The No More D.C. Waste Act would change how federal payments for the District of Columbia’s resident tuition support program are handled. Under current law, certain funds for the D.C. College Access Program can remain available until expended; this bill would require any portion of a federal payment that is unobligated at the end of the fiscal year to lapse, meaning it could not be carried forward into later years. The bill also makes conforming changes to the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to remove the “available until expended” language for both the public school and private school program provisions.
In addition to the lapse requirement, the bill would require the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer to submit an annual report to Congress beginning in fiscal year 2026. That report would have to describe how the resident tuition support payment was used during the fiscal year, including the number of student payments made, the average amount of assistance provided, and any unobligated balance remaining at year-end. The bill states that its changes would apply to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016 and later, although the reporting requirement begins with fiscal year 2026.
Impact
The bill would amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 and alter the budgetary treatment of federal tuition-support payments to the District. Specifically, it would eliminate the ability to carry forward unobligated federal funds for the D.C. resident tuition support program beyond the fiscal year, which could reduce the District’s flexibility in administering the program and increase pressure to obligate funds within the year they are appropriated. It would also impose a new annual reporting obligation on the District’s Chief Financial Officer to provide Congress with program-use data and information on unused balances.
Sentiment
Based on the bill title and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a fiscal oversight and anti-waste proposal, suggesting support from sponsors for tighter control over federal funds. However, the provided record contains no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal opposition statements, so there is no documented broader legislative sentiment in the materials supplied. The bill was introduced and referred to committee, with no further action shown here.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the treatment of unobligated funds: supporters would view the lapse requirement as preventing unused federal money from rolling over unnecessarily, while critics could argue it reduces administrative flexibility and may disrupt student aid administration if funds are not fully obligated by year-end. Another possible point of dispute is the reporting mandate, which adds oversight and compliance requirements for the District of Columbia government. No specific objections or named opponents are included in the provided materials.
A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the education system, including the funding and operation of the department for the blind, department of education, and state board of regents, and including contingent effective date provisions. (Formerly SSB 1231.) Effective date: 07/01/2025.
A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the education system, including the funding and operation of the department for the blind, department of education, and state board of regents, and including contingent effective date provisions.(Formerly HSB 337.)
A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the education system, including the funding and operation of the department for the blind, department of education, and state board of regents.
A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the education system, including the funding and operation of the department for the blind, department of education, state board of regents, department of workforce development, and Iowa special education council. (Formerly HSB 778.) Effective date: 07/01/2026.
Recognizing the service of all District of Columbia veterans, condemning the denial of voting representation in Congress and full local self-government for veterans and their families who are District of Columbia residents, and calling for statehood for the District of Columbia through the enactment of the Washington, D.C. Admission Act (H.R. 51 and S. 51), particularly in light of the service of District of Columbia veterans in every American war.