DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVENUE BILL

(Proposed Amendments to H.R. 11487)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Senator Alan Bible (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bible and Dominick.

Also present: Chester H. Smith, staff director; Fred L. McIntyre, counsel; Robert T. Hall, assistant counsel; and Richard E. Judd, professional staff member.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will continue with the testimony where we left off when we adjourned on Monday. I believe, Mr. Tobriner, you had concluded at the top of page 12.

Mr. TOBRINER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER N. TOBRINER, PRESIDENT, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JOHN B. DUNCAN, MEMBER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; BRIG. GEN. C. M. DUKE, ENGINEER COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; SCHUYLER LOWE, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION; THOMAS F. AIRIS, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC; KENNETH BACK, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FINANCE OFFICER; PETER HERMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUDGET OFFICER; GEORGE W. GRIER, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION; AND FRANK CUSH-Resumed

Commissioner TOBRINER. I had been referring to the Federal grant-in-aid program as it affected the District and mentioned some of the earlier more conventional grants-in-aid related to the highway program, to the school lunch program, to public assistance grants and to urban renewal. In the last few years the earlier grants have been augmented sharply by programs providing for impact aid for schools, the Education Act of 1965, the Economic Opportunity Act, medical assistance for the aged, maternal and infant care and many others.

These funds are an imporatnt source of additional financing for the District, but do not diminish in any way the basic responsibility for meeting the social and economic needs of the community from District resources. A prevailing qualifying feature of these grants is that there be no diminution of local effort, and in many cases there is a "matching" requirement.

Federal grants are also usually restricted to specific programs aimed at meeting new nationwide objectives for improved services by State and local governments. If Federal support of these programs is diminished, the District might very well find it necessary to seek additional local funds to maintain programs which have demonstrated community value and for which there is a strong need.

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Colorado.

Senator DOMINICK. I am sorry, Mr. Tobriner, to interrupt you again but there are some things which have been bothering me for quite a long period of time. On page 11 at the bottom you say it is estimated that the District will receive about $118 million for its share of this Federal assistance during 1967. Now my understanding is what you are saying here is that there are matching grants from the Federal Government for programs and that the District cost is $118 million.

Commissioner TOBRINER. No, the total of the grants, the available funds that we have to spend, is $118 million. Of that amount $30.3 million is required in District matching funds. They may be either funds or they may be service.

Senator DOMINICK. In other words, the Federal Government makes available $118 million for certain programs if you want to match them? Commissioner TOBRINER. Actually, the total program

Senator DOMINICK. What total program?

Commissioner TOBRINER. The grant program, the total Federal grant to the District of Columbia amounts to $118 million. In order to qualify for those grants, the District's matching share which varies in the case of different grants, amounts to $30.3 million.

Senator DOMINICK. What we are saying in effect is that the District in order to take advantage of the Federal money must raise an additional $30 million?

Commissioner TOBRINER. That is right, sir; and that may be raised either in cash or in service.

Senator DOMINICK. Is the District raising that amount of money? Commissioner TOBRINER. It is budgeted.

Senator DOMINICK. Have the Commissioners made any analysis whether they would go into those programs if the Federal funds were not available?

Commissioner TOBRINER. Each grant is subject to prior acceptance by the District Commissioners and at the time they are presented to us we inquire as to the objectives and the utility of the grant in question.

Senator DOMINICK. I bring this up because I remember serving on a mental health clinic in my State. The lady who was the chairman of the board at that particular point said that we were not spending money fast enough even though we were already busted and that if we spent it faster and went further in debt, then we would get some Federal funds, which to me was about as poor a method of mathematics as I could think of.

Commissioner TOBRINER. I would agree.

Senator DOMINICK, I want to be sure we are not doing the same thing here, that these programs are felt by the Commissioners to be necessary for the District.

Commissioner TOBRINER. In each case where the acceptance of a grant is presented to us we hear from the Department involved as to the necessity and desirability of augmenting this program by the grant fund.

Senator DOMINICK. What are you going to do about the school lunch program?

Commissioner TOBRINER. We are naturally going to accept that, sir. We have for the past 2 years.

Senator DOMINICK. You are not going to get any this year? It is cut out just about?

Commissioner TOBRINER. Well, we will take what we can get, sir. Senator DOMINICK. If the Federal Government should cut out its school milk program which it is now proposing, would the District feel it would have to go forward with it anyhow, raise enough money to do it on its own?

Commissioner TOBRINER. I would think so, sir. Dr. Hansen who is the Superintendent of Schools will be here later to testify but this has become such an important program, built into the school health and nourishment program for so long, that I would feel that we would have to finance it ourselves in the event that Federal aid were not forthcoming.

Senator DOMINICK. You have the same problem now with the impacted area bill in which the proposed amount by the administration has been cut down very, very sharply. Suppose it is cut down and the Congress leaves it the way the President has proposed, what is the District going to do about that?

Commissioner TOBRINER. I think that we would have to hear from the Superintendent of Schools and make an evaluation as to the proposed use of funds in lieu of the impacted aid program to determine whether or not we should attempt to fund them ourselves.

Senator DOMINICK. Do we have in these exhibits the cost to the District of the so-called poverty program?

Commissioner TOBRINER. Yes; I think we do. It is exhibit G (see p. 48).

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Colorado was permitted an interruption at the point he was asking on impacted aid. I was asking a similar question on Monday. The statistical table furnished by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the Senate on page 19 shows that the amount that the District receives now under Public Law 874 is $5,241,036.

The amount they would receive under the proposed amendments to Public Law 874 would be $3,404,000 which is a cutback of almost $2 million if the President's proposal were to prevail in the Congress.

Senator DOMINICK. If I may say the District is getting a far larger portion of the share than either the State of Nevada or the State of Colorado is under this cutback.

The CHAIRMAN. That certainly is true. Speaking only for Nevada, the effect of a cutback on Public Law 874 is catastrophic for our school system, where we get $3 million then it cuts us back to $2 million, for example, which would have a terriffic impact on the school system of the State of Nevada.

Senator DOMINICK. We are cut back about 65 percent.

I have in exhibit G the poverty program for items M, N, O, P— and I don't know whether I is in there or not.

The CHAIRMAN. So is this page 4?

Senator DOMINICK. Page 4.

Commissioner TOBRINER. Senator Dominick, on page 8 of exhibit G you will find a summary by title.

Senator DOMINICK. Now the funds that you have here listed on page 8 of exhibit G under item 1 provides for the expenditure-in-is that fiscal 1966?

Mr. LowE. Yes; this is fiscal 1966. We also show 1967, Senator, as an estimate. Those funds have not yet been allocated.

Senator DOMINICK. 1966 ending on June 30 of this year; is that right?

Mr. LowE. That is right. Then the second column from the right is the best estimate we have been able to obtain of what will be available for fiscal year 1967.

Senator DOMINICK. Out of that amount of money of $6,500,000 for 1966, how much of that is District funds?

Mr. LowE. We have to apply against that approximately $180,000. With regard to these programs some of them require no matching. If you will notice the title II-A portion of $2,010,000 in 1966, and $1,700,000 estimated for 1967, it is zero for local matching.

Generally on the poverty program the matching is in the form of contributed supporting_service. Some of the other programs like Federal assistance and Federal aid to highways, that is strictly cash. Contributing service is not an element involved.

Senator DOMINICK. Would you say what the various titles encompass in the way of programs under the poverty program? Mr. LowE. Title B is a youth program.

Senator DOMINICK. What type of youth program?

Mr. LowE. This is youth training. It is chiefly training to get the high school age back into the high school.

Senator DOMINICK. Is this work-study or work-training?

Mr. Lowe. Work training primarily.

Senator DOMINICK. This is under the OEO then?

Mr. LowE. That is correct.

Senator DOMINICK. Not under the Office of Education?

Mr. LowE. Right; title I(c) is a similar type of program but aimed at college students who are needy and require employment assistance in order to remain in school.

Senator DOMINICK. That would be the Office of Education workstudy program?

Mr. Lowe. I don't recall where the Office of Education fits in this, Senator. Our contacts are with the local universities.

Senator DOMINICK. In the Higher Education Act of 1965 we took one of these programs and put it under the Office of Education. That was the work-study program. The work training program we left in under the OEO.

Mr. LowE. Right.

Senator DOMINICK. Now which is which?

Mr. LowE. This is the work training, OEO. My people are saying differently. Let me see, Senator. May I simply corroborate what you were saying about the 1(c)? It has been moved to the Office of Education. This point is missing.

Senator DOMINICK. Now how many children are being so-called put back into a position to go back into high school under 1(b)? The CHAIRMAN. Feel free to call on any staff members to give you the answers.

Mr. LowE. May I introduce Mr. George Grier who is our staff assistant for working with the internal coordinating effort on the poverty program?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Mr. Grier, identify yourself for the record.

Mr. GRIER. I am George Grier. My title is Program Coordinator in the Department of General Administration, District of Columbia government.

Was the question, Senator, about the number of youths who are presently involved

Senator DOMINICK. What is 1(b), sir-is that the Neighborhood Corps program?

Mr. GRIER. Yes. It provides job training opportunities for youngsters, both in and out of school but principally for high school youth in both government and in nonprofit private agencies.

Senator DOMINICK. I thought it was supposed to be designed for dropouts?

Mr. GRIER. Well, it is designed both for youngsters who are in school and who might otherwise have to drop out and for dropouts.

Now if you are in school and are in a poverty status you can work up to 15 hours a week and be paid for that time and acquire both on-the-job training related to your schooling and extra money to help you stay in school. These youngsters work mainly afterschool hours. Senator DOMINICK. How many children are under that program? Mr. GRIER. A total at the present time of about 1,300 in the District of Columbia.

We have about 1,300 identified spots in District Government and I believe we have them mostly filled at the moment.

Senator DOMINICK. Do you have any Neighborhood Youth Corps or Job Corps camps here?

Mr. GRIER. There are no Job Corps camps in the District of Columbia that are operated by the District government. There is a Job Corps staging center operated by the United Planning Organization. I think it would be better to refer detailed questions about the operation of that part of the poverty program to the United Planning Organization.

I am not close enough to it to be able to speak in any detail about it. Senator DOMINICK. In any event the total cost of all the poverty programs as far as the District is concerned and without getting into the merits or demerits of the poverty program, is $180,000 a year. Mr. Lowe. That is correct, Senator.

Senator DOMINICK. How much additional overhead has to be applied to this which is not reflected in the $180,000?

Do you have any idea then at all? Or is it possible to even estimate that?

Mr. Lowe. I guess the answer to your question is along this line. It is impossible to estimate all of the overhead but we have gotten special grants to cover some of the larger portions of the overhead. For example, Mr. Grier's office is financed out of grants. We have no direct appropriation to pay for that. We have had to augment our

60-600-66--10