which police statistics reveal to be one of the lowest crime areas in the city; a fact in which we take pride. Congress only recently prohibited chanceries from locating in residential communities in the District. We find it most difficult to understand how a proposal for an industrial complex such as the Government Printing Office with all the hazards of traffic, and other implications not conducive to residential community living, can seriously be considered. Likewise, the use of this land for low-income housing will do little more than create another ghetto. This, too, will change the residential character of this relatively crime-free community. In addition, the National Capital Housing Authority has finalized plans to begin immediate construction of 156 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-bedroom units to accommodate 964 persons only a few blocks from the training school site. We believe this number of public housing units more than sufficient to be placed in any low-density community. Similar projects have not been seriously considered for any other low-density community in the city. Why further impose on the tax-paying property owners of our area, by erecting more high-density housing, or an industrial complex at the training school site? On the other hand, the training school site is the last large unincumbered land in the District available for developing a modern city university that may be expanded as the need and population growth demands. This site is located at one of the gateways to the city and could serve as a proper and fitting landmark for visitors to our great Capital City. Such a monument (the university) located on the training school site would be totally consistent with the beautification legislation recently enacted by Congress, and would also blend with the plans of Mrs. Lyndon Johnson for making our Nation's Capital a more beautiful city.

Finally, the Congress of Community Organizations is supported by publicspirited groups who, we believe, numerically represent more than one-half of the city population. In the absence of self-government for ourselves, we appeal to your distinguished committee and the Congress to heed our views.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS,

February 23, 1966.

Re S. 293 and S. 1612, relating to a publicly supported program of higher education in the District of Columbia.

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: The District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers, with a membership of over 50,000 persons, has a very immediate and direct concern with the purposes of S. 293 and S. 1612, relating to a program of publicly supported higher education in the District of Columbia.

In our action program, approved at our annual convention, we have a section which reads as follows:

"PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

"1. We support a program of higher education, at public expense and under public control, including a junior college, a college of liberal arts and sciences, a college of education, a graduate school, and such other programs as the needs of the community may indicate as desirable.

"2. We believe that the program of higher education should be under the control of a Board of Higher Education, the composition and method of appointment or election to be considered at a later date.

"3. We are opposed to any program of subsidies for higher education in privately controlled colleges and universities.

"4. We support a program of higher education with no tuition fees for residents of the District of Columbia.

"5. We support the maximum of institutional self-control over the finances of the program of higher education.

"6. We support an admission policy on the part of the District of Columbia institution of higher education which shall be flexible and appropriate to the various programs concerned.

"7. We support a program of cooperation between the District of Columbia institution of higher education and the District of Columbia public schools and the other colleges and universities of the metropolitan area."

In accordance with the first item in our action program listed above, we recommend that the bills under consideration be amended to provide for the establishment of a University of the District of Columbia.

There is a need for such an institution: Every one of the 50 States and many of the larger cities maintain at least one publicly supported and publicly controlled university. The young people of the District of Columbia are the only persons in this country who do not have such a facility for higher education available to them.

Each year, both private and State-supported universities are adopting more restrictive policies with regard to the admission of non-State residents.

Examples: (a) The University of Maryland is decreasing the number of nonresidents (especially women) to be admitted and is increasing the cutoff point in class rank of high school graduates; (b) Pennsylvania State University cut the number of admissions of graduates of Woodrow Wilson High School from the usual 12 to 15 students down to only 2, because of the need to accommodate applicants from the State of Pennsylvania. Other out-of-State high schools were cut in admissions in a similar manner; (c) Cornell University has recently announced that admissions of new students for 1966 will be reduced by 25 percent of the number admitted in 1965.

Thus, each year, unless a local high school graduate elects to follow a teachertraining course in the District of Columbia Teachers College, he will find it more and more difficult to gain admission to a State-supported university at reasonable cost.

All of the colleges and universities in the District of Columbia (except the District of Columbia Teachers College) are privately controlled, have student fees which are beyond the means of many of our young people, and have admission policies which would exclude many of our local high school graduates who might wish to continue in school beyond the 12th grade.

The District of Columbia can afford a university: This spokesman has, ever since 1953, called the attention of the District of Columbia Commissioners and various committees of the U.S. Congress to the statistics published annually by the U.S. Bureau of the Census under the titles of "Compendium of State Finances" and "Compendium of Large City Finances." These publications for fiscal 1964 show, among other facts, that—

(a) The District of Columbia has a population which exceeds that of 11 of the 50 States.

(b) The District of Columbia spent $2.26 per capita on institution of higher education, as compared with the national average of $28.87. (Maryland spent $21.23; Virginia, $19.40; six States over $50; only one State, Massachusetts, spent less than $10 ($9.87).) This spokesman questions the accuracy of the figure for the District of Columbia, since some costs have been assigned to the District of Columbia Teachers College which should be assigned to the costs of operating the elementary schools. A more accurate figure would probably be about $1.25 per capita. Of the 11 States with a smaller population than the District of Columbia, the largest amount spent on higher education was by Alaska ($13,200,000), and the smallest amount was by Wyoming ($1,900,000).

Other data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce show that the District of Columbia has a per capita income greater than that of all the States save that of Nevada; and that the District of Columbia spends a smaller percentage of its per capita income on education than any of the 50 States.

These figures show clearly that the District of Columbia can afford to support a public university for its residents.

In view of many criticisms of the method of appointing the present Board of Education, this spokesman would like to suggest the following change in S. 293 (which he believes in certain respects to be a better bill than S. 1612):

That the Board of Higher Education should consist of 21 members, 9 of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States, 9 of whom shall be appointed by the District of Columbia Commissioners; and 3 of whom shall be elected by and from the graduates of the University of the District of Columbia. All of the members appointed by the President of the United States and by the District of Columbia Commissioners shall have been residents of the District of Columbia for a period of not less than 5 years immediately prior to their appointments and shall be ineligible to continue in office should they cease to be residence of the District of Columbia. The three alumni members of the Board of Higher Education shall have held a degree from the University of the District of

Columbia or from the District of Columbia Teachers College or its predecessor institutions for at least 5 years prior to election. The terms of office of the first Board of Higher Education shall be: for one-third of the Board, 2 years; for onethird of the Board, 4 years; and for one-third of the Board, 6 years. Thereafter, the terms for all members of the Board shall be for 6 years provided that any member of the Board shall be eligible for reappointment.

Other amendments to S. 293 which we recommend, are as follows:

*S. 293, section 3(a), page 3, line 9, delete the period and add: “Provided further, That no member shall be a member of the administrative staff or of the faculty or of the board of trustees of any other institution of higher education located in the District of Columbia."

*S. 293, section 3(b), page 4, lines 5, 6, change "not less than four," to "all," and add at the end of the sentence, line 8, "Provided further, That no member shall be a member of the administrative staff or of the faculty or of the board of trustees of any other institution of higher education located in the District of Columbia."

*S. 293, section 4(a), page 5, line 11, following the word Education, add: "and not more than 1 year following the date of approval of this Act."

*S. 293, section 4(a), page 5, line 19, change period to a comma, and add "Provided, That the personnel so transferred shall suffer no loss of current salary or of increases thereto provided by existing law, nor any loss of rights or benefits (such as leave of absence, sick leave, pension, term life insurance, and health insurance, etc.) now provided by existing law."

*S. 293, section 4(b), page 5, line 24, add: "Provided, That the professional personnel of the laboratory schools may hold, if qualified, academic rank of assistant professor, or higher, in the faculty of the College of Education, and that any excess of salary due thereto over that of the regular position as teacher shall be paid from the appropriation for the University of the District of Columbia."

*S. 293, section 5(a), add new subsection 3: "to prepare plans for the establishment of any other institution of higher education which the needs of the community from time to time warrant.” Renumber the other subsections of section 5(a).

*S. 293, section 5(a), old subsection 5, insert a clause protecting tenure, salary, and all other rights and benefits of employees.

*S. 293, section 5(a), old subsection 6, change "four" to "six."

*S. 293, section 5(b), delete entire section. Neither S. 293 nor S. 1612 has satisfactory provisions for the financial autonomy of the University of the District of Columbia.

*S. 293, new section (a): "The Attorney General is authorized and directed to convey to the District of Columbia all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that tract of land situated along the east side of Bladensburg Road NE., Washington, District of Columbia (now used as a site for the National Training School for Boys), together with all improvements thereon, for use by it exclusively in carrying out the provisions of this Act, provided that should the Congress authorize the construction of a consolidated vocational school, this school may also be constructed on this site."

*S. 293, new section: "There is authorized to be appropriated from funds available to the District of Columbia, the sum of $15,000,000, for plans, specifications, and beginning of construction of buildings necessary to carry on the purposes of the University of the District of Columbia."

NOTE. The proposed amendments to S. 293 marked with an * are suggested by this spokesman, based upon his experience of more than 40 years with the public schools of the District of Columbia, including 26 years as a professor in the District of Columbia Teachers College. The other amendments suggested have all been approved by the Board of Managers of the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers as being consistent with the provisions of our action program relating to publicly supported higher education.

Respectfully submitted.

Mrs. WILLIAM C. BAISINGER,

President.

Dr. ELLIS HAWORTH,
Chairman, Legislation Committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. At the outset, we strongly urge that serious consideration be given to the basic need for publicly supported higher education in the District of Columbia. The opportunity to appear be fore your committee to express our views on this subject is both welcome and appreciated.

Let me suggest that in our prepared testimony here we support wholeheartedly the 2-year junior college plan and the 4-year liberal arts. However, we go a step further, Mr. Chairman, in that we believe that this is but the foundation on which to build an edifice; namely, a university of the District of Columbia.

We go ahead and support some statistical data, much of which is already in the record. With respect to the two bills before your committee at the present time, sir, my only comment would be that the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers is going to appear before your committee during this hearing and will be represented by Dr. Ellis Haworth and he has sent a statement with me today that I am going to suggest be introduced for the purposes of this record.

This is the position that our group takes with respect to the two bills before your committee.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Haworth's statement will be received in the record immediately following yours.

Mr. KENNEDY. Now, Mr. Chairman, the final point we wish the committee to consider is the site for the proposed institution. We strongly recommend that the present site of the National Training School for Boys be turned over to the government of the District of Columbia to be used, exclusively for higher educational purposes including a city university and the proposed vocational training school.

Many of us in the Congress of Community Organizations are residents in the area near the training school site. This is a low-density community 90 percent of which is composed of single-family detached homes. Most of the residents of the area own their homes.

According to the National Capital Planning Commission's proposed 1965-85 plan our community is one of the lowest density areas in the city.

May I just read one sentence from that plan, Mr. Chairman, to illustrate? On page 73 under the title, "Northeast" subtitle "Basic Policy," the following:

The pattern of development in Northeast should become more diversified with the new high-density development around rapid-transit stations relieving the almost unbroken pattern of low-density uses now existing in the greater portion of the area.

By way of further illustration, Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to a map, an individual map which the Commission prepared, and specific policies "Northeast." While we do not agree with most of the proposals of that report, this accurately states the circumstances with regard to density in the area about which we are discussing.

Northeast presently has some structural blight, although the area is generally in sound condition. Its schools and play spaces are reasonably adequate, but with an increase in population and an advancement in age of existing facilities over the next two decades, new facilities will have to be built. Many of the industrial areas are obsolete. The arterial system is insufficient.

With the development of the rapid transit and freeway systems, Northeast has tremendous opportunities for change. It will become readily accessible to all parts of the metropolitan area, which will open it to development demands from many directions. The realization of such access and availability could attract new industrial development along the existing industrial corridors. The intro