H.R.1686 would eliminate the ability of the District of Columbia to carry forward any portion of a federal payment for its resident tuition support program that remains unobligated at the end of a fiscal year. The bill strikes language in two provisions of the District of Columbia College Access Act that currently allow funds to “remain available until expended,” causing any unobligated amount to lapse at fiscal year end.
The bill also imposes a new reporting duty on the District’s Chief Financial Officer: within 60 days after each fiscal year in which a federal payment is made for resident tuition support (starting with FY2026), the CFO must report the number of payments made, the average assistance per payment, and the year-end unobligated amount. The measure applies to funds appropriated for FY2016 and later, which raises practical and accounting questions for both District administrators and federal appropriators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill causes any federal payment for District resident tuition support that is unobligated at fiscal year end to lapse and removes statutory carryover language from two sections of the District of Columbia College Access Act. It also requires the District CFO to file an annual report within 60 days after the fiscal year end with three data points about program disbursements and unobligated balances, beginning with FY2026.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are the District of Columbia programs that administer resident tuition support under the College Access Act (both the public-school and private-school streams), the D.C. Chief Financial Officer, and federal appropriators who supply and monitor those payments. Students and institutions that rely on timing of awards will be indirectly affected by shifts in payment cadence.
Why It Matters
By converting carryover authority into a hard lapse, the bill shifts timing risk from the District to federal appropriations: unused funds will not automatically stay available for program use. That change alters budgeting behavior, creates new administrative deadlines, and narrows the District’s flexibility to match award timing to academic cycles and student need.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Currently, the District of Columbia’s resident tuition-support payments from the federal government include statutory language that lets funds “remain available until expended,” which lets the District obligate money after the fiscal year ends. This bill removes that flexibility for federal payments tied to the resident tuition programs, making any unobligated portion of such a payment lapse at the end of the fiscal year.
Practically, that means money not committed to a student or contract by September 30 (or the federal fiscal year end) would no longer be available to the District for the program.
The bill implements those changes by striking the “remain available until expended” sentences in two subsections of the District of Columbia College Access Act—one covering the public-school program and one covering the private-school program. It then states that the change applies with respect to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016 or any succeeding fiscal year.
Separately, the measure creates a recurring transparency obligation: within 60 days after the close of each fiscal year in which a federal payment is made, the District CFO must tell Congress how many payments the program made that year, the average amount paid per student, and how much of the federal payment, if any, remained unobligated at year end.Those mechanics produce predictable operational effects. District administrators will face a hard deadline to obligate federal tuition-support funds or lose them; that can push offices to accelerate award processing, change procurement timing, or alter eligibility windows so commitments can be made before fiscal year end.
Congress gets more granular annual visibility into program activity, but the reporting requirement is narrowly tailored and omits some standard monitoring metrics (for example, total program enrollment or demographic breakdowns). The application to funds dating back to FY2016 introduces accounting and reconciliation tasks: administrators will need to identify any carryover balances from those years and determine whether the lapsing rule already affected them or will do so going forward.Taken together, the bill tightens federal control over the lifecycle of a specified federal payment to the District, replaces local carryover discretion with a fiscal-year-end cutoff, and forces a modest reporting regime designed to let Congress track usage and unobligated amounts on an annual basis.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes any portion of a federal payment for D.C. resident tuition support that is unobligated at fiscal year end lapse and become unavailable for the program after that fiscal year.
It amends two provisions of the District of Columbia College Access Act—sec. 38–2702(i) and sec. 38–2704(f)—by striking the phrases that permitted funds to “remain available until expended.”, The change applies with respect to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016 and any succeeding fiscal year, creating retrospective application to prior appropriations.
The District’s Chief Financial Officer must submit an annual report to Congress within 60 days after fiscal year end (beginning FY2026) disclosing: the number of payments made under the program, the average amount of assistance per payment, and the year-end unobligated amount.
The bill does not specify disposition of lapsed federal funds (for example, return to the Treasury or reappropriation), leaving a follow-on accounting and appropriations question unresolved.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s name, the “No More D.C. Waste Act.” This is a labeling provision only; it has no substantive effect on program administration or funding mechanics but frames the bill’s intent in statutory form.
Lapse rule for unobligated funds
Establishes the core rule: any portion of a federal payment to the District for resident tuition support that remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal year shall lapse and not be available after that fiscal year. Practically, this converts previously available carryover balances into automatic lapses, removing the District’s discretion to obligate past-year balances for the program.
Conforming amendments to District law
Directly amends two subsections of the District of Columbia College Access Act by striking the sentence that currently allows funds to remain available until expended. Those textual edits eliminate statutory authorization on the District side for carrying forward federal payments tied to the named programs, aligning the District code with the new lapse rule.
Effective date and scope
States that the lapse rule and the conforming amendments apply with respect to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016 or any succeeding fiscal year. That language imports a retroactive scope back nearly a decade; administrators will need to reconcile open or previously-carried balances dating to FY2016 against the new statutory rule and determine whether any prior cross-year obligations remain valid.
Annual CFO reporting requirement
Requires the District Chief Financial Officer to report to Congress within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year for which a federal payment is made to the resident tuition support program, beginning with fiscal year 2026. The report must state three items: the number of payments made on behalf of students, the average amount of assistance per payment, and the amount of the federal payment that remained unobligated at year end. The mandated data set is narrowly focused on disbursement counts, averages, and unobligated balances rather than program outcomes or demographic detail.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- House and Senate appropriations and oversight committees — gain annual, standardized data on disbursements and unobligated balances to improve fiscal oversight and to inform future appropriation decisions.
- Taxpayer and budget-oversight groups — benefit from tighter limits on carryover of federal funds and clearer year-end accounting, which reduce the potential for unmonitored multi-year spending authority.
- Federal appropriators who prefer tighter year-by-year control — the lapse rule prevents the District from using prior-year federal payments beyond the fiscal year they were intended for, increasing Congress’s leverage over subsequent allocations.
Who Bears the Cost
- District agencies that administer resident tuition support — lose carryforward flexibility, face pressure to obligate funds before fiscal-year deadlines, and must reconcile prior-year balances dating to FY2016.
- District Chief Financial Officer — adds a recurring reporting obligation and must develop processes to calculate number of payments, averages, and unobligated amounts within a 60-day window.
- Students and educational institutions — may experience altered award timing or reduced availability if administrators accelerate commitments to avoid lapses, potentially misaligning disbursements with academic calendars or students’ needs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate aims against each other: Congress’s interest in preventing multi-year availability of federal funds and increasing year-by-year fiscal control, versus the District’s need for timing flexibility to deliver tuition support in sync with academic calendars and administrative realities; tightening one almost inevitably undermines the other.
The bill narrows a programmatic discretion that District administrators have used to bridge timing gaps between federal appropriation cycles and academic award schedules. That produces an obvious trade-off: Congress gains firmer control over federal funds’ lifecycle, but the District loses a tool often used to smooth payment timing across semesters or delayed revenue streams.
The administrative burden extends beyond the single reporting metric—the CFO will need reliable transaction-level accounting to produce accurate counts and averages within 60 days, and the District may need short-term staffing or system changes to meet that window.
A second implementation complication is the retrospective scope. Applying the rule to funds appropriated since FY2016 forces reconciliation of long-standing carryover lines, raises questions about whether prior obligations already relied on carryover authority, and may require accounting adjustments.
The statute also omits a clear destination for lapsed funds, creating ambiguity about whether they would be treated as unobligated federal balances returned to the Treasury, reprogrammed by Congress, or handled under normal miscellaneous receipts rules—each outcome has different budgetary and programmatic consequences. Finally, the reporting requirement’s limited data fields will give Congress visibility on volume and unobligated dollars but not on program effectiveness or on demographic and eligibility patterns that often drive policy decisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.