Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, and good luck.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Mrs. Libby B. Dunn, chairman of the Health, Education, and Welfare Committee of the Democratic Central Committe of the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF LIBBY B. DUNN, CHAIRMAN, HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mrs. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Libby B. Dunn and I am the chairman of the Health, Education, and Welfare Committee of the Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia.

Senator, I was delighted to hear your comments on the home rule bill for the District of Columbia this morning because as you know we supported strongly the Senate-passed bill and are continuing to do so.

I am going to just read excerpts from my testimony in order to save time.

Senator MORSE. The full statement of Mrs. Dunn will be inserted in the record following her testimony.

Mrs. DUNN. The Democratic Central Committee wishes to vigorously support legislation to establish publicly supported higher education in the District of Columbia. In the 1964 primary the Democratic voters voted 69,614 to 2,045 in favor of a public 4-year general college. In looking over the Congressional Directory I find that the Vice President, 37 Senators, and 131 Representatives started their college education in the publicly supported colleges of their own State. Many more did graduate work in their State universities. We wonder how many of these men would not be in the Congress today if they had not been offered this opportunity. The fight for a publicly supported college has personal meaning to me. When I was graduated from high school I would not have been able to attend college if there was not available near my Pennsylvania home a publicly supported State college.

The argument that the District has many colleges, and that we can meet the need by scholarships, has no merit in our opinion. This may meet the need of only the few most outstanding students. These colleges have applications from all over the country and give no special consideration to our students. Johnny Jones in Silver Spring can get into a State school even though he is a C student. He gets preference over students from outside his State. So do students in every State in the country. Our C or even B student, even if he can afford to pay, is finding it increasingly hard to get into a college anywhere. This problem is magnified if he is of a low-income family, and a large percentage of our students come from low-income families.

The President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia says:

Today there is a paramount need to provide full educational opportunities for the urban multitudes who are struggling under the burden of economic and cultural handicaps. Provisions for higher education must accommodate persons with the widest range of abilities, previous educational backgrounds and career

goals. No one with the potential ability to profit from higher education should be excluded because of inability to pay tuition or other charges, or because of remedial deficiencies in prior education.

As you so ably stated, Senator, we also believe strongly that the lack of a college to which these low-income students can aspire frequently causes a loss of motivation and lack of interest in high school work.

In line with this thinking we also endorse the proposal for a 2-year community college in addition to the degree-giving institution. The pattern of post-high-school training for semiprofessional, technical, and office occupations has been accepted by most cities as evidence by the widespread establishments of community 2-year colleges. Our city, even more than industrial cities, cannot absorb any increase in unskilled labor. This community college could serve our city not only in this capacity but, as in California, as a school where students of marginal scholarship, or late bloomers, could be given an opportunity to improve their qualifications to enter the 4-year college.

Senator Morse, we are hoping to see a speedy passage of this legislation in both Houses of the Congress. We want to thank you most sincerely for your efforts in this matter and for other things which you are doing for the District.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very, very much. You have given us a fine statement, Mrs. Dunn.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF LIBBY B. DUNN, DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The Democratic Central Committee wishes to vigorously support legislation to establish publicly supported higher education in the District of Columbia. In the 1964 primary the Democratic voters voted 69,614 to 2,045 in favor of a public 4-year general college. It is indeed a ridiculous situation that the Capital of the United States is the only major city without such a facility open to its students. If Johnny Jones lives across the line in Maryland or in any other large city in the country he may attend a variety of community and State colleges. Here there is only the District of Columbia Teachers College, which we must discount because of its very limited purpose and completely inadequate facilities.

In looking over the Congressional Directory I find that the Vice President, 37 Senators, and 131 Representatives started their college education in the publicly supported colleges of their own State. Many more did graduate work in their State universities. We wonder how many of these men would not be in the Congress today if they had not been offered this opportunity. The fight for a publicly supported college has personal meaning to me. When I was graduated from high school I would not have been able to attend college if there was not available near my Pennsylvania home a publicly supported State college.

The argument that the District has many colleges, and that we can meet the need by scholarships, has no merit in our opinion. This may meet the need of only the few most outstanding students. These colleges have applications from all over the country and give no special consideration to our students. Johnny Jones in Silver Spring can get into a State school even though he is a C student. He gets preference over students from outside his State. So do students in every State in the country. Our C or even B student, even if he can afford to pay, is finding it increasingly hard to get into a college anywhere. This problem is magnified if he is of a low-income family, and a large percentage of our students come from low-income families. The President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia says, "Today there is a paramount need to provide full educational opportunities for the urban multitudes who are struggling under the burden of economic and cultural handicaps. Provisions for higher education must accommodate persons with the widest range of abilities, previous educational backgrounds, and career goals. No one with the potential ability

to profit from higher education should be excluded because of inability to pay tuition or other charges, or because of remedial deficiencies in prior education." Lack of a college to which these low-income students can aspire frequently causes a loss of motivation and lack of interest in high school work.

In line with this thinking we also endorse the proposal for a 2-year community college in addition to the degree-giving institution. The pattern of post-highschool training for semiprofessional, technical, and office occupations has been accepted by most cities as evidenced by the widespread establishments of community 2-year colleges. Our city, even more than industrial cities, cannot absorb any increase in unskilled labor. This community college could serve our city not only in this capacity, but, as in California, as a school where students of marginal scholarship, or late bloomers, could be given an opportunity to improve their qualifications to enter the 4-year college.

Under the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 the Federal Government has provided aid to higher education. We have already forgone $289,620 under this act by having no institution to receive funds. We ask that this situation be corrected by the passage of this legislation.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mrs. Daniel Schreiber, vice president of public affairs, District of Columbia Section of the National Council of Jewish Women.

We are glad to have you here again, Mrs. Schreiber.

STATEMENT OF MRS. DANIEL SCHREIBER, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SECTION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN

Mrs. SCHREIBER. Thank you, Senator Morse.

We are a section of a national organization founded in 1898, with a membership of more than 123,000 women in some 329 communities throughout the United States.

Our program combines volunteer services with study and action on important local, national, and international issues. One of our areas of emphasis, for many years, has been that of education.

There has been a near unanimous recognition of the need for higher education for the general welfare of the United States, to make available to the United States the talents of all, including those submerged by poverty and immobilized by hopelessness. This has been recognized and stated by the late President Kennedy, President Johnson, Secretary of Labor William Wirtz, and the U.S. Congress, as expressed by the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, Public Law 88-204 which, incidentally, my organization supported.

In 16 cities comparable to the District (population over 250,000 and with more than 20 percent nonwhite), each has recognized this need. (Report to the President, June 1964, Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia.)

Our beautiful Capital City should be a leader in the field of education, not a laggard. Although the District has exceptional human and cultural advantages, its provisions for publicly supported higher education compares unfavorably with other major cities in this country and to all European capitals.

For the past 412 years, we have been involved in a remedial education project in Cardozo High School. We have been supplying both money and volunteers. We have been working toward raising the aspirations of the students and helping them change their self-image from one of despair to success: To see themselves as functioning, responsible, educated citizens; educated according to their potential; to

place before them an attainable goal, job-training in a community college or for those better qualified, a liberal arts training in a 4-year college. But the student experiences frustration and rejection. You have gotten some idea of that from these students who have just testified.

Although the District of Columbia public school system is college oriented, there is no low cost general college to which its students.

can go.

Education has a twofold purpose: To help the individual develop his abilities and to satisfy the educational manpower needs of our country. The bright, poor student in the high school, the decent child who doesn't want to be a financial drain on the limited resources of his family, knowing that they cannot afford the private college available in the District, tends to slow down, get lower marks, and, as you intimated this morning, drop out.

The knowledge that a publicly supported college is available and attainable will help provide motivation and make school a different experience. It will also make realistic the goals we are encouraging him to strive for.

It is true that there are several very fine post-high-school institutions in the District, but, in addition to the ever-increasing number of applicants, they are not District oriented or able to give tuition advantages to the District students.

We are in favor of

A. Public community college (2-year) comprehensive both transfer and terminal curriculums.

B. Public college of arts and sciences (4 years) including but not limited to a teachers' college which would absorb the present District of Columbia Teachers College.

C. A Board of Higher Education separate from the present Board of Education and responsible for the planning, organizing, and administration of the public colleges.

We feel that any differences between the bills under discussion can be resolved.

I thank you, Mr. Morse.

We hope that this committee will recommend measures that can be enacted into law as soon as possible.

Senator MORSE. This is a very fine statement. Thank you very, very much.

Mrs. SCHREIBER. You might be interested, Senator Morse, this is not in my testimony, but this is something that we have found in relation to our experiences with Cardozo High School.

So many of these boys and girls who are college material—I don't mean the one, two, or three that stand in the top of their class which the counsellor can go to the colleges and say, "Here we have a special student”—I mean that other group which if they came from a middleclass environment would go on to college.

We have found that some of the difficulty is they do not have the money for the college applications. Each application is $10 or $15. At most, they have to limit themselves to one or two, so they usually take the colleges in the District, either District of Columbia district colleges or Howard.

We have set up a fund in the National Council of Jewish Women to take care of this so that any child who the council feels is college material for any number of colleges would not be held back because they do not have the applications.

Senator MORSE. That is a fine program.

Mrs. SCHREIBER. I am telling you this because I think maybe somewhere, someplace, you might be able to work something in on this type of thing.

Senator MORSE. It is very important. I hope the counsel will make a note of it.

Thank you.

Mrs. SCHREIBER. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness is Mr. Frederick B. Lee, president of the United Planning Organization.

We are glad to have you here this afternoon.

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to have Mr. Donald Rugh, education coordinator, to sit with me. Senator MORSE. Mr. Rugh, we are glad to have you, too.

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK B. LEE, PRESIDENT, UNITED PLANNING ORGANIZATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. DONALD RUGH, EDUCATION COORDINATOR, UNITED PLANNING ORGANIZATION Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I will summarize the statement.

Senator MORSE. The full statement will be inserted in the hearing record after Mr. Lee's summary.

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, United Planning Organization is the coordinating agency for the antipoverty and antijuvenile delinquency efforts in the District of Columbia.

One of the basic tenets of the war on poverty is the belief that if people are given the tools with which to improve their lives and shown the way to use these tools, we will have begun to win the battle.

The United Planning Organization gives top priority to education in its programing to attack poverty in the Washington metropolitan area. The proposed legislation before us today which would establish a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences is an important part of the opportunity structure which must be built if we are to overcome the problems of poverty which pervade the Nation's Capital.

It is important to remember in discussing the need for higher public education in the District that approximately 90 percent of the enrollment in the public schools of the District of Columbia is Negro. A large percentage of these young people come from economically deprived homes and must struggle against the barrier of racial discrimination and of a limited opportunity in the labor market. This puts two strikes against them. It is a wonder that so many succeed.

It is our belief that school dropouts and the unemployed, or underemployed, produce the social dynamite that could blow up at any time. Conversely, we believe that these same young people with tools of as much education as they are capable of achieving will lead to better jobs, more settled home life and a better society. It is for this reason we wish to support any bill that would provide a public college in the District of Columbia.