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 before 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

duction of transit stops and major transportation interchanges will provide opportunities for new employment, commercial, and residential development. If properly directed, these and other demands to develop new activity centers within Northeast will open the entire area to a new area of growth and vitality.

BASIC POLICIES

There should be an increase in office and commercial activity in Northeast reflecting improvements in accessibility. Furthermore, industry would continue to be an important land use in parts of this area. Nevertheless, Northeast should for the most part remain predominantly residential.

Total household population could increase by as much as one-third over the next 20 years, to a total of about 80,000. Allocations for new schools and other community facilities would be more than offset by the proposed residential reuse of the National Training School site, and by potentials which would be realized through the intensification of residential development in the vicinity of new transit stops and other points of emerging high accessibility.

The pattern of development in Northeast should become more diversified, with 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. The small activity centers at the community level should be strengthened, and industrial activity should be separated from residential areas to provide a clearer sense of community structure throughout the area.

SPECIFIC POLICIES: RESIDENTIAL

New high-density residential development should prevail within the corridor of blocks immediately to the east of the north-south transit line (and new North Central Freeway), lying generally between Taylor Street on the north and Rhode Island Avenue on the south.

A mix of housing types averaging out to moderate density should be characteristic of the residential development proposed for the National Training School site.

Activity centers

Of the two uptown centers identified as potentials for the areas near the two transit stations proposed for Northeast, the one at Rhode Island Avenue should have strong industrial leanings, while the one at Michigan Avenue should take shape as the more typical uptown center mix of shops, office buildings, and highdensity residential.

The scattered industrial activities in this area (as well as some from other parts of the city) should be consolidated just north of the railroad corridor paralleling New York Avenue.

Two new school campus developments should be established in the eastern sector of Northeast. The existing Eckington school complex, including community recreation facilities, should be reexamined, pointing to an improved organization and use of limited land resources.

Local commercial activities, notably those strung out along Rhode Island Avenue, should be consolidated in a few community and neighborhood centers. Open Space

A substantial addition should be made to the parks and play spaces of the Northeast area, to keep pace with recent and expected population growth.

An overlook park should be considered as a potential for at least part of the bluff to the north of the freeway proposed to parallel New York Avenue, to capitalize on the high elevations characteristic of this section of the Nation's Capital.

Transportation

The two principal rail transit stations to serve Northeast (as stops along the line following the B. & O. right-of-way) should be near Rhode Island Avenue and Fourth, and near Michigan and 12th.

The freeways in this area should be laid out to minimize their impact on the topography and to provide the best possible opportunity for new urban development.

As a parkway, Eastern Avenue should extend southward along the edge of this area to a terminus at the Anacostia River park area.

Special

The land to be vacated by the National Training School should be developed in a manner which would contribute positive new forces giving form to the community in this section of Northeast. Proposed for this site are a varied mix of housing types and a full complement of community facilities (including one of the two new school campus developments proposed for Northeast), as well as an employment center which would have a character compatible with the prevailing residential function of the tract as redeveloped. Quality of development and design throughout should be of the highest because of the prominence of this setting as the major gateway to the Nation's Capital from the east.

Mr. KENNEDY. To permit this site to be used for other projects currently under consideration will change the residential character of this area 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 on 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 taxpaying 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 public spirited 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.

Attached hereto is a list of 28 organizations which support the position that I stated. In addition thereto, I would certainly like for you to include for the record a resolution of January 11, 1966, supporting this position, and further, Mr. Chairman, we have brought along with us petitions of the residents of this community. Other petitions like these have already been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission on this question.