GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, June 3, 1966. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report H. R. 15054, a bill "To amend the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended." This bill incorporates the Commissioners' recommendation for a 3.6 per cent average increase in the salaries of District teachers and school officers, retroactive to October, 1965, as well as other reforms proposed in the Commissioners' letter to the Speaker of the House dated March 15, 1966 submitting draft legislation introduced as H.R. 13702 and H. R. 13710. In addition, H. R. 15054 incorporates the Commissioners' supplemental recommendation, contained in their letter of May 9, 1966 to you, providing an additional pay increase for District teachers and school officers of 3.1 per cent. Only the effective date of this additional 3.1 per cent pay increase differs in H. R. 15054 from the Commissioners' proposal. The Commissioners had recommended in their letter of May 9, 1966 that the additional 3.1 per cent pay increase be effective in January, 1967, the effective date being proposed by the President to the Congress for legislation increasing salaries for Federal and District classified employees. H.R. 15054 provides an effective date for the 3.1 per cent increase of July, 1966. The Commissioners recommend that H. R. 15054 be amended by striking "July 1, 1966" in line 6 on page 19, and inserting in lieu thereof "January 1, 1967." With the foregoing amendment, the Commissioners would recommend the enactment of H.R. 15054 for the reasons stated in their justifications for the salary increases proposed in their letters of March 15, 1966 and May 9, 1966. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners. CONGRESS AND THE DISTRICT-EXAMPLES SHOWING THAT CONGRESS HAS WELL Reckless and unfounded statements have appeared in the press from time to time, charging the Congress with a lack of proper concern for the fiscal well-being of the District of Columbia, and with making wholly inadequate provisions for the District of Columbia as to availability of funds and services within the Nation's Capital. The facts revealed in these exhibits will serve to place these accusations in their proper light. Exhibit No. 1 lists the expenditures of Federal funds in the District of Columbis. exclusive of the annual Federal contributions to the District of Columbia general fund and to the city's water and sewer funds, for fiscal years 1964 and 1965. This compilation reveals that such expenditures reached a total in excess of $176 million in fiscal year 1965; further, while some of these payments are similar in nature to grants made to the various States, more than $72 million of this total was spent on programs and projects which are not duplicated in any other juris diction. When this amount is added to the $40 million appropriated in 1965 to the District of Columbia funds mentioned above, certainly there can be no justification for any allegation of "neglect" on the part of the Congress. Exhibit No. 2 is a presentation of expenditures in the District in certain major categories directly affecting the public welfare, with an indication also of the relative rank of the District of Columbia with respect to these expenditures, in comparison with those in the other U.S. cities of comparable size. These figures show the Nation's Capital to rank first among these cities in per capita expendi tures in three of the six categories, and second, third, and fourth, respectively, in the three remaining ones. Exhibit No. 3 shows, in detail, the expenditures for personal services in each of the 17 U.S. cities referred to above, in fiscal years 1951 and in 1963, together with the increase in this expenditure in each city during this interval of 12 years. These figures show the District to rank first among these cities in this expenditure by a very large margin, and highest by far also in the increase in this expenditure. This latter figure is highly significant, for while it is true that the District of Columbia, because of its peculiar status as the Federal City, has certain functions and responsibilities which are assumed elsewhere by the State governments and which would account for a higher expenditure for personal services in the District than in these other cities, it is true also that Washington has always had these extra responsibilities. They have not increased in number, and thus this fact does not account in any way for the great increase in such expenditure over a period of years. All salaried positions in the District of Columbia government must be authorized and the salaries appropriated, by congressional action. Thus, little justification may be found in these facts for any implication of "stinginess" on the part of the Congress. Exhibit No. 4 presents some further detail in two vital areas, showing the amounts appropriated in fiscal years 1961 through 1965 for public education and for public welfare in the District of Columbia. These figures are of particular interest in light of the statistics in exhibit No. 2 which show the District to rank second and fourth, respectively, in these 2 categories among the 17 comparable U.S. cities. In connection with expenditure for public welfare, of course, it should be borne in mind that the District of Columbia has the highest per capita income and normally the lowest rate of unemployment among all these cities. Exhibits No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7, pertain to the District of Columbia public school system, the area in which the Congress has been subjected to the greatest amount of unfounded criticism. An item in Exhibit No. 2 indicates that the District of Columbia ranked second, in 1963, among the 17 comparable U.S. cities with respect to operating expenditures per pupil in average daily membership in its public school system. Exhibit No. 5 presents this picture in detail, showing the actual amount of this highly significant expenditure in each of these cities during school year 1963-63, and also for school year 1956-57. These figures show that the District rose from sixth to second place in this expenditure during this period of 6 years, and ranked first among these cities in the increase in this figure. These statistics, together with the item of $75 million spent in the past decade for new school construction, completely belie the frequent allegation hat Congress is in any way indifferent to the quality of public education in the Nation's Capital. Exhibit No. 6 shows in detail the incredible cost of broken windowpanes in the District of Columbia schools, which has exceeded threequarters of a million dollars over the past 10 years. It should be pointed out that in these exhibits, fiscal year 1963 is the most recent year for which the figures involving the 17 U.S. cities of populations comparable to the District are presently available. Exhibit No. 7 shows expenditure of $75 million for 1,382 new classroom construction for the past 10 years. Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9 show District of Columbia government personnel and salary increases authorized for them by Congress during the past 10 years. EXHIBIT 1 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Expenditures of Federal funds in the District of Columbia, exclusive of Federal payment of the District of Columbia general funds, fiscal years 1964 and 1965 [In thousands of dollars] 1964 actual 1965 estimate L. PAYMENTS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO OR FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mass transportation demonstration project (HHFA). 41 Civil defense procurement (DOD). Administrative expenses, District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board (Labor).. 87 Cooperative vocational education allotments (HEW). Advances for disability determinations (HEW) 116 96 Grants for services for maternal and child health, crippled children, and child welfare (HEW). Grants for programs in disease prevention, treatment, and control, mental health activities, and other public health work (HEW). 730 1,384 Grant for demonstration project for community mental health centers (NIH). 400 II. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF NCTA (approximately 75 percent of currently proposed transit system is in the District of Columbia). 750 Freedmen's Hospital.. 3,880 375 4,038 Commission of Fine Arts (approximately 50 percent of workload relates to the District of Columbia-generated project).. National Capital Housing Authority.. National Capital Planning Commission (approximately 25 percent of workload relates to the District of Columbia-generated projects). St. Elizabeths Hospital (difference between cost of service to the District of Columbia residents and amount reimbursed by the District of Columbia).... George Washington University Hospital (construction). U.S. National Park Service (expended in the District of Columbia only). Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Budget, U.S. National Park Service, and United Planning Organization. EXHIBIT 2 Rank of the District of Columbia among the 17 U.S. cities of population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 in certain major expenditures, fiscal year 1963 1 Per capita. This is an addition to more than $42,000,000 spent by the Federal Government for hospital construction in the District in recent years. This has no parallel in any State, and is solely a result of the status of the District of Columbia as the Federal City. This item does not include more than $75,000,000 spent in the past 10 years for construction of new class rooms in the District, which as far as we can learn is the highest such expenditure among the 17 comparable cities. Per pupil in average daily membership. NOTE.-Fiscal year 1963 is the latest year for which these data are available. Source: "Compendium of City Government Finances in 1963," U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. EXHIBIT 3 Expenditures for personal services in U.S. cities of population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 in either the 1950 or the 1960 census, fiscal years 1951 and 1963 NOTE.-Fiscal year 1963 is the latest year for which these data are available. Source: "Compendium of City Government Finances" (1951 and 1963 editions), U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. EXHIBIT 4 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1961-65 The following figures show the total appropriations for fiscal years 1961 through 1965 for public education and public welfare in the District of Columbia. During this period, the appropriation for education has increased by $24,324,000, and that for welfare by $3,797,425. NOTE.-Appropriation totals include all appropriated supplementals. Supplementals for 1965 contained in H. Docs. 80 and 98 are not included. |