the city to the other schools that would have an impact on our college school population.

SCOPE OF COLLEGE ENROLLMENT

Mr. PATTEN. I met a mail clerk and he said that he has completed his B.S. in education while he worked in the Post Office. He did it through one of these universities. We met some other people here on the payroll and one police officer tells me he is going to the University of Maryland working toward a degree. There are people that were not in this picture 10 years ago but now they are thinking in terms of higher education.

I think that if we had a full report we could look better than just saying we have 12,100 new chances for higher education. I think the figure might be 20,000.

Mr. WASHINGTON. It may well be right. We are not talking about the university, what we could have in terms of need. We are talking about what hope we can provide within the budgetary limitations.

I would be most happy to see if we couldn't get

Mr. PATTEN. What leads me to this comparable basis, I think that to be comparable you have to reach 20,000.

Mr. WASHINGTON. I think you are probably right.

Mr. PATTEN. 12,100 is not much to brag about. You came in late with the Community College compared to California and New York. They built a lot of State buildings around in different little cities. They were ahead of the District and they are functioning. You can feel the impact of them throughout the State of New York and in California. The junior college systems are way ahead of the District of Columbia.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Right.

Mr. PATTEN. I think that you cannot rest on your laurels in a city of 800,000 or 900,000 people to say we are picking up 12,100 students. I think to hit the national average you have to place over 20,000.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Patten, I fully agree with that, and I would be happy to furnish a report on that, that we could probably handle 20,000. We were not talking about what the need was. We admitted that we had a greater need. We also indicated that we were trying our very best to keep within budget limitations.

This committee has given me some rather terse language with respect to trying to balance the budget. I try very hard to do so. You would suggest that we go from 12,000-and this is not resting on our laurels the differences between 12,000 and 20.000, for instance? That would run us into several million dollars and I would be faced with the same problem I am faced with now by just totaling up my mandatories and annualizing them. I fully agree with you that we have not met the need.

Mr. PATTEN. I think that about 3 percent of the population of the metropolitan area, not included in the establishment, had an opportunity to receive higher education 10 years ago. You are only reaching about 112 percent, 12.000 out of 800,000 people?

Mr. WASHINGTON. Right.

Mr. PATTEN. The figure should be about 20,000 to feel that we have done an effective job. I have a feeling that if proper analyses were made of what the other 20 colleges are doing, you may have the satisfaction of knowing that we have inspired an additional 20,000 to go to college.

Mr. WASHINGTON. I already have had in my discussions with the Board of Higher Education indications that their need is far greater than we have been able to submit here within a modest budget.

I would like very much to present to you a report showing what all of the colleges are doing and what we believe the need beyond what we are trying amounts to. I think that you have got a real point and I appreciate your raising that.

Mr. PATTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Obey?

POTOMAC RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. OBEY. Just one question, Mr. Commissioner. I am new here and I am not familiar with your Potomac River situation. I know it is bad, but do you have any statistics that you can give us on the degree of pollution that the city is providing in terms of the Potomac River!

Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir. I don't have them here but in the course of the presentation, if you prefer to wait, we will have a full report on that from Mr. Jackson. He will not only delineate the extent of 3 the pollution but also the program which we are evolving to meet that, both with our own resources and the Department of the Interior. Mr. OBEY. That is all.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you and Mr. Silsby have prepared a series of coordinated questions to probe into a number of these basic matters in detail. I would prefer to pass at this time until you have had an opportunity to go into those matters in a logical follow-up fashion, and then I would like to feel free to request you to yield for further detail on these matters so we get all the discussion on particular subjects in the same place.

Mr. NATCHER. Certainly.

Mr. Wyatt?

Mr. WYATT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to do the same thing.

STATISTICS ON POLICE ACTIVITY

Mr. NATCHER. At this point in the record, if you would, Mr. Washington, we would like for you to insert an updated table setting forth the crime statistics that we have in the record each year. Please update the tables that we have had in the past concerning the cost per capita for the operation of the Metropolitan Police Department and also give us the information in a table as to the total number of personnel in the Department in comparison to cities of comparable size.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir.

(The information follows:)

Note: Central precincts are 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 13; outlying precincts are 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and H.P.

! Represents generally amounts expended or obligated in fiscal year 1969, excluding capital outlays, and debt service and retirement costs.

2 Based on city population estimates for Jan. 1, 1969, by Rand McNally & Co.

3 $54 million was allotted for the Metropolitan Police Department in fiscal year 1970 (excluding policemen's pension and relief). $64 million was budgeted for the Metropolitan Police Department for fiscal year 1971 (excluding policemen's pension and relief) Proposed budget, fiscal year 1971, Mayor's recommendations to the City Council of the District of Columbia January 1970.

Note: Figures have been adjusted to (1) reflect differencesi n activities being performed by the Metropolitan Police Department and the police departments of the seven cities and (2) reflect activities performed by organizations which appeared to supplement the operations of the cities' police departments.

Source: General Accounting Office.

1 Represents generally full-time employment as of April 1969, including part-time employment expressed in terms of full-time equivalents.

*Based on city population estimates for Jan. 1, 1969, by Rand McNally & Co.

$5,698 positions were allotted for the Metropolitan Police Department in fiscal year 1970. 6,308 positions were budgeted for the Metropolitan Police Department for fiscal year 1971-Proposed budget, fiscal year 1971, Mayor's recommendations to the City Council of the District of Columbia, January 1970.

Note: Figures have been adjusted to (1) reflect differences in activities being performed by the Metropolitan Police Department and the police departments of the 7 cities and (2) reflect activities performed by organizations which appeared to supplement the operations of the cities' police departments.

Source: General Accounting Office.

REQUEST FOR BALANCED BUDGET

Mr. NATCHER. As you have heard me say, Mr. Washington, in fact the first time I met this fine Assistant to the Commissioner, you also heard me say that we hoped this year we would have a balanced budget presented. The budget, as you know, is out of balance $206,300,000. This is a serious problem for the committee. As you recall on December 22, I, together with the chairman of the subcommittee on the other side, signed a letter to you, Mr. Washington, concerning this matter. I am sorry that the budget is out of balance. It will be exceedingly difficult to handle the amounts that you are requesting.

MAJOR BUDGET INCREASES

Mr. Washington, what are the areas of largest increases?

Mr. WASHINGTON. I think my statement indicates it in some detail. Mr. Coppie, do you have that easily available?

Mr. COPPIE. We can provide a detailed analysis for the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NATCHER. Suppose you submit that to Mr. Silsby.

Go ahead now and give us some general information at this time. Mr. COPPIE. Yes, sir.

The two largest increases in the budget are in the area of public safety and public education. The public safety request is primarily the continuation of the District's crime-fighting efforts; and as I was pointing out in my remarks a few moments ago, the President's crime program approved in 1970 by this committee, and ultimately by the Congress, at a level of $20 million and which will annualize in 1971 at an additional requirement for the District of about $10 million in operating costs. The total public safety appropriation is increased by more than $24 million.

Then the other large increase, Mr. Chairman, is in the area of public education. This was particularly for the public schools and, of course, for the three institutions of public higher education, Federal City College, Washington Technical Institute, and the District of Columbia Teachers College.

A complete analysis will be provided to the committee for the record. (The information follows:)