Again, if the resources are there,
that is another issue.
I would point out that I feel very strongly that since the
city is now prospering--even thinking about tax cuts--that we
should be mindful that the funding for this program comes from
discretionary funds that are available to all the young people
in the United States. If we cut into those funds, it could be a
problem. That is why I suggest alternative ways of funding to
expand the horizons dramatically not only for college-bound
students but also for K through 12 assistance in the
metropolitan area.
Senator Voinovich. One of the observations that I have
made, and it is just anecdotal, is that I think there have been
some complaints by the citizens of Maryland and Virginia that
some of their kids have difficulty getting into their State
schools. If you add the District of Columbia youngsters to that
pool, it might make it more difficult for them to get in. In
Ohio, for example, we have out-of-State students, and some of
our own students are sometimes not as good academically as they
should be, and they are asked to stay out for a year or two or
go to some other school for a while. And I hear from the
parents who say we should keep all these out-of-Staters out in
order to give our own kids an opportunity.
I think the concept of expanding it beyond the two States
would give the youngsters an option to reach out across the
country and have, I think, perhaps more of an opportunity to
get in than they might have if they were restricted just to
those two States.
Would you like to respond to that?
Senator Jeffords. Again, I would only say that it is a
matter of who is paying for it. If you have $17 million
allocated out of the White House budget, that is fine, or if
the resources can come from D.C. general funds or whatever else
with respect to their other priorities, I think you can adjust
those boundaries to match your resources.
Senator Voinovich. Representative Norton.
Ms. Norton. If I could respond to that as well, there was a
front-page story in The Washington Post a couple of months ago
that said that Maryland and Virginia are turning down their own
residents for their State colleges in record numbers,
apparently because the cost of college education today is
sending so many people to apply to State colleges. I do not
disagree in principle with Maryland and Virginia, but I think
the point you raise, Senator, is an important one to bear in
mind, that we could get another one of these unintended
consequences with Maryland and Virginia tightening up on their
own residents. Does that mean they are going to be open to the
District of Columbia when we bring a whole new pool that would
not have applied but for this bill?
Congressman Davis wanted me to tell you he had a vote, and
that is why he had to leave.
Delaware and Virginia have parts of the State that are
closer than many of the State universities in Maryland and
Virginia. Again, we might well get where the Senator wants us
to get, but could we get there not with statutory language but
on the basis of local administration?
Senator Voinovich. I would like you to comment also on the
difference of opinion about how the program should be
administered. Why is it that you feel you would rather have it
in the mayor's office than have it operated by the Department
of Education, and do you have any suggestions as to how this
might be compromised?
Ms. Norton. I do, because I think that here, there is
really very little difference. I think one bill says to be
administered by the mayor in consultation with the Department
of Education, and the other says to be administered by the
Department of Education in consultation with the mayor.
I am sensitive to what the Senator said about not wanting
to load another bureaucracy onto the District of Columbia. I do
believe that putting the matter in the mayor's office on a home
rule basis is the most efficient way to do it, and I think that
the consultation with the Department of Education would indeed
result in the sharing of their expertise of the kind that the
Senator wants to see happen. He says they are the people who
have some experience--that is absolutely right--and we have a
very long history now, especially during this administration,
of dealing directly on just this kind of consultive basis with
the Department of Education. They are over in the District all
the time, sharing with us in all manner of ways and helping to
set up and reform our own operations.
So I really do not think there is a lot of difference,
because the consultation is going to occur no matter which is
chosen on a home rule basis, on a local autonomy basis. I would
hope it would be placed in the District of Columbia with people
from the Department of Education consulting and helping us to
set up a program.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Just a brief comment. I would point out
that the District of Columbia education system is finally
coming along. It had one of the worst systems in the country,
and it is now moving up rapidly. They had huge problems to deal
with in the K through 12 area.
My suggestion to have the program administered to the
Department of Education at least temporarily, and then, later
on, give the option to the mayor. If he says, ``I would like to
take it over,'' he could take it over. That approach would
relieve a very burdened educational system right now from
having to take on the very difficult job of trying to
administer all the new higher education aspects. I feel very
strongly that it should start out with the Department of
Education and then let the mayor, if he desires to take it
over, have that option.
Senator Voinovich. In other words, your thought is that the
program would be run by the U.S. Department of Education?
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. And you mentioned that the school
district is overburdened and has real challenges. It was my
understanding that this program would be operated out of the
mayor's office and not out of the----
Senator Jeffords. No. It would be operated out of the
Department of Education. It could be either way. I do not think
we have any strong feelings about what building it is in.
Senator Voinovich. My thought--maybe I misunderstood--is
that the District of Columbia Department of Education would not
be running this, but that it would be in the mayor's office,
and the thought was that he would be assisted by, perhaps,
people from the U.S. Department of Education.
The point I am making is that we are not going to be
putting an extra burden on the back of the local school
situation.
Senator Jeffords. I understand, and I think that is wise. I
would guess you ought to talk to the Department of Education or
the Secretary of Education to get from them their perspective
on what would be the best way of how to handle that
responsibility if they have it.
Senator Voinovich. Do either of you wish to make any
further comments before we move to the next panel?
Ms. Norton. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing.
Senator Voinovich. I have one last question. I have
received some letters of support and E-mails for this
legislation, but we have received several letters in opposition
to the concept for fear of its impact on UDC. Would you like to
comment on that?
Ms. Norton. Yes. Initially, there was some concern about
the impact on UDC, and we cannot say what the impact will be on
UDC except to say that there are two different pools of
students. I indicated that two-thirds of the students at UDC
work, and most of them could not leave town to go away to
school if they wanted to. Many of them have family obligations
here. In any case, we do not want to take the position in this
city that in order to build up one part of our State university
system, we want to deny educational opportunities to
youngsters.
I am pleased that President Nimmons, the president of UDC,
while a fierce advocate for his own institution, took the
position that UDC should be for this bill, that UDC could
compete for students. In any case, this bill is to serve the
students of the District of Columbia. We have gotten UDC into
this bill in a way that it would never have gotten into the
bill but for this bill.
In other words, UDC has gotten an opportunity it never
would have had if this bill to allow students to go out-of-
State had not been put in. So if anything, UDC is ahead of the
game precisely because students in the District of Columbia may
get the opportunity to go out-of-State as well as have the
choice of going to UDC.
Senator Jeffords. UDC can be a tremendous asset to this
community, but it may have to change its direction in some way
as far as how it handles the matter of curricula and so on. But
I think it will be improved and will thrive under the
arrangement that has been set up rather than in any way be
disadvantaged by it.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much, both of you.
Our next panel includes Mayor Anthony Williams and Maureen
McLaughlin.
Mayor Williams, it is nice to see you again. I had the
opportunity of spending many hours with the mayor when he
visited with me in Cleveland, and Mayor Williams, I am hopeful
that you have some good ideas on how the private sector can be
of some help to you here in the District.
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. We also have with us Maureen McLaughlin,
who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and
Innovation with the Office of Postsecondary Education at the
U.S. Department of Education. We are glad to you have with us
today. We have been talking about who should run the program
and so on, and we will be interested in hearing from you.
I would now like to call on Mayor Williams.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS,\1\ MAYOR, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mayor Williams appears in the
Appendix on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to thank Senator Durbin for having been
here and for you spending his time and attention on this
important aspect of the District of Columbia's recovery.
I have said since my inaugural that our job here in the
District of Columbia is to show that democracy can work in the
District and on the road to full recovery and the realization
of democracy to build community, to build the public/private
sector partnerships that we saw, to invest in education as a
foundation for what we want to do. In that respect, I agree
with what our Congresswoman has said in that our students in
the District are at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to
access to higher education.
I believe the College Access Act will help amend this
discrepancy and put the District's students and their parents
on an equal footing with the residents of the 50 States.
As you have mentioned, the new D.C. College Access Program,
a public/private partnership between area corporations and
public schools will now be offering up to $2,000 in financial
aid to qualified District students. As you know, similar
efforts in Cleveland--where I visited last week--have seen 93
percent of involved students continue on to college or to
vocational school.
But the D.C. CAP will not meet all of our needs. The
District of Columbia College Access Act can make higher
education feasible for all those in need of cutting university
costs by 50 percent or more.
As we know, in recent years, we have lost tens of thousands
of residents to surrounding suburbs in Virginia and Maryland.
With the rising costs of higher education, the District stands
to lose more and more families who relocate to other States to
take advantage of a State higher education system.
Today in the District of Columbia, only one in three high
school freshmen goes on to attend postsecondary education. But
we know that a highly educated workforce is essential if we are
to lay the economic foundation for the recovery that I talked
about.
One provision of the proposed bill that is of utmost
importance is the absence, I believe, of a means test. For
residents of the 50 States, in-State tuition rates are not
pegged to income. For example, in the State of Washington, if
Bill Gates want to send his children to the University of
Washington, he would pay in-State tuition. I believe there
should not be a means test here in the District of Columbia.
I think that in the case of establishing a means test to
begin with, you are going to have some disappointed families.
If we were to have no means test, gauge the demand, process the
requests and send denials on the basis of limited means, we
would still have some disappointed folks. If we are going to
have some disappointed folks, it seems to me we should at least
have a program and a process where we exhaust all the resources
available, because I think it would be tragic in the first year
of the program to have sent away some folks without assistance
and yet at the same time, ironically, have some money leftover.
Also, while I think there are two different ways to do
this, I believe that putting this in the mayor's office is the
way to go--not that we do not have other things to do, but I do
believe that economic development--and I think this is an
economic development tool and investment in children--it
certainly is about investment in children--are cornerstones of
our administration's efforts. Arranging the process and the
operations in this way would not overburden the school system,
because as you correctly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the schools
are not the responsibility of the mayor.
In fact, the staff of my office have already met with
Deputy Assistant Secretary McLaughlin to discuss the
Department's experience in administering the scholarship
program, and we appreciate all the Department has done for us
and look forward to working with them to make this College
Access Program work.
Further, again, this is going to be pegged to means
available. Ideally, I would like to see this apply to all 50
States. As Congresswoman Norton mentioned, and some other
testimony is evidence, there is some notion that confining this
to the two adjoining States puts pressure on in-State residents
in other States. You would relieve that pressure by allowing
our students to attend anywhere in the country. Furthermore, I
think it once again, in the spirit of this act and legislation,
situates our students similar to students in any other State.
I also believe that we must recognize in this bill the
needs of our private institutions in the City that have done a
good job to support our students. The assistance in some of the
measures before you help to address that concern. They have
done a lot to provide scholarship assistance, in-kind and other
assistance for our graduates here in the District of Columbia.
There is precedent in Virginia and other States for providing
assistance to private universities, and I believe we should do
this here.
I also believe--and I have done this in my own budget on a
local basis--that we have to support the University of the
District of Columbia as a key element of an overall State
education system. I believe that we are doing this by providing
initial capital funding, I believe we are doing this by
providing for the first time an investment in endowment. We are
also going to launch this summer the introduction of my
nominations for a board of trustees of national caliber. All of
these are efforts to support the university as it works to
focus its mission as a flagship academic institution while also
providing--regrettably, but we need to do this--remediation for
many of our high school students. In addition, UDC is a
continuing education arm for employees who are looking for
upward mobility and the kind of work-to-work upward mobility
that every city has to provide.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much, Mayor Williams. I
think you really hit on some of the issues that are of
controversy. Thank you.
Ms. McLaughlin.
TESTIMONY OF MAUREEN A. MCLAUGHLIN,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INNOVATION, OFFICE OF
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. McLaughlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
have the opportunity to appear before you today to share the
administration's views on H.R. 974 and S. 856. I will summarize
my testimony and submit the longer version for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. McLaughlin appears in the
Appendix on page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration strongly supports providing all District
of Columbia residents access to a broad array of choices in
postsecondary education similar to those available to residents
of the 50 States. This would enable all District residents to
attend affordable colleges and universities with a range of
missions and strengths, and to tailor their educational
experiences to meet their individual goals and needs.
To recognize the importance of this initiative, the
administration included $17 million in its fiscal year 2000
budget. Since that time, we have worked hard to ensure that
this idea becomes a reality. We appreciate the bipartisan
support that has surrounded this legislation from the start,
and thank you for the opportunity to work with you on the
structure of the program.
The administration is particularly pleased with three
aspects of the bills before Congress. First, each bill
addresses a critical shortage of public postsecondary education
options in the District of Columbia by allowing residents to
attend out-of-state public institutions at in-State tuition
rates. This cornerstone provision would enable D.C. residents
to enjoy the same diversity of affordable public postsecondary
education that has been available to residents of all 50 States
for many years.
Second, the administration is pleased that both bills would
provide grants to District of Columbia residents who choose to
attend private colleges in or around the city. Many strong
colleges and universities are located right here in the
District of Columbia and surrounding areas. Yet in many cases,
District of Columbia residents have not been able to attend
these institutions because of limited resources. Forty-eight of
the 50 States recognize the importance of providing
opportunities for their students to attend private colleges in
their States and provide subsidies for this purpose.
Third, the administration continues its strong support for
the University of the District of Columbia and is pleased that
Congress has appropriated Federal financial support for the
university. We recently worked with Congress to ensure that
funds would be available to UDC without reducing funding for
other Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We are now
working with UDC to enable it to receive these funds in the
near future.
Our goal is to provide greater access to a broad array of
institutions of higher education to District of Columbia
residents and to design the program in a manner that ensures
congressional support over the years to come. We need to ensure
that the tuition benefits that are provided are consistent,
reliable and predictable.
To do this, the program must be designed in a way that will
generate support for sufficient funding each year. In that
vein, the Congress has some concerns about the high cost of the
House-passed bill and offers several suggestions for developing
a program that meets the needs of District residents while
ensuring sustainability over time.
The Department of Education estimates that H.R. 974 will
cost $37 million in fiscal year 2000 and that S. 856 would cost
$17 million in fiscal year 2000. We believe that the cost of
the program as structured in S. 856 is more sustainable over
time. A significant portion of the cost of the House-passed
bill--almost $11 million--relates to the provision that would
allow students to pay in-State tuition amounts at any public
institution across the country rather than limiting the scope
to public institutions in Maryland and Virginia as supported by
the administration and included in S. 856.
This aspect of H.R. 974 would provide a wider range of
choices to District residents than are available to residents
of any of the 50 States. Limiting tuition subsidies to
residents attending public institutions in Maryland and
Virginia would be more consistent with the options available to
residents of any State.
There are 30 public colleges and universities in Maryland
and Virginia, five of which have open admission policies.
Furthermore, the administration of the program will be more
complex if the administering entity must work with institutions
of higher education from all 50 States rather than institutions
in just two States.
Details regarding the costs of that particular provision
are provided in my written testimony.
The administration also feels strongly that limited Federal
resources must be targeted first to those students with greater
need for assistance. Under H.R. 974, if funding is insufficient
to cover the demand for tuition assistance, award amounts would
be decreased for all eligible students. As drafted, the mayor
would have no opportunity to utilize any other mechanism for
targeting funds.
It is critical to the future of this program that the
wealthiest D.C. residents do not obtain tuition assistance from
a limited amount of funds at the expense of lower- and middle-
income District of Columbia residents. Accordingly, we believe
that some kind of priority funding mechanism, such as the means
test contained in S. 856, must be included in the legislation
ultimately enacted by Congress.
As I mentioned previously, we are very supportive of
providing grants to students who choose to attend private
colleges and universities. We believe, however, that H.R. 974
structures these grants in a way that is more generous than
similar grants provided to residents of States. In most States,
the grants are not available to students attending private
institutions outside the States, the grants are not as large as
$3,000 per year, and they are typically provided on the basis
of need or merit. S. 856 provides benefits that are more
similar to other States.
We also believe, as do many others, that the residency
requirements for students receiving benefits under either bill
should be tightened to ensure that these benefits go to people
with long-term commitments to the District of Columbia and not
to students who come to the District of Columbia merely for the
purpose of attending college.
Finally, because administering this program will be a
complicated task, we would like to see H.R. 974 modified to
provide maximum flexibility for the mayor and the Secretary of
Education to determine how to best administer this program.
Furthermore, we believe there must be adequate Federal
authority added to the final legislation to monitor the program
to ensure accountability of Federal funds. This is especially
true because the program is likely to be supported exclusively
by Federal funds.
In closing, let me again express how pleased we are about
the level of support and commitment that has been generated by
H.R. 974 and S. 856. The bills complement the efforts of the
private sector, including the D.C. College Access Program.
Working together, we can strengthen the Nation's Capital by
realizing the potential of all D.C. high school students.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mayor, would you like to comment about some of the things
that Ms. McLaughlin talked about--differences of opinion with
the bill and the Department's approach to it?
Mayor Williams. In regard to this notion that if District
students are given access in the 50 States at the rates that we
are talking about to our private institutions, it would situate
District students better than students in other States, I would
just argue that while the spirit of this legislation is to
situate us like any other State, we are not yet a State, and we
are among the most taxed people on the Planet, and we are the
Nation's Capital. All of those are special and unique
circumstances which I think, while they do not require,
certainly they contemplate a different kind of special, custom
solution because we are the Nation's Capital.
Also, Senator Jeffords talked about using this as a
launching pad and an initial model. I think everything we do in
the District of Columbia should be about investing in academic
development, and investing in children is a key part of that. I
think that we in the District, as we invest in the University
of the District of Columbia, should think about, by leveraging
this Federal funding, local funding in the future to expand
this program. That is certainly something that I would look at.
If it could be shown, for example, that for $3,000 a year,
you have a family living in the District, paying over a period
of time far more in taxes, that is a good return on investment.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you both very much.
Our third and final panel includes Lucio Noto, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of Mobil Corporation; Dr. Julius
Nimmons, President of the University of the District of
Columbia; and Ms. Patricia McGuire, Chairwoman of the
Government Relations Committee of the Consortium of
Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area.
I am glad to have all of you here. Mr. Noto, I had an
opportunity to meet with you prior to the hearing, and again
thank you and the other private sector folks for stepping
forward and participating in a very ambitious scholarship
program to aid District of Columbia students.
I am not sure about my time. I am supposed to preside at 1
o'clock, and I will hear back in about 5 minutes. So what I
would like to do is to move quickly through your testimony, and
if you could summarize, I would be grateful, and I apologize to
you for the long wait that you have had in order to present
your testimony before the Subcommittee.
I would like to call first on Ms. McGuire.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA MCGUIRE,\1\ CHAIRWOMAN, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS COMMITTEE, CONSORTIUM OF UNIVERSITIES OF THE
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
Ms. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here with President Julius Nimmons from UDC on behalf of the
Consortium of Universities which includes 12 major colleges and
universities in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia, including UDC and my own institution, Trinity
College. I also acknowledge the presence here today of Dr.
Charlene Drew Jarvis, President of Southeastern University and
Member of the Council of the District of Columbia, and the many
students from all of our institutions who are here in the room
with us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. McGuire with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have prepared testimony which I would ask be entered into
the record, and I will summarize a few key points in
recognition of your time.
First, let me point out Chart A in the written testimony
shows that the Consortium enrolls more than 7,000 D.C.
residents as full-time undergraduate students, including 4,300
D.C. students in the three public universities and 2,700 D.C.
residents in the nine private institutions, which is 39 percent
of all District of Columbia residents in our institutions,
which is twice the national average for private college
attendance.
The Consortium supports Congressman Davis' bill, but we do
want to be sure that this initiative also supports students who
choose to attend college close to home, thus augmenting and not
eroding the District of Columbia's talent pool and future
workforce, which is the goal of any State's higher education
program.
We have welcomed in particular that part of this
legislation that strengthens UDC and that supports D.C.
students who choose private colleges here.
We support the Davis bill and needs-testing and the
geographic situation. I would like to offer a particular
comment about the Tuition Assistance Grant Program for students
who are D.C. residents attending private colleges. We ask the
Senate to adopt the $3,000 TAG provision of the Davis
legislation which, in our testimony, we illustrate mirrors
existing programs in Maryland and Virginia and elsewhere in the
Nation. A smaller TAG would unfairly discriminate against D.C.
students who stay at home to attend private institutions. While
we do not favor a needs test, the simple fact exists that with
one of the highest poverty rates in the Nation, the District of
Columbia already has a surfeit of students with great economic
need, and many District of Columbia students cannot afford the
luxury of travel to out-of-State institutions.
Contrary to popular myths, many if not most of the D.C.
students who choose private colleges in the District of
Columbia are not wealthy elites. Private universities in D.C.
already provide millions of dollars in grants to D.C.
residents, and even this extensive aid is not enough. The Davis
TAG grant would supplement, not supplant, the millions we are
already investing in higher education of D.C. students.
To illustrate, let me call your attention to our own
experience at Trinity College, one of the District's historic
colleges, a 100-year-old Catholic college with a primary
mission to women, now serving a student body that is more than
60 percent African American and Latino. Forty percent of our
1,500 students are D.C. residents; 28 percent of last year's
freshman class were graduates of D.C. public schools. Full-time
D.C. students at my institution receive average institutional
grants of $6,900. Trinity grants to D.C. students exceed $1
million, which is 6 percent of Trinity's tiny budget of $16.5
million. Last year, Trinity's institutional grant support for
D.C. freshmen exceeded the total combined amount of Pell Grants
and Federal loans taken by those same students.
Even with this considerable institutional aid, many of our
D.C. students still face great financial stress. Some of our
18-year-old freshmen from D.C. work 30 to 40 hours a week--too
many hours for young students who should be concentrating on
their studies. Some of them have to drop out for financial
reasons. The difference of $3,000 through an in-State grant
program would help to ensure academic persistence and academic
success for students who are most at risk--low-income African
American and Hispanic students who are graduates of the
District of Columbia public schools who are striving to change
their economic circumstances through earning a degree at the
local college they choose for educational reasons.
We disagree with the CBO report that grossly inflated the
likely cost of the TAG program. Based on our current enrollment
of D.C. residents, we project an outer maximum of 3,000
participants in the TAG program. Chart C in my written
testimony presents the bottom line. Based on regional high
school graduation projections, we estimate the peak cost of the
TAG portion of this program would be about $7.3 million in the
year 2003, for about 2,400 participants.
Regarding residency, we believe the loophole discovered by
the CBO could easily be closed, either with a longer residency
requirement or to require the student to be a D.C. resident at
the time of enrollment or to require parental residency.
We urge this Subcommittee to amend H.R. 974 to clarify and
strengthen the legislation. We urge you to enact the bill with
the full understanding of the opportunities that exist right
there in the Nation's Capital, which has been and continues to
be one of the best college towns anywhere in the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Dr. Nimmons, it is a pleasure to welcome you here today. I
have been a fan of our Historically Black Colleges, and am not
sure if you are familiar with my work in Ohio at Central State,
but it looked like we were going to be losing one of our
Historically Black Colleges, and we went to work, and it is now
back on its feet, and I think it has a bright future. We are
lucky to have--and you may know him--Dr. John Garland, who is
our president, whom we brought from Washington.
I commend you for your leadership and the contribution that
your institution is making to the District, and I would like to
hear your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JULIUS F. NIMMONS, JR.,\1\ PRESIDENT,
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. Nimmons. Thank you, Senator. I am familiar with that
situation, and Mr. Garland, the new president, did come from
UDC. At one point, he was with us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Nimmons appears in the Appendix
on page 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
first that I sit here at a great disadvantage. Among all the
stakeholders in this noteworthy initiative, the University of
the District of Columbia is the most needy and the most
vulnerable of all, and I am concerned that in speaking out for
our great institution, I stand the risk of appearing as a
dissenter, when in fact I am deeply grateful that you are
willing to put significant resources into supporting higher
education for the citizens of the District of Columbia and that
we are able to come together on this issue.
I am sincerely appreciative of this opportunity to voice
the University's position on the tuition assistance bill and of
the efforts of the 106th Congress to elevate higher education
to the highest of priorities for the citizens of the District
of Columbia.
Both the House and the Senate would like to put forth
strong legislation that equalizes for District residents higher
educational opportunities enjoyed by all other U.S. citizens.
By design, the legislation would provide significant benefits
for middle class, above-average students, and this is good for
the city because it is one step in maintaining a solid middle
class presence. Yet for the thousands of low-income students
who continue to suffer poor educational attaintment, whose
parents can barely pay for daily living essentials such as
housing and food, and who must rely on UDC to assist them in
their quest for social participation and self-sufficiency, a
major investment in the University is warranted. I am certain
that we do not want to end up with what amounts to separate but
unequal educational opportunity for the majority of the
citizens of the Nation's Capital.
Congresswoman Norton has worked very diligently on our
behalf to secure current year enhancement funding for the
University in the amount of $1.5 million, and she has advocated
aggressively for our inclusion in the Department of Education's
Title III program. We are truly grateful for this support.
I want to emphasize that the University is the State's
system of higher education for the city. Upon first hearing of
the proposed legislation, I have to tell you that the
University community was terribly upset, for it appeared that
another blow had been dealt to the institution. You see, we
take great pride in what we have been able to accomplish. We
have been hit hard at every turn in our plans to reconfigure
the University into a modern, cutting-edge institution having
to go so far as to shut down, albeit briefly, in order to
regroup and move forward.
Under the proposed legislation, the Congressional Budget
Office has estimated that the University will require at least
$40 million to raise UDC's quality to the level of the premier
public universities across the country. And they are right--we
need more than $40 million to elevate the University to 21st
Century standards. For the past 30 years, Title III Higher
Education Act provisions allowed Historically Black Colleges
and Universities over $1 billion in enhancement funding. The
University has never received any of this funding--$60 million
that we should have had, but which was denied us because of
concerns that our HBCU sister institutions would individually
suffer some reduction in their annual payments if UDC were
added to the eligible pool.
As we became an HBCU, Title III was rewritten to include a
restriction prohibiting the University from participating based
on the erroneous notion that the University received an annual
direct appropriation from Congress as does Howard University at
$200 million per year. Nowhere in the language of the Federal
payment authorization or subsequent appropriations bills
accompanying this authorization does UDC appear. A very serious
injustice was done to us.
Although surrounded by more than 11 higher education
institutions, residents of the District of Columbia are not
enrolled in these institutions in significant numbers. Roughly
100 District of Columbia residents are enrolled at the
undergraduate level in each of these nationally-focused
institutions with the exception of Howard University, Trinity
College, and Southeastern University, with roughly 1,400
undergraduate District residents, respectively. Strayer College
also enrolls a significant number of D.C.'s adult population.
Thus, UDC enrolls from 4 to 57 times the number of District
residents present in the other institutions; 81 percent of our
undergraduate students are District residents.
UDC currently offers a program in three of the five
fastest-growing jobs requiring an associate's degree, five of
the seven fastest in the bachelor's level; 12 of the fastest in
the baccalaureate level; and four of the five fastest-growing
jobs requiring a master's degree. The institution is responding
to regional demand for trained talent in high-demand areas
while placing otherwise neglected minorities on the path to
full participation. And our students remain in the area,
sustaining the middle class base we all covet.
In summary, it is time for the University of the District
of Columbia to receive the kind of financial investment that
allows it to prosper and thrive. Your commitment in funding to
the University is a proactive step in the right direction. Give
us a chance to grow and develop without interruptions, without
seriously damaging budget reductions. Give us all the modern
technologies, equipment and infrastructure we need to get the
job done.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Our next panelist is Lucio Noto, who is Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer of Mobil.
Mr. Noto, again, thank you for being here today and thank
you for your leadership.
TESTIMONY OF LUCIO A. NOTO,\1\ CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOBIL CORPORATION
Mr. Noto. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Noto appears in the Appendix on
page 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am here representing 16 Washington, D.C. area private
companies and foundations who have created an organization
known as DC-CAP, the College Access Program, to help some of
the District of Columbia's public high school students achieve
the kind of future that we are confident they can.
The reason I am here talking in favor of a tuition
assistance program is because those of us who created this
program see tuition assistance and CAP as forming three legs of
a stool: Counseling, choice, and financial assistance. Choice
is an essential element of that stool, and that is why we are
active in trying to support the bill that you are currently
considering.
There are many people we want to thank for putting us
together and getting us to do what we did. I especially want to
mention Donald Graham of The Washington Post, who could not be
here this morning--he is at a board meeting--but without his
push and his leadership, the private sector could not have done
its piece.
What has the private sector done? We have raised about $16
million on our way to an initial goal of $20 million. What are
we going to do with that money? We are going to try to fund
three things.
First, we are going to pay for a counselor at every D.C.
public high school. Why do we want to do that? Kids need to
understand that college is a realistic objective for them, both
in terms of financial calculations and also in terms of
personal aspirations. And second, kids and parents need a lot
of help navigating through a very complex system of aid,
admission, and what-have-you. We are going to do that.
Third, we are going to give last-dollar financial help to
kids who do get into college, up to $2,000 a year for 5 years
to a student who qualifies--again, out of the D.C. public
school system.
You might ask why are we doing this. We are not doing this
for altruistic reasons. We are doing this because we think it
makes good business sense. We need qualified kids to come out
of the D.C. public school system, period. We need employment.
One hundred fifty thousand jobs go begging each week in The
Washington Post technical job want ad section.
No. 1, corporations, believe it or not, feel that they do
have an obligation to give back to the communities where we
operate and where we make a living.
And No. 3, for a company like Mobil, at least, if we do not
have a vibrant and successful metropolitan area close to our
headquarters location, I could not attract and retain and keep
the kind of talent that I want.
So we are here because we think it makes good sense.
I cannot make any comment on all the discussion that I have
heard this morning about means testing, 50 States versus 2, do
not hurt this school, do this, do that. I have to tell you, if
my company ran that way, we would be bankrupt.
This is a good idea. It needs to be pushed, and it needs to
be brought to fruition soon, before the July recess. We want to
get these counselors whom we are paying for into the schools
for next year. We want to get financial assistance that will
come out of the CAP program into the kids' hands when they
graduate at the end of the semester that ends in June 2000. We
need the tuition assistance program to give these kids the
choice that they should legitimately have. Put them on par with
most of the other communities in this country.
Now, I am preaching to the converted when I talk to you,
Mr. Chairman, because I know that you were involved with two
model programs in Cleveland and Columbus that, frankly, we in
the private sector have looked at as examples of what we could
do here, and I congratulate you for that, and I know that I do
not have to sell you on that.
At the end of the day, we need your help to get this thing
moving. I cannot believe that we cannot put four bright people
in a room representing both sides of the argument on means
testing, on 50 States versus 2 States, and on some of the other
complexities which I am afraid we are manufacturing, and get
the thing settled and get it settled quickly. I will tell you
frankly, in my company, if they could not do that, I would fire
them.
So please, I urge you, let us not get mixed up in what
school is going to get what, and how we have to help UDC's
budget. Those may be very legitimate issues, but that is not
the purpose here. We are here to help the kids, and we need
your assistance.
I thank you.
Senator Voinovich. If I were still Governor, we would get
it done that quickly. [Laughter.]
But I am not, and I do believe that we have some good
people who really care about this program, and I can assure you
and everyone else here that I am going to do everything in my
power to get everyone into a room and see if we cannot get this
worked out ASAP and get it done, certainly, for sure, before we
get out of here in August, so that it is done, because it is
going to take time to put things in place and make sure all of
the t's are crossed and i's dotted so that when we launch the
program, we do not end up with problems. That is really
important, that when we do launch it, we have anticipated as
many of the problems as we can, so it does not hit some land
mines somewhere along the way and become discredited, and we go
back to accusations and so forth.
Mr. Noto. Mr. Chairman, the reason I think it is very
important--as I told you, we have raised about $16 million, and
we are on our way to $20 million. We have 16 groups already
involved in that effort, and you will see their names listed in
my written testimony. I am very grateful to them. You will see
the usual suspects. You will see those people who have done a
lot for the District of Columbia over time. And we have so much
new business flourishing in this area that if we can keep the
momentum going on this, I think we can get a lot more money
from a lot of companies who have not joined that list yet who
make a very good living in this area.
So I would urge you to remember that we are bringing
private money, and we can bring some incremental private money
if the momentum goes right.
Senator Voinovich. I will help you go after them.
Mr. Noto. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Let me say one other thing to you. I
think it is important that the business community contact
Senator Durbin, because he has some real questions about the
budgetary viability of this proposal.
One thing that I have come to recognize in my political
career is a thing called leveraging. One reason why I am
interested in this program, Mr. Noto, is because of the fact
that you and other people in the private sector are stepping
forward. And quite frankly, I look at the Federal Government's
involvement in this program as doing our part to continue to
encourage you to do your part. I think that if we were not to
go forward with this legislation, and we flubbed this
opportunity to move forward, it would be very discouraging to
you and other members of the private sector.
So I think it is very important that you get that across to
Senator Durbin and others who may be having a problem with
this, because where can you spend $17 million of Federal
money--and we know that as the years go on, it may be more--and
at the same time generate over $20 million in the private
sector? I think that is a terrific deal; I would love to see
the Federal Government involved in more programs like that.
Mr. Noto. Hear, hear.
Senator Voinovich. So we are going to move on it as quickly
as we can.
I want to thank all of you for being here today. We are
going to launch something here that is very important not only
to the District of Columbia but to this country.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL STRAUSS, U.S. SENATOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(SHADOW)
Chairman Voinovich, Senator Durbin, and Members of the Senate
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and
the District of Columbia, I am Paul Strauss, the Shadow U.S. Senator
elected by the voters of the District of Columbia.
For years, District residents have been denied basic rights that
citizens in the rest of the Nation have enjoyed. In every State in the
Nation, there is a university system supported by that State's
Government. In the District of Columbia, there is not a comparable
system in place. We have a State University--but no State University
system. ``House Resolution 974--The District of Columbia College Access
Act'' is a crucial step towards establishing equality for District
residents by affording them a myriad of educational opportunities. A
Senate bill, ``Senate 856--Expanded Options in Higher Education for
District of Columbia Students Act of 1999,'' takes steps in the same
direction but with some differences. I urge the Senate to adopt the
version submitted by the House.
The House and Senate versions (H.R. 974 and S. 856 respectively),
focus on the same basic objectives. However, several components warrant
special attention. First, the program should focus on national access,
and not regional access. S. 856 limits access to public institutions in
Maryland and Virginia. H.R. 974 allows access to public institutions in
each of 50 States. In order to best serve the college-bound residents
of the District, we must provide options beyond Maryland and Virginia.
Additionally, the Senate bill limitation will likely create a strain on
the Maryland and Virginia public university systems that will
disadvantage residents of those States.
Second, the program should promote participation by all colleges
and universities in the District. A critical factor in creating equal
educational opportunities for District residents is to advocate for
full participation of those institutions of higher learning within the
District borders. We are fortunate to have some of the finest
universities in the Nation right here in our own backyard. The
residents of the District are entitled to the education available from
these institutions while not being excluded solely because of financial
situations.
Third, the program should be administered by the local government,
and not by the Federal Government. The mayor's office should have
discretion to determine the procedure and criteria used in
administering all funds within this bill. The Department of Education,
while perhaps capable of providing guidelines, does not have the
resources necessary to distribute the funds to District residents in
the most effective manner. Any formal involvement by an entity of the
Federal Government would only serve to hinder the efficiency of the
administration of the program. Our local government currently in place
is fully equipped to administer the program to its own citizens.
Finally, the program should not require initial means testing or
income caps. There is no data to predict what the response level from
District residents will be to this program. It would be a grave mistake
to establish an income cap as a marker of eligibility for the program.
This cap could create a situation where funds are available for
distribution, but where the only otherwise eligible candidates are
refused funding from the program simply because of the income bracket
of their family. This means testing policy will likely prove to be
highly inefficient.
The Nation's Capital should be a place where all residents of the
United States would be proud to call home. We should encourage
residents to remain in the District, and encourage any American living
outside the District to select their Capital as their home. Congress
denies us Statehood, but D.C. residents need not be denied the benefits
of a State educational system. Congress denies us equal representation,
they should not deny us a quality education.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9579.060