D.C. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

MONDAY, MAY 24, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND YOUTH AFFAIRS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m. in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable W. S. Stuckey, Jr. (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Stuckey (Chairman), Dellums, Broyhill, Gude, Smith of New York, and Landgrebe; also Delegate Fauntroy.

Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; John Hogan, Minority Clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, Legislative

Assistant.

Mr. STUCKEY. We will now consider House Concurrent Resolution No. 172, concerning school attendance by children of officers or employees of the Federal Government residing and working in Washington.

(The resolution is as follows:)

[H. Con. 172, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., by Mr. Rarick, February 18, 1971]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it the sense of Congress that each officer or employee of the Federal Government who is residing and working in the District of Columbia and who has a child qualified to attend an elementary or secondary school should send such a child to an elementary or secondary school in the public school system of the District of Columbia.

We will hear first from our colleague, the Honorable John R.

Rarick.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. RARICK, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. RARICK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the

committee.

I am very happy to be here today and have this chance to speak on House Concurrent Resolution No. 172 which I feel is very necessary to the educational system in the Nation's Capital.

I remind the members of the subcommittee briefly what this resolution would do. It would make it the sense of Congress that every officer or Federal employee who lives and works in the District of Columbia for the Federal Government and who has a child qualified

to attend the elementary or secondary schools, place that child in a public school in the District of Columbia.

Since I am a Southerner, it may seem unusual that I introduced this bill. We have experienced many racial problems in my district as many of you have had in yours. If we had tolerated the situation which exists here in our Nation's Capital, however, I can frankly tell you that we would have been denied Federal funds and our educators would have incurred the wrath of the Justice Department and HEW. Likewise, many of our liberal friends would have attacked us unmercifully as perpetuating segregation and being racist.

Quite recently the School Superintendent of the District, Hugh J. Scott, warned the American people that a state of anarchy exists in the District's 190-some public schools. Fifty-one of the public schools in our Nation's Capital do not have any "other than Negro" students in attendance. The record shows that of 143,763 students there are 136,364 Negroes and 7,399 other than Negro. 60.3 percent of the other than Negro are enrolled in 14 schools, at which the other than Negro students consttiute at least 50 percent of the total enrollment.

Mr. STUCKEY. Are these 14 schools within the District?

Mr. RARICK. Within the District's 191 schools, yes. Of the 191, fiftyone have no white students. Of the 191, fourteen schools at present have 60 percent plus of the other than Negro students.

We in Congress are sitting in the center of Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, the home of the Supreme Court which has made so many landmark decisions in the field of racial education, the nerve center of HEW and the Justice Department, and, of course, the working area of literally thousands and thousands of Federal people who flee every night to the suburbs. And even among the few who live in the District, very few place their children in the D.C. public schools.

If the educational guidelines and court rulings on public education as forced into compliance in my district were to apply here in our Nation's Capital, all Federal funds would be immediately cut off.

In March of this year I had written Mr. Elliot Richardson, Secretary of HEW, to call to his attention that the latest school statistics show a serious imbalance in racial attendance in D.C. public schools and that I was receiving inquiries from my constituents wondering if he had contemplated cutting off the Federal funds from the D.C. schools. Such equal enforcement would result in a catastrophe. Nevertheless, it is a strange double standard that with the efforts to achieve mathematical racial balance in the public schools in certain areas of our nation, nothing is being done in Washington, D.C. to achieve racial balance. If racial balance is a national goal, then our Nation's Capital should reflect a cross-section of the racial minorities in our entire country.

Lo and behold, over a month later I received this letter from Mr. Richardson in which he indicates that the only authority his Department has to require school desegregation is under provisions of Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act, which he feels provides that any school district is considered to be in compliance with this Act if it is subject to a final order of a court of the United States with the desegregation of the school and provides an assurance that it will comply with such

order.

Secretary Richardson feels that inasmuch as the District of Columbia is desegregating under an order of the U.S. District Court in the

case of Hobson versus Hansen it qualifies under this provision. Yet statistics show that last year there were fifty schools which had no other than Negro students while this year there are 51 all black schools. Yet the D.C. system is held to be in compliance. I insert a copy of Secretary Richardson's letter of April 5 at this point of my testimony.

The thrust of my bill, H. Con. Res. 172, is that those who actually believe in the theory of racial balance, and those who feel we turn the country upside down to have a fully integrated society, certainly should support this resolution. Adoption of this resolution would show the American people that the leaders here in our Nation's Capital are big enough to voluntarily participate in the policies, the laws and edicts by making our Nation's Capital a model showplace of racial balance. Thus proving to the people around our Nation that their elected leaders are not hypocrites, that we are not going to openly defy the laws that bureaucrats here are making, that we will voluntarily submit to educational standards our people are forced to comply with in other parts of our country.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple resolution. It does not force anyone to place his children in the public schools. I think it is merely a moral commitment of the Congress that we, including the Federal bureaucrats, the Federal judges, HEW people, and decisionmakers of our country, should certainly put up or shut up. Adoption of this resolution will not force compliance. Federal officials and employees will act in a voluntary manner to show our people at home that we can live under the same laws they are forced to abide by.

I hope the Subcommittee will pass this resolution. I assure you I want to vote for it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. STUCKEY. Thank you, Mr. Rarick.

Mr. FAUNTROY. As you may know, one of reasons for the racial composition of our schools in the District has been that the alleged quality of education offered over a period of years has suffered from lack of income over those years. I wonder whether or not your resolution might be amended to indicate that all persons who worked in the District of Columbia for the Federal Government, including Congressmen, would contribute by way of income taxes to the District of Columbia, which would really make it easier to deal with the problem of quality education. If you assure me that that kind of sense of the Congress could be put into a bill, you would have my firm and full support.

Mr. RARICK. Am I to believe that unless the resolution is amended to include voluntary income taxes, you would oppose this resolution?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Let me assure you it would not be voluntary.

Mr. RARICK. I introduced this resolution the early part of February. I believe there are 13 members on the Black Caucus. I have had no offers to co-author this bill. Nor have any white liberals approached me with offers to join in support of this resolution.

Now you come up with the idea that unless we amend it to include income taxes you may not be able to support it. I am shocked by your

statement.

Let me say this. I pay my taxes. Every time there is a House District Bill on Appropriations and it passes I think that I do pay taxes for D.C. schools.

If the people are encouraged to bring their children back to the District of Columbia I think we will see a mass migration back to our Nation's Capital. That is, those who are legislators, the Federal employees, and those who are about the business of our country. If we can bring this caliber of people back into our Nation's Capital, I feel there will be a substantial rise in revenues. If the people return with their children to the Nation's Capital and are concerned with the condition of the schools, they themselves will be the best masters of what is needed. Most parents are very sensitive about the educational needs of their children. That is reflected in the variations among schools around our country.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROYHILL. The gentleman from the District and I are in agree ment on one portion of the suggested amendment, and that is that if we adopt this so-called reciprocal tax, to tax the incomes of all those working in the District of Columbia, it should include Members of Congress as well. I do not see where there should be any exception for Members of Congress, their staffs, or anyone else if we go on the premise that all people who work in the District of Columbia should pay income taxes to the city.

I want to point out that if that amendment is ever attached to any bill, I will fight with all I have to be sure that Members of Congress are included. I am glad to have the--I won't say assurancebut the statement that the gentleman from the District of Columbia support that view.

Did I understand you to say this is voluntary compliance?
Mr. RARICK. Sense of Congress, yes.

Mr. BROYHILL. Although I agree with what you are getting at here, there has been a lot of hypocrisy in the District and amoung our national leaders for a long time. Mr. Dellums said, let us put our cards on the table. There is a problem regarding this financial situation. Many communities have residents who send their chil dren to private schools, and to parochial school as well, not to avoid integration or because of racial problems but because they just feel the children can get a better education in private schools.

If your legislation is enacted, it will cost a lot of money in the District of Columbia because of many children who will then at tend public schools rather than private schools.

We already have a problem in raising enough revenue for this city as it is. Do you have an idea what this additional public school population will cost the city?

Mr. RARICK. I do not. But as I had said earlier, most parents will place their hearts and pocketbooks where their children are. If we can reverse the migration from our Nation's Capital-we will return a greater revenue source and we may find that these people will start demanding higher local taxes and the closing of tax loopholes. Taxes are looked on as an evil, mainly because many taxpayers disapprove of the way the money is spent. The original tax idea was a community pooling of funds to accomplish worthwhile purposes. Today the great opposition to taxes, especially on income, is that the working productive people do not approve of the way their tax dollars are being spent.

I find in Washington, D.C. our Nation's Capital, that visiting for eigners and tourists are surprised that the Federal City does not reflect a racial cross-section of the United States.