Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have that? Dr. WOLFE. Yes. Mr. RICH. Fine. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Sickles? Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Rich, I certainly have no objection to the District of Columbia being included under the impact provisions of the law. I am interested in the line of questioning of Congressman Gibbons. Let's first talk about the last 12 years. You indicated that perhaps $50 million would have been available to the District of Columbia schools. The District of Columbia budget is brought before the Congress and reviewed before the Congress determines what the amount of Federal contribution will be, and this has been going on during the past 12 years. Is there any reason to believe that the various committees of the Congress would not have looked to the amount of money that was going to be received under the impact law, if it had applied to the District of Columbia, and therefore, would have taken that into consideration, and therefore would have lessened the amount of contribution because the amount was going to come under the impacted aid bill? Mr. RICH. Well, I see your point. In other words, you are saying if this committee were to give us $5 million, would the District of Columbia Committee say, "We will take away $5 million just to make an equalizer situation." Mr. SICKLES. Would it have done that? Mr. RICH. It could have done that, yes, they could have taken that into consideration, but by and large, everything the District of Columbia budget gets to Congress, we are cut. Believe me, we never realize our full amounts of needs, because the budget is cut so much. Now, as to why it is cut, gentlemen, I am not going to go into that, because I do not think it is something that I am here to discuss today, but the thing is, as I said before, the question was asked of me before, gentlemen, if you give us the $5 million under 874 then I feel it is a real responsibility on the floor of the House to see that the $5 million stays there and is not cut from the District of Columbia appropriations bill at the time the appropriations bill is brought up. I say to you, it is your responsibility to defend your action of your committee, and then if the matter comes up from an Appropriations Committee saying that we have reduced the District of Columbia's appropriation by $5 million because you are giving them 5, I say that somebody along the line has shirked their responsibility. Mr. SICKLES. If they are to come up with the amount of Federal contribution, they have to develop some reasoning, some internal formula to determine how much contribution the Federal Government should make; and this they are going to do, and I am talking about the other committees, every time they meet, and all I am saying is as a matter of fact, they will look at the whole picture. Mr. RICH. I could not say validly whether or not they ever looked, or took into consideration the moneys the District would get under 874 at the time they contemplate their contribution or the Congress contribution to the District of Columbia. Of course, now, there is a projected formula that has been advocated that would give the District. close to $60 million, gentlemen. Now, if this is going to happen-and believe me, I am not an oracle; I cannot say if it will-but it will certainly be something that I would gladly accept, if we got $60 million, we would not need the five. Mr. SICKLES. Well, actually, the formula which is recommended is apparently an administration formula, and this is an administration bill, so I would imagine this has all been taken into consideration at the time that the formula is being proposed. Mr. RICH. That is true, but Mr. Congressman, as you know, there are many bills that are projected and many bills that are promoted and many theories are advocated and unfortunately very few of them get through. Of course, now, I am not saying which are going to get through and which are not going to get through this Congress, but I say, gentlemen, from a practical standpoint, give the District of Columbia $5 million and then if the Congress so feels that they are going to commit $60 million to the District of Columbia, under a general formula, take it away, but first, let us share with the other many States of this great Union under 815 and 874. Let us not have the District of Columbia an excluded, isolated land in this United States of America. Mr. SICKLES. I do not think you realize what you have said. You don't really mean that if the Congress adopts the administration formula, that you don't want the District of Columbia included under the impacted aid bill? Mr. RICH. I say, we won't need it as desperately as we need it now, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SICKLES. I assume you want both? Mr. RICH. I would like to have it, believe me, I would. But I say, we would not need it as desperately. This is my point, Mr. Congress man. Thank you for the clarification. We want to be included, we do, and we want a better Federal Government, that we do, but I am saying, treat us as equals, treat the District of Columbia, this lone, nonvoting territory, as equals. Mr. SICKLES. You want to be treated as equals in the sense that you want to pay taxes on the same level that anybody in any large city in the country would be paying taxes? If the net result of the contribution by the Federal Government means that you pay on a comparable level with the other major cities of the United States, would you be happy? Mr. RICH. You have to ask me this, Mr. Congressman, as an individual, right? Not as a representative of the organization. I say, yes, I will pay the taxes that are comparable to any city, if the Congress will give us what we are entitled to. I have no qualms about it at all. I will share my responsibility. I do not shirk it. I don't want to hide behind anything. I will pay as much as anyone else for taxes, and I think-and of course I can't speak for others, as I say, Mr. Chairman--I can't speak for the District of Columbia congress. I am only saying this personally. Mr. SICKLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Rich. Mr. TAFT. I have no questions. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Gill? Mr. GILL. No questions, except just to say that I certainly sympathize with your plight. Mr. RICH. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. Your sympathies, I hope, will be generated into active legislation. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Brown. Mr. BROWN. No questions. Mr. PERKINS. Well, as the old saying goes, they cannot blame you. You have so eloquently pleaded your cause here today. I think we all understand your position. Thank you for your appearance. Mr. RICH. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for permitting me to appear before you this morning. It was a pleasure indeed. (The statement of Mr. Rich follows:) STATEMENT BY WILLIAM A. RICH, MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS My name is William A. Rich, and I appear before this committee today representing the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers, as a member of its legislative committee. I shall testify on the provisions of title IV, part D, section 461 (d) and section 462 (f) of H.R. 3000, which provisions propose to amend Public Law 815 and 874 so that the District of Columbia would be included under the provisions of these laws. The enactment of this legislation would remove the inequities of Public Laws 815 and 874 which have existed since the legislation has been in effect. Had the District of Columbia been included in this legislation from its inception, the schools of the District of Columbia would have received approximately $50 million, which moneys would have been used to alleviate the financial plight of the schools of this Nation's Capital. I respectfully call to your attention H.R. 3335, introduced by Representative James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, member of this committee, who before the close of the 87th Congress was appointed chairman of a subcommittee by the chairman of this committee to study Public Laws 815 and 874. This bill would amend Public Laws 815 and 874 so that the District of Columbia would be included under such legislation effective July 1, 1963, and I respectfully request that when any action is taken by this committee on Public Laws 815 and 874 that all the provisions and effective dates of H.R. 3335 will be incorporated therein. The equities of the case alone cry out that there should be no delay in the inclusion of the District of Columbia under the provisions of Public Laws 815 and 874. I also respectfully call your attention to H.R. 1161, introduced by Mr. Widnall, of New Jersey, and H.R. 2606, introduced by Mr. Mathias, of Maryland, which bills would provide for the inclusion of the District of Columbia under Public Laws 815 and 874 effective July 1, 1963. As further justification for the enactment of title IV part D, section 461 (d) and section 462(f) of H.R. 3000, with the change of its effective dates to July 1, 1963, as set forth in H.R. 3335, H.R. 1161, and H.R. 2606, I respectfully refer the chairman and committee members to my testimony before this committee on H.R. 11631 on July 25, 1962. The case for this legislation has been well stated and documented and supported in a bipartisan manner. As added documentation I ask that the committee refer to the hearing before the Senate subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S. 2830 on June 12, 1962. A great part of the responsibility of the education of the 132,000 children of the District of Columbia rests in your good hands and we of the District of Columbia shall do our utmost to have the children of this Nation's Capital reflect to the nations of the world that the educated children of this country are second to none. Mr. PERKINS. Do we have any other witnesses in the audience who wish to make a statement on this bill? Come forward, Dr. Smith. We are delighted to have with us today, Dr. J. Richard Smith, assistant school superintendent of the city of Los Angeles, Calif. This committee, Dr. Smith, is particularly interested in the quality of education that you now have at the elementary-secondary level and we are interested in improving our education at the elementarysecondary level. And from your experience as school superintendent in the city of Los Angeles, and with the high tax rate that you have in the city, do you feel that we are reaching the critical point at the elementary-secondary level, unless we get some Federal assistance? And, if so, I would like to have your views along this line. Do you have a prepared statement? STATEMENT OF DR. J. RICHARD SMITH, ASSISTANT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES Dr. SMITH. I have a prepared statement. I have just been looking it over, and I would prefer to submit it at a time when it is more accurate. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, the prepared statement will be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement of Dr. Smith follows:) STATEMENT BY J. RICHARD SMITH, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, DIVISION OF COLLEGE AND ADULT EDUCATION, LOS ANGELES CITY SCHOOLS, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. Richard Smith. I am assistant superintendent attached to the division of college and adult education of the Los Angeles city schools with my major responsibility in adult education. It is my privilege to speak before this committee representing the California Association of Adult Education Administrators. Basic education for adults has been a cornerstone of the adult education curriculum for over 100 years in California. San Francisco began an instructional program of this type in 1856 and Los Angeles in 1887. Thousands of adults have received instruction which gave them knowledge equivalent to that ordinarily gained in completion of the eighth grade. Approximately 27,000 adults enroll in elementary education classes in Los Angeles adult schools annually. Total enrollment of adults in Los Angeles is 250,000. The curriculum includes instruction leading to a high-school diploma and vocational courses. At the present time it is not possible to enroll all adults who seek instruction due to lack of funds necessary to hire teachers. Waiting lists are maintained by each of the 27 schools and the backlog of those waiting to be called to enroll numbers about 5,000. The Board of Education receives repeated requests for establishment of additional classes. The school district is assessing the maximum tax rate permitted by law for operation of schools. Due to increase of youth population of the district (approximately 28,000 per year) the board may be forced to make additional curtailments of program and service to both youths and adults in the coming year. The limited taxing authority of the local school districts in California places an undue burden on the property owner. The ad valorem tax is an antiquated concept; however, it permits citizens to retain a sense of responsibility and local control. The Federal Government with its broader taxing authority is the logical answer to providing the additional funds necessary to provide an improved instructional program. The 1960 census revealed that approximately 225,000 adults over 25 years of age in Los Angeles have not completed elementary school. As I have stated previously, about 27,000 of these are served in the Los Angeles City schools. The remaining 200,000 adults needing this type of instruction are not being served. Recent experience with the Manpower Development and Training Act has clearly revealed that the people in the category having less than an eighth grade education make up the hard core of unemployed. Research by sociologists has shown that added effort and improved methods are needed to reach the persons in this category. Funds from the Educational Improvement Act of 1963 would greatly aid in supplying funds necessary to raise the educational attainment level of the segment of the adult population with less than an eighth grade education. It is strongly felt that recognition by the Federal Government of the need to provide funds for basic education for adults would serve as an incentive to the States to improve their financial support of this much needed educational effort. Though title VI is of particular interest to the adult education administrative in California, it should not be thought of out of context to the comprehensive educational program provided for in the National Education Improvement Act of 1963. The need to strengthen elementary, secondary, higher educational, vocational education, and interrelated facilities of the libraries will be met by provisions encompassed in H.R. 3000. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Now you may proceed. Dr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown, I am J. R. Smith and I am here today to represent myself as well as the California Association of Adult Education Administrators. My responsibility in Los Angeles is in the division of college and adult education. In answer to your question, I would like to deviate then from the prepared statement, if you don't mind, because your question concerning local finance and the pressures on support of education in Los Angeles are something I might be able to answer more accurately off the cuff than from a prepared statement. I know that you must be aware from Mrs. Tinglof's statement yesterday that the Los Angeles city school district is now operating the— at its maximum taxing authority. We are granted by the people of Los Angeles and through the permissive tax provisions of the education code a maximum tax rate of $2.65. The maximum in the code of the State of California to maintain elementary and secondary schools is $1.65, and the people of Los Angeles have permitted us to go a dollar beyond that. We are using the entire $2.65 at this time. We are not able to meet all of the needs for education on either the elementary, secondary, or adult education levels in Los Angeles. At the present time, we have approximately 4,000 to 5,000 students who would be eligible for attendance at kindergarten that we are unable to serve. In my statement here, I have tried to indicate in adult education we are not meeting the needs of approximately 5,000 people. Mr. PERKINS. Well, before you get to adult education, are those 4,000 or 5,000 youngsters eligible for kindergarten being deprived of entering kindergarten because of the lack of facilities? Dr. SMITH. That's right. Not lack of facilities-physical facilities, lack of dollars to pay teachers' salaries. Mr. PERKINS. I see. Dr. SMITH. The adult education portion of educational opportunities in Los Angeles, of course, is a noncompulsory aspect, but the demand, nevertheless, on the part of the people of Los Angeles is significant. |