PAGENO="0001" ( c ~` / f\ (1 FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE AS A LAND GRANT COLLEGE HEARING BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 5 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 15280, H.R. 15886 and S. 1999 TO AMEND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EDUCATION ACT TO QUALIFY THE FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE AS A LAND GRANT COLLEGE MARCH 13, 1968 Printed for the use of the Committee on the District of Columbia UBRP~'L OBtOZ ~oc~ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 91-313 WASHINGTON 1968 c6~/2 PAGENO="0002" r~. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Illinois JOHN DOWDY, Texas BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina B. F. SISK, California CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia DON FUQTJA, Florida DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota BROCK ADAMS, Washington ANDREW JACOBS, Ja., Indiana E. 5~ JOHNNY WALKER, New Mexico BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia ANDREW JACOBS, Ja., Indiana B. S. JOHNNY WALKER, New Mexico ANCHER NELSEN, Minnesota WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, Illinois ALVIN B. O'KONSKI, Wisconsin WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio CHARLES McC. MAPHIAS, Ja., Maryland FRANK HORTON~ New York JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia LARRY WINN, Ja., Kansas GILBERT GUDE, Maryland JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota SAM STEIGER, Arizona FRANK HORTON, New York WILLIAM H. HAR!SHA, Ohio GILBERT GUDE, Marylind JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota (II) COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina, (Jha4rman *1 JAMIDS T. CLARK, Clerk CLAYTON S. GASQUE, staff Director HAYDEN S. GABBER, Coun8ei SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 B. L SIISK, California, Chairman PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS H.R. 15280 (Nelsen, Horton, O'Konski and Mathias), to amend the Dis- trict of Columbia Public Education Act to qualify the Federal City Col- Page lege as a land-grant college 1 H.R. 15886 (Gude), identical bill 1 S. 1999 (Morse), identical bill 1 Staff memorandum 2 STATEMENTS Board of Higher Education of the District of Columbia, Charles Horsky, Esq., President 7 Department of Agriculture, Federal Extension Service, Dr. N. P. Ralston, Deputy Administrator 20 District of Columbia government, Thomas Moyer, Assistant Corporation Counsel 31 Federal City College: Farner, Dr. Frank, President 7 Wiegman, Dr. Eugene, Director, College Extension Service 7 Horton, Hon. Frank, Representative in Congress from the State of New York 4 National Association of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges, Dr. Russell Thackrey, executive secretary 29 Nelsen, Hon. Ancher, Representative in Congress from the StatG of Minnesota 3 Zwach, Hon. John M., Representative in Congress from the State of Min- nesota 6 MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Department of Agriculture, Hon. John A. Schnittker, Acting Secretary, letter dated March 20, 1968, to Chairman McMillan, reporting on H. R. 15280 and S. 1999 35 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Letter dated March 19, 1968 to Chairman McMillan from Acting Secretary Wilbur J. Cohen, reporting on H. R. 15280 and S. 1999 - 34 Tabulation to Chairman McMillan from Office of Education, showing participation of the District of Columbia in Federal educational programs 36 Federal City College, Dr. Frank Farner, President: Letter dated March 14, 1968 to Chairman Sisk 10 Letter dated March 15, 1968 to Chairman Sisk 38 District of Columbia government, Thomas W. Fletcher, assistant to the Commissioner, letter dated March 13, 1968 to Chairman McMillan~. - - 31 (lU) PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE AS A LAND GRANT COLLEGE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.rn. in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Honorable B. F. Sisk (Chair- man of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Sisk, ~Valker, Nelsen, Horton, Harsha, Gude, and Zwach. Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; Donald Tubridy, Minority Clerk; and LeonardO. Hilder, Investigator. Mr. SIsK. Subcommittee No. 5 will come to order. The Committee has for consideration this morning several bills: H.R. 15280, a bill by Mr. Nelsen, and joined with him is Mr. Horton, Mr. O'Konski, and Mr. Mathias; also H.R. 15886 by Mr. Gude; and a bill which has passed the Senate-which I understand is an identical bill- s. 1999 by Senato.r Morse of Oregon. The purpose I understand of this legislation is to amend the Dis- trict of Columbia Public Education Act (P.L. 89-791, approved Nov. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 1426) which established the Federal City College. We are interested in qualifying the Federal City College as a land- grant college. Without objection, a copy of the bills and staff memo- randum thereon, will be made a part of the record at this time. Also. there will be reports from some of the Departments which will be made a part of the record upon their becoming available. (See p. 34.) (The other documents referred to follow:) (H.R. 15280, 89th Cong., 2d sess., by Messrs. Nelsen, Horton, O'Konski, and Mathias, on Feb. 8, 1968; H.R. 15886 by Mr. Gude on March 12, 1968; and S. 1999 by Mr. Morse, passed by Senate on Dec. 8, 1967) A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Public Education Act Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the District of Columbia Public Educa- tion Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title: TITLE IV-MISOELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sue. 401. In the administration of the Act entitled "An Act to apply a portion of the proceeds: of the public lands to the more complete endownment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts established under the provisions of an Act of Congress approved July second, eighteen hun- dred and sixty two", approved August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417; 7 U.S.C. 321-326, 328); the tenth paragraph under the heading "Emergency Appropriations" of the <1) PAGENO="0006" 2 Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight", approved March 4, 1907 (34 Stat. 1256, 1281; 7 U.S.C. 322); the Act of May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 372; 7 U.S.C. 341-346, 347a, 348, 349); section 22 of the Act of June 29, 1935 (49 Stat. 436; 7 U.S.C. 329); the Act of March 4, 1940 (54 Stat. 39; 7 ~U.S.C. 331); and the Agricultural Marketing A~t of 1946 (60 Stat. 1087; 7 U.S.C. 1621-1629), the Federal City College authorizd by this Act shall be considered to be a college established for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts in `accordance with `the provisions of the Act of July 2, 1862 (12 ~Stat. 508; 7 U.S.C. 301-305, 307, 308), and the term "State" as used in the aforementioned laws or provisions of laws shall include the District of Oolumbia. SEC. 402. (a) Section 22 of the Act of June 29, 1935 (49 Stat. 436; 7 U.S.C. 329), as amended, is amended by striking out "$7,650,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$7,800,000", and by striking out "$4,300,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$4,320,000". (b) In lieu of extending to the District of Columbia those provisions of the Act of July 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 503; 7 U.S.C. 301-305, 307, 308), relating to dona- tions of public lands or land scrip for the endowment and maintenance of col- leges for the benefit of agriculture and the, mechanic arts, there is authorized to be appropriated to the District of Columbia the sum of $7,241,706. Amounts appropriated under this subsection shall be held and considered to have been granted to the District of Columbia subject to those provisions of that Act appli- cable to the proceeds from the sale of land or land scrip. SEC. 403. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to extend the provisions of the Act of May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 372; 7 U.S.C. 341-346, 347a, 348, 849), to the District of Columbia. Sums so appropri- ated shall be in addition to and not in substitution for, sums otherwise appro- priated under such Act, or otherwise appropriated for agricultural extension work. Four per centum of the sums so appropriated for such fiscal year shall be allotted to the Federal Extension Service, Department of Agriculture, for administrative, technical, and other services of the Department in carrying out the purposes of this section. The District of Columbia shall not be required to offset allotments authorized under this section. SEC. 404. The enactment of this title, shall, as respects the District of Co- lumbia, be deemed tQ satisfy any requirement of State consent contained in any of the laws or provisions of law referred to in this title. SEC. 405. Except with respect to the provisions relating to the extension of the Act of May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 372; 7 U.S.C. 341-346, 347, 348, 349), to the District of Columbia, this title shall be effective with respect to appropriations with re- spect to fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1968. In the case of the provisions of the Act of May 8, 1914, so extended, such provisions shall take effect upon the date appropriations are made available for the purpose of carrying out such extension. STAFF MEMORANDUM-HEARING ON H.R 15280 (NELSEN, HORTON, O'KoNSKI, MATHIAS); HR. 15886 (GUDE). AND S. 1999 (M0RSE)-IDENTICAL BILLS To AMEND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EDUCATION ACT Purpose of Bifl.-To amend D.C. Public Education Act (P.L. 89-791, approved Nov. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 1426, D.C. Code, title 31, sec. 1601, which established the Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute) to qualify the Federal City College as a land-grant college. Provisions of B'ifl.-The Federal City ~ullege would: (1) Quality for a $50,000 annual grant (under the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890) to be used for instruction in agriculture and mechanic arts, home economics, youth and community development. etc. The term "State" in these Acts is amended to include the District of Columbia. (Sec. 401) (2) Qualify for fund allotments for research, investigation and experi- mentation in marketing, consumer education, food handling, etc., under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. (Sec. 401) (3) Participate in a total of $170,000 annual gra'rtt (under the Bankhead- Jones Act of 135) providing for agricultural research, extension work and increased `support for land-grant colleges. (Sec. 402(a)) (4) Receive authorization for a capital grant of $7.241,706 (in lieu of pub- lic land grants or land-scrip provided in the 1862 Morrill Act for the States), PAGENO="0007" 3 to be an endowment to be invested in bonds and the income used for support of the college's mechanic arts and agricultural programs. (See 402 (b)) (5) Participate in cooperative ewtension service, including home eeonom~ ics and 4-H programs of the Department of Agriculture (by extending the Smith-Lever Act of 1914), without requiring the District to match the Fed- eral allottments on a 50-50 basis. It is estimated the District will receive $100,000 to $700,000 under these programs. (See. 403) (`6) In addition to proividing basic, enabling legislation for the college to qualify under the land-grant programs indicated, the bill includes for the Dis- trict of Columbia acceptance o'f the terms and conditions thereof. (Sec. 404) (7) Effective date. (Sec. 405) Mr. SI5K. I understand that my colleagues, Mr. Nelsen, and I believe Mr. Horton, also, have some brief statements they would like to make. So Mr. Nelsen, one of the authors of the bill, if you have a statement, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. ANC:HER NELSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CO'N~RLSS PROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. NELSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the statement for the record, but I am also advised that Congressman Zwach, who is in at- tendance, has an equal interest in this bill. His original pride for the tecimical school to be set up as a land-grant college. However, we do find that because of provisions of Law, the Washington Technical In- stitute did not qualify, whereas the Liberal Arts College, or the Fed- eral City College, can so qualify. It is my understanding that there is an agreement between the two schools that they will share in the funds if this bill passes, and I want to make that a part of the record so that it is well established that the Washington Technical Institute will qualify and will receive some of the funds. And it is my understanding that the hearing will further develop this thought. I hope, Mr. Chairman that this is agreeable with the Committee. I have a conflict; I have another committee that is sitting right now in Executive Session. I will leave my statement for the record and I hope *the members of the Committee will further document the understand- ing of agreement between the two schools relative to the use of the funds. Mr. SI5K. Without objection the full statement of the gentleman from Minnesota will be made a part of the record. Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, on February 8, 1968 I introduced H.R. 15280, which would amend the District of Colunthia Public Educa- tion Act in order to name the Federal City College as the land-grant college for the District of Columbia. Co~sponsoring the bill with me are our colleagues, Congressman Mathias, O'Konski and Horton. The District of Columbi~ is the last remaining area in our Nation without the services of a land-grant college. This legislation would provide educational opportunities for citizens of the District to study for careers in community services and to receive the benefits of co- operative extension programs. The bill will qualify the Federal City College for: (1) Morrili Act funds of $50,000 and Bankhead-Jones Act funds of $170,000 annually for college instruction in mechanical arts, home economics, 4-H youth development program's and environmental sciences; (2) Smith-Lever funds to develop cooperative extension services in home economics and 4-H programs for people in the District. Funding would be deter- PAGENO="0008" 4 mined by the Department of Agriculture based on kinds of programs that can be carried out in the District; (3) Agricultural Marketing Act for consumer education (funds are granted by USDA only on request); and (4) a capital grant of $7,141,706 as an endowment, in lieu of land as originally granted to the 50 state land-grant colleges. This endowment is to be invested in government, state and city bonds. The interest is to be used for college instruction programs snmlar to programs in our state land-grant colleges. Initially, it was my intent to designate the Washington Technical Institute as the D.C. Land-Grant College, principally because of my longtime personal interest in developing the Institute However, my research indicates that to designate the 2 year Technical Institute would run contrary to the iong-establi~hed public policy of desig- nating 4-year institutions as land-grant recipients. The Federal City College qualifies in this respect. Nonetheless, it is my firm understanding that the Board of Higher Education for the Federal City College intends to enter into a memo- ranclum of agreement with the Board of the Washington Technical Institute which would delegate to the Institute course work and funds to `carry out~certain land-grant programs. It would be my intent, with your support, to see that this is done and is reflected in the history and report of this legislation. The Senate passed similar legislation (S 1999) on Decembei 6, 1967. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Depart- ment of Agriculture, the Government of the District of Columbia, and the Bureau of the Budget, recommend this legislation for the citizens of the District. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Subcommittee to give this bill every positive consideration in the hope that we may see enactment before the termination of this session. Mr. Sis~. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Horton, I believe has a statement he wanted to make Mr HORTON Yes, Mr Chairman I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, `md I, too, will make my statement as part of the record in order to conserve time. Mr. SIsK. Without objection, the statement will be made a part of the record. STATEMENT OP HON. PRANK HORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NEW YORK Mr. HORTON. Mr. Ohairman, I was pleased to co-sponsor the bill now under consideration, H.R. 15280, along with our colleagues, Con- gressmèn Nelsen, Mathi:as and O'Konski; and I am gratified that this Subcommittee has undertaken the first step toward enactment, hope- fully, `of this very desirable legislation. H.R. 15280 would enable the Federal City College to be the District of Columbia recipient of the various benefits of the land-grant college acts in the same manner as the land-grant colleges of all the fifty States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. As we all know, the first land-grant `benefits were enacted more than a century ago when this nation was largely rural. We had to tame and cultivate a wilderness. At that time, Congress passed legislation to PAGENO="0009" 5 encourage centers of learning to explore the mysteries of agriculture. The Morrill Act of 1862 was the beginnin~. We need oniy look to the results of that farsighted effort to make a judgment as to whether our Congressional predecessors were correct or not. Our farm expertise, production~ and organization is far superior to that of any other nation in the world. But now, 100 years later, seventy percent of our nation's population live in urban areas like Washington, Chicago, or Rochester, N.Y. As is obvious even to the most myopic among us, the problems of these heavily impacted urban areas are staggering. But just as our institu- tions of learning changed the future of our farms, certainly these same academic sources can help change the future of our cities. This bill is a step in that direction. The land-grant college program has worked magnificently well throughout the nation since its inception. Is there any valid reason why programs and facilities now available to our rural areas cannot be thilored to our cities, especially in this time of urban crisis? Under H.R. 15280, the Federal City College would: (1) Qualify under the Morrill Act of 1890 for a $50,000 annual grant to be used for instruction in mechanical arts, home economics, youth and community development and environmental sciences, in- cluding instru~tor training, under the grant program administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; (2) Participate under the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935 with the fifty States and Puerto Rico in further grants made available an- nually through HEW for the support of land-grant colleges. The Federal City College would receive an equal share of an annual na- tional grant of $7.8 million, or $150,000 and, on a population basis, a share of a further national grant of $4.3 million, or $20,000-for a total of $170,000 to support such instruction. However, to prevent the dilution of the present entitlement of the fifty States and Puerto Rico to endowment and support funds, Section 402 of the bill au- thorizes additional appropriations for this purpose of $170,000 to take care of the District of Columbia; (3) Participate under the Smith-Lever Act in the Federal Exten- sion Service program administered by the Department of Agriculture through the land-grant colleges by developing cooperative extension services including home economics and 4-H youth programs to people not residents in the college. Section 403 of the bill authorizes addi- tional appropriations to extend the provisions of the extension pro- gram to the people of the District of Columbia through the Federal City College; (4) Qualify under the Agricultural Marketing Act for Depart- ment of Agriculture fund allotments for research, investigation, and experimentation in marketing, consumer education, food handling and packaging and related areas; (5) Receive, through the District government, a capital grant of $7,241,706 as an endowment to be invested in bonds, the income to be used for support of the mechanical arts and agricultural programs of the college. The principal would be unimpairable, and if di- minished would have to be restored by their District of Columbia. This grant is in lieu of the land grants made to othet colleges in earlier years under the first Morrill Act of 1862. 91-313-68---2 PAGENO="0010" 6 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I urge that this vital legislation be given every positive consideration. Our cities are in a state of crisis and, though this bill provdes no panacea or even a. large part of the answer to the problems of this city of 800,000 people- a population larger than 8 States-at least it is a step in the right direction. Thank you. Mr. ZWAOII. Mr. Chairman. Mr. SIsK. Yes, sir. Mr. ZWAOH. Mr. Chairman, I also have a statement I would like to submit for the record. And I would just like to state that I have been long interested in 4-H extension work for the District. I introduced the original bill, and I want to give it my full and entire support. Mr. SI5K. Thank you, Mr. Zwach. And without objection, your statement will be made a part of the record. STATEMLNT OP HON. JOHN M. ZWACK, A RFJLPRESFINTATIVE fl~ CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MINNESOTA Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chariman, H.R. 15280 designates that the Federal City College become the land grant college for the District of Colum- bia, by amending the District of Columbia Education Act. It also bestows certain stipulated sums under previous authorization and ap- propriation laws relating to land grant institutions as it affects agri- culture and mechanical arts instruction. The passage of this Act will provide a degree of permancy and balance to this new College that should be greatly beneficial. It also emphasizes the role of the College in carrying out the agricultural extension program for the District of Columbia. Besides the 4-H work and the Home Economics programs that we ordinarily associate with Agricultural Extension, the authority granted to a land grant institution will also allow for courses of study to be undertaken that will have a particular value in training for the unique problems in our Nation's Capital. As you know, I introduced a bill H.R. 10680 last June in order to bring the benefits of extension services to Washington, D.C., feeling that this great program which has been so helpful in building character and family solidarity, should be launched here. This bill, I feel, would have provided an immediacy to working on this problem, that the' present bill will not be able to do. It provided more funds than does H.IR. 15280, and it carried a five year termination date so that Congress could review and re-assess the merits of this program within the District. However, the bill we have before us does provide a more lasting framework and foundation for a slower but more permanent growth of the institution and of the programs authorized in the course of study. Because of the urgency for providing some helpful solutions to the pressing problems in Washington, I felt that less than an all-out effort would not be wise at this time. There is a large group of trained 4-H leaders and workers who have experience in many of our larger cities in the several states from which we felt we could draw, along with a large number of interested citizens in the District, and thus have a broad operating program by this summer. It may be possible that a supplemental short term appropriation following the passage of this. bill could still be effective this year. PAGENO="0011" 7 As you all know, the extension program is a "cooperative" one, shared in by individuals, counties, states and the Federal government. To be truly successful, we should not deny this right of cooperation from the District. This will mean involvement in the planning, and in financing this program at all levels. However, until some further degree of progress has been made toward self-sufficiency and respon- sibility has been made in the District, I believe that we should not force the District of Columbia at this time to make their rightful financial contribution. However, this must be a goal to be reached if this program is to be a truly "District of Co~tumbia Extension Pro- gram." I do support the passage of H.IR. 15280 immediately and urge my colleagues to regard this program favorably. Mr. SIsK. Mr. Gude, Mr. Nelson has already made a brief statement and his full statement has been made a part of the record; so has Mr. Horton and Mr. Zwach, who just concluded his statement. Do you have any statement that you would like to make before we hear from the witnesses? Mr. GUDE. No; not at this time. Mr. SISK. All right. The Committee has with it this morning Dr. Frank Farner, President of the Federal City College, and Dr. Eugene Wiegman, Director of the College Extension Service. If you two gen- tlemen would come up to the witness stand, the Committee will be glad to hear from you; whichever one of you would like, speak first. We will leave that choice up to you. I believe we have a statement, written statement, here from you, Dr. Farner; so if you want to, proceed with it. Audi might say, you might summarize this or you can read it in its entirety. In either case, without objection the full statement of Dr. Farner, the President of the Federal City College, will be made a part of the record. This is a combined statement by you, Dr. Farner, and Dr. Wiegman? Dr. FARNER. Yes. Mr. SIsK. You gentlemen may proceed in whatever way you wish. As I said, you can read the statement in its entirety or summarize it, whichever you prefer. STATEMENT OP DR. PRANK PARNER, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, AND DR. EUGENE WIEGMAN, DIRECTOR OP EXTENSION, PEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES A. HORSKY, ESQ., PRESIDENT, BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OP THE DIS- TRICT OP COLUMBIA Dr. FARNER. Thank you, very much. We appreciate the chance to testify. Since the members of the subcommittee have taken the pains to reduce their time, I think I will try to summarize the first several pages which deal with the intent of the Act and the niatter of extend- ing into the District of Columbia the land-grant concept, and move right over our third page which addresses the questions of why a land-grant college in the District of Columbia. And it explains the types of programs which are succeeding elsewhere in urban America and how they could be helpful to the urban setting here in Washing- ton; and then move directly to the issue that was mentioned earlier, PAGENO="0012" 8 and that is the involvement of the two colleges and for that matter really other institutions which have strengths in this area. There are some strengths in the private sector institutions here in Washington that could be of great help. So let me read the testimony, if I may, beginning on page 6. This deals with our Memorandum of Participation that we are developing with the Technical Institute: Our sister institution, the Washington Technical Institute would benefit also by having the Federal City College named the land-grant college. The Federal College would enter Into a Memorandum of Participation with the Washington City Technical Institute, under which the Washington Technical Institute would assume certain academic instruction and extension services in vocational and technical education. This would assure minimum duplication of instruction at the two public institutions. The Washington Technical Institute would be involved heavily in instruction in engineering and the mechanical arts. Other institutions could also be asked to participate in programs in which they have special strengths to contribute. In conclusion, it is our belief that the Federal City College is suited for the task at hand. Land-grant colleges, such as the Federal City College will become upon passage of these bills, were established to serve all the people, not just the privileged few who could afford an education. We like to think of ourselves as the College without walls-a place to provide education of excellence within, not shut away from, the city. We see the city as our campus, and the passage of 11.11. 15280 and S. 1999 will make this vision a reality. Dr. Wiegman is the technical expert on the adaptation of the land grant principle to a college, and I am prepared to talk on the topic of the Memorandum of Participation, and any other matters for that matter. Mr. SISK. Dr. Wiegman, would you like to make a ststment in addition, or make any comments? Dr. WIEGMAN. Mr. Chairman, President Farner has covered the concept of land grant colleges. I should like to reiterate that the com- ing of the land-grant college into the urban areas will help carry out the spirt of the land-grant colleges that we know throughout the coun- try. We believe it is just a matter of our being able to staff up quickly to carry out this legislation. I would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. SI5K. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, do you have any questions? Mr. HORTON. Well, the gentleman made some comment with regard to use of these facilities for other educational institutions in the Dis- trict. This is your proposal and you do anticipate doing this? Dr. FARNER. That is right, sir. We intend and hope-I do not know exactly the details of how it is done, but I hope the kind of language that I just used in this testimony can be a part of the history as an indication of our desire to spread this function over the strengths of the Technical Institute and other colleges if we find that they have strengths useful for this. Mr. HORTON. The bill that is before us would not need to have any additional language to accomplish this purpose; is that correct? Dr. FARNER. I do not believe so, sir. Dr. WIEGMAN. Mr. Horton, the general procedure throughout the 50 states where we have land-grant colleges is that one college is named the land-grant college, and that this college then shares with t:he other colleges in the state many of the land-grant functions through a Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, being consistent with PAGENO="0013" 9 what the other states have done, the right thing to do in this case would be to name one institution which would then develop a Memo- randum of Understanding with other institutions in a given place to carry out the responsibilities. Therefore, it would not be necessary, in our opinion, to amend or to add any other language in that we are more than willing to submit for the record and for the legislative his- tory this intent. Mr. HoirroN. Very fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. FAnNER. Mr. Chairman, 1 might add, I should have done it before, that Mr. Horsky, the Chairman of the Board of Higher Edu- cation, is here also who could answer some of these pomts as well. Mr. SI5K. Does the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gude, have any questions. Mr. GUDE. No. I would only like to say, being very familiar with the land-grant institution in the State of Maryland and having seen some of the land-grant college services evolve into very valuable serv- ices for people in suburbanized areas, I can see great merit in having such an institution in the District of Columbia. I am happy tha:t this bill is moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SI5K. Mr. Zwach. Mr. ZwAciI. Mr. Chairman, while this has been traditionally a rural program, it has been tailored to our urban areas and is doing a won- derful job in Chicago, Philadelphia, Hartford, New Haven, Connecti- cut; in Kansas City; Canton and Warren, Ohio; Manchester, New Hampshire; Camden, New Jersey; Buffalo, New York; Flint, Kala- mazoo, Grand Rapids and Lansing Michigan; and Providence, Rhode Island. The use of these programs for modern development of our people has been adjusted very splendidly to the need of urban areas. and I believe that such programs would be very, very helpful in the City of Washington. After all, the land-grant programs were created to help people, and who need help more than the poverty-stricken in our cities. Mr. SIsK. Thank you, Mr. Zwach. For purposes of the record, I think we ought to establish, Dr. Farner, the prece4ents involved here, because actually now what you will be doing in lieu of land grants, which, of course, going back to the original Act-and by the way, I just had called to my attention early this morning that we had a precedent here going back to 1836, I think. The old Columbia College-I believe it was called Columbia College at that time, now George Washington-received some land, and that was prior, of course, to the Morrill Act, some 26 years before that Act. What I want to get at, though, actually what you will be doing here, you will be receiving cash in lieu of lands iii essence, and I just wanted for the record will you comment on the precedents here? It is similar to the situation a decade or so ago when Hawaii was admitted as a state and there was no land available so that arrange- ments for in lieu cash payment were arranged. Dr. WIEGMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is an endowment; the money must be invested in safe securities and the receipts or dividends are used for instructural purposes. Mr. SIsK. In other words, what I want to do is just establish for the record that we do have precedent for it to be a cash grant in PAGENO="0014" 10 lieu of lands because as you say there are no lands available in this case And I think we do have-as you say, the 1960 Omnibus Act for Hawaii did make this provision, and so it is of record. I understand that the amount of funds that are expected to be authorized then by the provisions of this bill would be something over $7 million, right, on your original grant? Dr. WIEGMAN. This would be the Morrill Act endowment, $7 million. Mr. SISK. In addition to that then you will become qualified for annual amounts in what sum now? Dr. WIEGMAN. $50,000 under the first Morrill Act, another $170,000 under the Bankhead-Jones Act. Those are the only two sections under ~which we would get an annual appropriation. Under the Smith-Lever Act we would have to work out yearly a memorandum with the Secretary of Agriculture to fund programs agreeable between the Department of Agriculture and the Federal City College in extension type programs. This sum could vary any- where from a $100,000 to $700,000 a year, which would be charged to the Department of Agriculture appropriation budget. (Subsequently, the following letter was received for the record, in clarification of participation under the Smith-Lever Act:) FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, Washington, March 14, 1968. lIon. 13. F. Sisic, U.$. House of Representatives, 2242 Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CoNGRESSMAN SISK: I would like to supplement my statement of Wednes- day, March 13 on the Hearing of H.R. 1~528O and S. 1999. The supplement relates to the Smith-Lever Act which authorizes and funds extension services at the Federal City College. We wish to make it clear that the Department of Agriculture's appropriations for extension services in the District of Columbia will not constitute the entire cost but that the Federal City College will fund from its operating budget certain extension services. The college is already expending funds for extension services, especially salaries for personnel and we intend that this procedure will continue even after receiving Smith-Lever funds for extension. We do not want to leave the Committee with the opinion that the extension services will be funded entirely by the Department of Agriculture but that the Federal City College will, as do other land grant colleges, set aside funds to carry on extension programs in the District of Columbia. Sincerely yours, FRANK FARNIR, Presi~Zent. (See also letter from Federal City College at p. 38.) Mr. SIsK. One other question that unfortunately I should have the answer to but I have not had an opportunity to look into thoroughly enough-which goes to the matter that I know Mr. Zwach was very concerned about and the one that was brought out here by Mr. Nelsen- and that is this cooperative effort whereby certain of these funds you expect to share with the Washington Technical Institute. Are there any legal problems in connection with that? I am not opposed to this sharing of funds, but I am curious to know to what extent this has been studied in connection with making the Federal City College a land-grant college, to what extent is that also going to qualify the Washington Technical Institute which is, after all, a separate institu- tion, to share in these funds. Will they be sharing in the capital grant? Dr. WIEGMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SI5K. To what extent? PAGENO="0015" 11 Dr. WIEGMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, once again we have precedent to fall back on. This is commonly done in numerous states around the Union where the land grant college does enter into some kind of agree- ment with other institutions of higher learning. I am thinking, for example, of New York, where Cornell University, a land grant college, does have programs with its sister institutions in the state. I see no legal barrier as far as the Morrill Act is concerned to do this. As a matter of fact, we have the precedents. As far as our own particular act (P.L. 89-791) is concerned which created the two institutions, I see no problem. Maybe Mr. Horsky would like to comment to that to see if there is any kind of legal problem. Mr. SI5K. Actually I wanted to clear this up. It is my understanding that originally the original legislation as introduced in the Senate provided that the Washington Technical Institute would be a land grant college. Dr. WIEGMAN. Right. Mr. Sisic. Now, then, of course, since that time we have this change here in S. 1999 by the Senate. As I understood from the statement made by Mr. Nelsen, it was found that the Washington Technical Institute could not quality. I was curious about why the legislation was changed to substitute the Federal City College as a beneficiary of the land grant program. For example, why does the Technical Institute not qualify? Why did it not qualify? I)r. WIEGMAN. Well, going back to the original Morrill Act of 1862, it mentions in the Act that the college should have a broad Liberal Arts base, because in addition to the technical courses they emphasized continually that person should have a liberal education. This is mentioned in the Morrill Act several time's. The Federal City College is the college created by Congress to be a Liberal Arts College in Wash- ington, D.C. It is a four-year institution with graduate programs which we find at all of our land grant colleges. It has the kind of broad base that would allow us to carry out the spirit of the Morrill Act. It would also allow us to enter into kinds of agreements with the Depart- meiit of Agriculture that only a four-year institution with possibly graduate programs and extension could do. It is just the vehicle that can best carry out the spirit of the Morrill Act. Mr. SI5K. Well, that is fine, Dr. Wiegman. Now, getting back to my original question, because I am sure you gentlemen have studied this, does the present proposed legislation, H.R. 15280, HI.R. 15886, and S. 1999, provide ample authority for the sharing of funds by the Federal City College with the Technical Institute. Are you certain of that in your own mind? Dr. WIEGMAN. We are. Mr. Chairman, we are certain that the his- tory of the Morrill Act, the tradition that has been developed in the 50 States and the kind of assurance that we have given here in the legislative history would be the kind of assurance that the congress would need, and the kind of assurance that would allow us to cooperate with the Washington Technical Institute and other institutions to enter into yearly a Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. SI5K. You would advance through a Memorandum of Under- standing to the Technical Institute? Dr. WIEGMAN. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0016" 12 Mr. SIsK. Dr. Horsky, this may be somewhat out of order, but I would just like to have your comments on this. It is my understanding you are President of the Board of Higher Education of the District of Columbia established under P.L. 89-791. Now I `am sure you have made some study of this situation and of course your Board in a sense is going to be controlling here. Are you satisfied that the language in the present legislation has ample provision to make this possible so there would be no legal barriers or no questions raised if subsequently court action were taken? Mr. HORSKY. On that question, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt what- ever; there is no question about the fact that there is ample authority to enter into the cooperative programs at the Washington Technical Institute which Dr. Farner has mentioned. I should, perhaps, add by way of further satisfying you and Mr. Nel- sen as to the procedures of the boards of the two schools. The Board of Higher Education for the College, and the Board of Vocational Education for the Institute, have themselves met in cooperative meet- ings and are determined that this kind of cooperative arrangement under the land grant procedures will be worked out. The Boards are thoroughly in accord with Dr. Farner's intention `to use to the limit the facilities of the Institute wherever they are appropriate for carry- ing out the purpose of this legislation and we will do so. Mr. !SISK. Thank you, Dr. Horsky. We have some other members who have come in. And if you want to remain, Dr. Horsky, it might be that there will be a few more questions. My colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Walker, do you have any questions? I might say we have Dr. Farner, who is President of the Federal City `College, Dr. Wiegman and Mr. Horsky. Mr. WALKER. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SI5K. The gentleman from Ohio-before we dismiss these wit- nesses who, I think, we have pretty well completed, does the gentleman from Ohio have any questions? Mr. HARSHA. I have a number of them. I want to review them first. They may have answered some of them. I will wait. Mr. SISK. Well, we would hope to conclude this hearing this morn- ing. This is the point I might say to my good friend. Mr. HARSHA. What is the rush? Mr. SIsK. Well, I think there is rush, there is some desire to go ahead and move the legislation. And I am not trying to rush my good friend. I realize he got here a `bit late. Their statements are before you and we would like to go ahead, if there are questions to be asked. I was ex- pecting to dismiss these witnesses and we would not expect to have them back before us again. Of course, if there are other witnesses, we will continue this for whatever period of time we need. That is what I had in mind. Mr. WALKER. Chairman, while we are waiting, before I arrived, was anyone asked the question, or has anything been said about what I saw in the paper, namely that the Federal City College would select students for admission by lottery. Has this been touched on? Mr. SIsK. Well, I might say to my friend from New Mexico we had not gone into any of the general questions regarding the Institution and the `setup of the Institution. We had so far concentrated on this matter of the financing, that new financing' would be made available PAGENO="0017" 13 in making the Federal City College a land-grant college which, of course, would then qualify them for the so-called cash in lieu of land- grants since there are not lands available and would make available to the Federal City College a capital grant of initially $7~41,706, as I understand it, plus it would qualify them for annual grants in amounts of, say, $50,000 under the Morrill Acts and then I believe un- der the Bankhead-Jones Act $170,000. Is that approximately right, I)r. Farner? Dr. FARNER. Yes. Mr. SIsK. I think Mr. Walker's point is of interest because we are all concerned with how you are proceeding, and we have all read headlines as to the great number of applications that you have, recognizing tha*t probably you do not have the capacity for 5,000 students to start with, or whatever amoun.t the most recent amount is. You might proceed to ask your question. I think it might be helpful. Mr. WALKER. I was just curious as to whether you have formalized any specific method whereby you intend to select the students to be admitted from the applicants. Mr. HORSKY. Let me interject just a moment, sir, and then I will turn it to Dr. Farner. The Board of Higher Education at its last meeting tentatively approved a limitation of the number of stu- dents to less than all that had applied for reasons which Dr. Farner will explain, and a tentative approval of a method of choosing the ones from the applicants. We are meeting again tomorrow for fur- ther consideration of these two questions and hopefully a final de- cision on it. We have a procedure by which no action of the Board is taken finally at a meeting. We take it tentatively and then allow opportunity for further hearing, further community reaction, fur- ther cogitation until the next meeting when we take the final action, sort of a first reading proposition. I think on the substance of it with that statement to you of where it stands I would ask Dr. Farner to explain what our problem was and what the tentative answers that we have arrived at are. Mr. WALKER. I might add at this point that I am not advising any opposition for or against it. Mr. HORSKY. You are curious. Mr. WALKER. I am curious for that information. Mr. HORSKY. I am glad you are. Dr. FARNER. The original enrollment estimates prepared quite some time before I came, before we really got going, called 1300 students to attend the college the first year, and this was the basis on which we were planning. We also expected not all the students who sent in an application for admission to necesarily want to come to us only. So that as we moved our number of applications moved up from i~000 to 2,000 to even 2,600 or so. When most colleges only realize about 50 percent of registration against the number of applications we seemed all right against the enrollment of 1,300. But then in the final three weeks before a deadline we had established of 15 February over 2500 additional applications reached us. And secondly, we got evidence from interviews and questionnaires with some of the applicants that many more than is normal had ap- plied only to us, or were virtually certain to come, so that with these two factors operating together we shot up to over 5,282 applications 91--313---68---3 PAGENO="0018" 14 by the deadline. And an indication that rather than 40 or 50 percent of the applicants actually registering in the fall we might expect 70 to 80 percent even. This, then, faced us with the proposition of having as many as 4800 students, or 4500 students wishing to attend when we had been plan- ning and doing our faculty recruiting and our renovation of temporary facilities and so on on the basis of 1300 which we always knew we could go a little above. So at its last meeting, the Board in addition to the two actions which Mr. Horsky mentioned, that is, saying that 2400 students was as many as we could recruit faculty for since we are right in the heart or a little bit past the peak of the faculty recruiting zone now even, and since there is a six-month lag or so on the renovation of facilities we are renovating will peak out on capacity at something around 2400, that we have chosen that figure-I cannot defend that figure over 2300 or 2500 really, but-and in addition to that, that we would explore with the District government the procedures for amending our 1969 budget to allow us to handle 2400 students rather than 1300. It is not a direct proportional increase because some of the money for the lower enroll- ment was in the form of planning and crankup money to get us started. So although we are nearly doubling the number of students we are not in any sense nearly doubling the budget-now we are faced with the problem of how to select those students who will get the first offers of admission. First of all, before I go into that side of it, I would like to allay some fears that the number 2400 sounds a great deal lower than the number, say, 5,280, but some 20 percent of the students who have ap- plied would not accept an offer even if tendered. Secondly, there are some students in the large group who desire educational programs that are the strengths of the Institution so as we do the pre-registration counseling and admission work with these students, some of them will, I think, elect to apply to the Institution rather than to us. Thirdly, the parttime-fulltime question is a difficult one for us to determine. We have interviewed many of our students. They say they want to be fulitime but then `they also say that they wish to work quite extensively, so it could be that not all of the students will be fulitime which will open up other opportunities for students on a fuiltime equivalency basis to fill those positions. Then, last, we will have a certain amount of attrition in the. student body `during the three quarters of the academic years `and we intend to fill back up `to the original 2400 on those basis which are not used by `those students who do not continue after the first quarter. So that `all-in-all, we think `that we will be able, with 2400 spaces, to offer admission to just under 90 percent of the applicants, but they would not all be able to be offered admission. Some of them might be asked t'o start in January instead of this fall. So that now the que'stion is how to determine who gets first shot. We want very much for our student body, the first year, to be repre- sentative of the student body in subsequent years, because we are doing a considerable amount of curriculum experimentation. Our faculty re- cruiting and faculty evaluation is based on teaching rather than a' research function with a student body that will have a very `wide variety PAGENO="0019" 15 of readiness for college. So, therefore, we do not wish to use methods of selecting the students that will cause the student body to be sharply, say, stronger students or weaker students or older students or younger students or male or female or veterans or nonveterans or any of the other factors that we might have used to do the selection. So we really boiled it down to only two possibilities: One, chrono- logical date of receipt of application which we do have on record, or a random process to assure the most representative sample of the total application group. We had to reject the chronological factor for several reasons, Much of this application traffic resulted from a series of visits which I paid to the high schools of the District telling the students about the col- lege and explaining the program. But I did uot do those all on the same day, of course, so that they were strung out over a period from the 10th of November to the 10th of January, but all but one of them was done before the Christmas holiday. But it would be very unfair to the one school where I did not go until after the Christmas holiday because there were more than 2400 applications by the time I went to that school as an example. So that for that reason and for the fact also in some of the schools the counselors held the applications of the students for several weeks, assembled, cleaned them up and then sent them in, that sort of changed the date really that these students had applied. So we proposed then a random selection process where all students who applied before the deadline have an equal opportunity to be num- ber one in the list. They also have an equal opportunity to be number 5~280, which happens to be the number of feet in a mile and we oflen think how lone that line would be. Now, we will use the number as a sequence, sequence number to all the students in for pre-registration and counseling~ If we find that some of the students, for example, thought they were seniors in high school but turn out to be really only juniors they are not eligible to start next fall because they have not achieved high school gradua- tion. So as we counsel along, then we will determine the eligibility of the student and determine whether or not he might have a better op- portunity for the program he wants in another institution, and then continue to call them in in the order of this sequencing by random process. Now, as Mr. Horsky said, the decision of the Board to approve this method is tentative and will be considered for its second reading as we say tomorrow at the Board meeting. Mr. SISK. Well, thank you. I appreciate that explanation. Mr. WALKER. I appreciate your statement Dr. Fariier. I just want to make this observation, Mr. Chairmau. I was a little concerned when I read about this method of selecting students, because I was hopeful that you would at least do some screening. Otherwise I think you will pass over many young people who are capable of doing college work. So I was just hopeful that you would at least do a certain amount of screening to avoid that. I am not saying that I am against these young people who have not done so well in their high school days. I would like to see them, if possible, given an opportunity because we know by experience that many high school students who did not do so well in high school do well in college. Dr. FARNER. Yes. PAGENO="0020" 16 Mr. WALKER. I do not mean for this to be a guideline or anything, but by the same token, I still would hate for your to pass over those who have the aptitude to do well. Thank you, very much. Dr. FARNER. May I make a couple of comments on that point? We hate to turn anybody away. We hate to turn the ones who did not do ~rell in high school away for the following reason, that if we turn them away, as the only public institution for the District of Columbia, they really have no place else to go. The stronger students can acquire scholarships and admission at other institutions. On the other hand, we certainly do not want to turn away all strong students deliberately and have a student less able than the total application group. We are going to explore at our Board meeting tomorrow possibly measures of asking other institutions in this general metropolitan area to help by receiving some students solve this dilemma for us. We may be able to go out and actually ask some neighboring colleges to take some students from us on a tuition basis. We are exploring every possi- ble way we can to make sure that nobody is turned away next year. Now, one important statistic about our college, our application group that affects this is the fact that more than 60 percent of our applicants are not in high school now. This means some of them are out of high school several years. So to use their high school records, which might have been weak on the basis of a time, say, for years ago, when their motivation was much different, now they are attempting to either reduce their employment or drop their employment entirely and try to go to college, three or four years after high school, start college three or four years after high school, and this shows a great deal of motiva- tion, and to use high school records on those students as a decider of whether they could or could not try would be difficult, I think. Mr. SISK. Very good. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSITA. I certainly appreciate your explanation because I shared the same misgivings about this lottery method that I think my colleague did. At least from the newspaper reports, it looked on the surface of it you would be preempting the fellow that had worked hard in high school so he could get in college- Dr. FARNER. That is right. Mr. HARSHA. -and showed outstanding ability. Certainly you must give some recognition to achievement in high school as you screen these people. I would assume, from your explanation, that academic ability will be taken into consideration. I think it is also fair to say, is it not, that if you had a student body of average people, they probably do not learn as much as if you have it mixed or have some people in there with special skills or outstand- ing skills. Dr. FARNER. That is right. Mr. HARSHA. Because they provide incentive for the average student, is that not so Dr. FARNER. That is true. Mr. HARSHA. If you get a little encouragement and leadership from seeing the student next to you doing something well, maybe you try a little harder. It gives you a better academic program overall, does it not? PAGENO="0021" 17 T)r. FARNER. Yes, we agree. That is the reason we want this total spread of the application group. Mr. HARSHA. Well, I appreciate your explanation, and I certainly feel much relieved. Mr. HORSKY. Let me add only one thing that is perhaps implicit in what Dr. Farner has said but has not been made explicit. We do not anticipate allowing this to happen again. This was a gross inisjudg- ment of the need for this school in this District, and our freshmen class next year will be adequately budgeted to take care of all applicants. Dr. FARNER. When I first arrived, I raised the estimate from very low figures up to the 1300. There has been a massive underestimate, I think, over the years that the need for the two colleges has been studied of the potential student demand, and now we are really sort of proving that point in a sense. Mr. SISK. All right. Did you have any further questions? Mr. 1-JARSHA. No. Mr. SI5K. Well, gentlemen, we appreciate very much your coming before the Committee this morning and your fine statement. I might say that so far as I know this concludes your testimony. However, I would hope, Dr. Farner, that you and Dr. Wiegman, and Mr. Horsky as far as that goes, would be prepared, maybe, to answer some ques- tions. As I say, not all members of the subcommittee were here this morning. I might say, on the statement which has now been made a i)art of the record, of Dr. Farner and I)r. Wiegman submitted on pages three, four, five and six, I think they do set forth a very eloquent plea and a very good reason for making of this school and land-grant col- lege. And, of course, we have precedents in all tire states as we pro- vided in the II-Iawaiian Act which has been mentioned, of course, the cash in lieu of. land, but if there are further questions, why you gentle- men will be here in the city and available in the future if you are needed. Mr. HORSKY. We will be available. Mr. SIsK. Yes, Dr. Wiegman. i)r. WIEGMAN. Mr. Chairman, one final comm ent. We view the timing of this legislation as very important because now is the time to begin recruiting faculty arid extension workers to help carry out the intent of this legislation. So any particular movement on this would be very much appreciated. Mr. SI5K. Well, I think it is understood that there was some urgency, at least you people felt that, and let me say this, that the Committee will hope to move along as expeditiously as possible. 1 think what we will probably try to do this morning, if possible, is to finish the testimony on it and then as soon as possible, the Com- mittee will go into Executive Session and attempt to write up tire bill or any changes, and I do not understand at least at the present time there has been any proposed amendments, but at least. try to get the bill reported to the full Committee as soon as we can properly proceed. Thank you gentlemen. Mr. HORSKY. Thank you. Dr. FARNER. Thank you. Mr. SISK. The complete statement of Dr. Farner and Dr. Wiegman will be included in the record at this point. PAGENO="0022" 18 (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. FRANK FARMER, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE AND DR. EUGENE WIEGMAN, DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION, FEDERAL Cirv COLLEGE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting Dr. Eugene Wiegman and me to testify regarding the bills, HR 15280 and S. 1999, to "Amend the District of Columbia Education Act", the authorization to pro- vide the District of Columbia with its own land grant institution. We wish also to thank this Committee for the wisdom it has shown in recommending the passage of PL 89-791, the law which created the Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute. We are, at long last, able to provide the citizens of the District with public higher education so that they may better meet their own expectations and qualify for positions through which they can contribute more fully as citizens of this city and nation. The Federal City College plans to open its doors to 2400 students this Sep- tember, staffed by a faculty of 100, a student service staff of 53, and a small administrative staff. The college will be temporarily housed in the old Securities Exchange Commission Building at Second and "D" Streets, N.W., just a few blocks from here. The Washington Technical Institute is now housed at the old Bureau of Standards Building on Connecticut Avenue, X.W. The reception of these two institutions by the community; students, citizens, Commissioner Washington, the City Council and Congress is gratifying. We know we are needed and we will do our utmost to fulfill the great responsibility which we have assumed. PL89-791 states that the Federal City College is authorized by the Congress to offer a four year program in liberal arts and sciences acceptable toward a bachelor of arts degree, including courses in teacher education; a two-year program (i) which is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree or for a degree of associate in arts, and which may include courses in business ed- ucation, secretarial training, and business administration, or (ii) in engineering, mathematics or the physical and biological sciences which is designed to pre- pare a student to work as a technician or at a semiprofessional level in engi- neering, sciences, or other technical fields which require the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles or knowledge; eudcational programs of study as may be acceptable for a master's degree; and courses on an individual, noncredit basis to those desiring to further their education without seeking a degree. The Washington Technical Institute is authorized to offer programs in voca- tional and technical education designed to fit individuals for useful employment in recognized occupations; and vocational and technical courses on an individual, noncredit basis. WHY A LAND GRANT COLLEGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA? The enabling legislation establishing the Federal City College and the Wash- ington Technical Institute is broad in scope, but land grant college status for the Federal City College is needed for three important reasons: 1. Land grant college status would, through the Morrill Act and the Bankhead- Jones Act, provide the funds necessary to broaden the curriculum so that the Federal City College could offer expanded and strengthened programs of urban extension courses. For example, programs of study could be offered in environmental science, dietetics, child care, home economics, horticulture and youth development to name a few. Programs of study already established could be broadened to offer additional course work in physical sciences to train, at least on the two year level, young people interested in careers in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry in cooperation with the National Arboretum. Land grant college status would permit an expansion of curriculum offerings in mathematics and engineering. 2. Land grant college status w-ould provide the necessary funds to extend the college into the community in many of the same ways that land grant colleges are serving in your respective States. The Federal City College would be a center for the use of citizens, community organizations and Government. It would be the catalyst for discussions between specialists and lay citizens of community problems to help plan for further development of the city. Nöncredit course, seminars, and workshops for interested citizens to help them upgrade their skills PAGENO="0023" 19 and knowledges would be offered by the college. The Federal City College, as the land grant college, would reach out to the citizens of the District with family centered progranis to assist homemakers with management skills, good house- keeping practices, buymanship, care and use of foods, clothing, household furn- ishing and equipment, child development and human relations. Programs would also assist husbands and youth in learning experiences in such areas as recreation, personal and public health and community services. The Federal City College would replicate some of the successful 4~H youth development and summer camp programs that are now functioning in such cities as Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse, New York; Indianapolis, Terre Haute and Gary, Indiana; New Haven, Connecticut; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Cleve- land, Cincinnati and Canton, Ohio; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Lo.s Angeles and San Francisco, California; El Paso, Texas, and Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona. Extension agents and their aides cooperating with the college would carry these programs to the family and to the neighborhood. We see, under land grant college status, the possibility of setting up several extension centers in the Distric.t to better service citizens and cooperate with the Government of the District in im- plementing public service programs. 3. Finally, land grant college status for the District would grant equality to the citizens of the District. The 50 States and Puerto Rico having land grant college status perform certain types of services for citizens in their States which govern land grant colleges. The population of the District of Columbia is larger than eleven States of the Union and the District is facing many of the same prob- lems that land grant colleges are tackling. Land grant college status would allow the Federal City College to call freely upon the services and knowledges of other land grant colleges and to share achievements. Also land grant college status would bring a measure of prestige to the Federal City College. We have been informed that the land grant colleges of the 50 States wish us well. MI4MORANDIJM OF PARTICIPATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING Our sister institution, the Washington Technical Institute would benefit also by having the Federal City College named the land grant college. The Fed- eral City College would enter into a Memorandum of Participation with the Washington Technical Institute, under which the Washington Technical Insti- tute would assume certain academic instruction and extension services in vo- cational and technical education. This would assure minimum duplication of instruction at the two public institutions. The Washington Technical Institute would be involved heavily in instruction in engineering and the mechanical arts. Other institutions could also he asked to participate in programs in which they have special strengths to contribute. In conclusion, it is our belief that the Federal City College is suited for the task at hand. Land grant colleges, such as the Federal City College will become upon passage of these bills, were established to serve all the people, not just the privileged few who could afford an education. We like to think of ourselves as the College without walls-a place to provide education of excellence with- in, not shut away from, the city. We see the city as our campus, and the pas- sage of HR 15280 and 5. 1999 will make this vision a reality. Thank you. Mr. HARsIJA. One of these bills passed the other body, Mr. Chair- man? Mr. Sisic Yes, the bill, S. 1999, has passed the other body. Mr. HARSTIA. And is it in the same form as we have it? Mr. SI5K. Identical, as it passed. It was different as originally in- troduced there. We have fron'i the Department of Agriculture, Federal Extension Service, I believe, this morning, Dr. Lloyd H. Davis, Administrator, and Dr. Ralston, Deputy Administrator. Dr. RALSTON. My name is Ralston. Mr. SIsK. All right, Dr. Ralston. Dr. Davis is not with you? II)r. RALSTON. Dr. Davis will not. be here this morning. PAGENO="0024" 20 Mr. SISK. Very well, Dr. Ralston, do you have a prepared state- ment? If so, it will be made a part of the record and you can read it or proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF DR. N. P. RALSTON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EXTENSION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Dr. RALSTON. Thank you, very much, sir. I would like to present the written statement for the record and very briefly summarize what we have in the statement, and then if there are questions I will be pleased to attempt to answer those. I might say that the Department of Agriculture fully supports this amendment to the District of Columbia Public Education Act estab- lishing the Federal City College and land-grant institution of higher learning. Two parts of that amendment are of concern and interest to the De- partment of Agriculture because we have jurisdiction over two of these parts, namely, the Smith-Lever Act which authorizes the work by the cooperative extension service; and secondly, the Agricultural Market- ing Act of 1967 which does not have nearly the scope and direction that the Smith-Lever Act does have to this particular piece of legislation. I want merely to say that Secretary Freeman in a recent address at Fairleigh-Dickinson University stated I think rather clearly and suc- cinctly his position, to quote: Research and education are riot enough. The city system should include an urban extension service, made up of trained men a~i women, who, like the county agent, carry the results of applied research to its actual users-the people who need help. The extension agents would serve in another major fashion. They would report the needs of the people back to local governments and to univer- sities for research and `action. I think this is an extremely important relationship that we build between the people of an area and the university that is serving those people so that we have a good strong communications so they reflect their feelings back and forth, and I think provide much greater serv- ice for the people which the university is serving. The Smith-Lever Act, I think, you are familiar with. If there are questions on the Agri- cultural Marketing Act, I will be happy to answer questions on that. I think Congressman Zwach indicated some of the scope of the co- operative extension work in some of the other urban areas of the coun- try. Very frankly, we are just sort of scratching the surface. These are really developmental efforts in many of these cities that we are doing~ but we are finding that the techniques and methods that we have used for many years can be adapted and are working in the real hard-core areas of America, of course urban cities, and we think it is a useful technique for helping these people move ahead. Now just a word about the cooperating university. I have already indicated that the university area needs to be very close to its people, and we think the Extension Service would be one way of helping to bridge this gap. We believe that the fact that the staff of the university, good staff of the university would lend a great deal of prestige to helping the peopTe advance in the community. We could cite many instances where a professional person from a uni- versity has gone into a community and worked with a young person PAGENO="0025" 21 or a family and this becomes really important to them and helps them move ahead. And so we would see that as an important aspect. I would say, also, the fact that the Federal City College would be- come a land-grant university under this Act would provide an entree for them to associate more freely, and I say on a better basis with all the other land-grant institutions throughout the country. Conferences, progra:ms seminars, and these kinds of things, of course, they would be heavily involved in, and I think this would help build the Federal City College as a university perhaps faster than it might otherwise. So, I think there is a lot to be said for that kind of relationship. I do not know that I need to spend very much time on what the Extension Service can do for the families in the District. I think this has been discussed from time to time. You have seen written testimony in other hearings in regard to this. But I again would just restate and say that we have enough experience-well, I would qualify that, not enough. We are learning. We will never have enough experience, but we are learning more and more how to be more effective in raising the levels and hopes and aspirations of people who have been bypassed and get them into the mainstream of our society and make them more pro- ductive. And I think that is basically what our Extension Service is concerned with in working with people. The next several pages merely indicate some of the precise kinds of programs that we would be using in working with the Federal City College. The methodology that we have used I think will continue to improve. We have had some discussion with Federal City College. And over on page 14 we indicate that we would probably work with them like we do with all other land-grant universities in developing a mem- orandum of understanding which would rather clearly set forth the working relationships between the administration of that institution and the Department of Agriculture clearly spelling out responsibili- ties of each in carrying out the program. And as T)r. Wiegman indi- cated, the program is developed jointly so that we are completely plan- ning and negotiating and continually working at changing programs ad trying those which will be more effective, dropping those which are not, and this kind of thing as we move ahead. Now,, as to the cost of the program, I think, as you are aware, the bill merely states that the sums to be appropriated shall not be in sub- stitution of what now is already being appropriated for the Smith- Lever Act but in addition, and that four persons of that would go to the Department for carrying omit its administrative, technical and other services of the Department and the District of Columbia would not be required to offset allotments under this section, and this differs very much from all other universities that we are cooperating with under the Smith-Lever Act. All other universities written in the ongi- nal Smith-Lever Act, as you know, requires offsetting funds in an equal amount. So in this particular bill provision is provided for total funds to be provided to the university to carry out this function of Smith- Lever Act. Mr. ITARsTIA. Could I interrupt at this point? Mr. SIsK. Yes. Mr. ITARSIJA. What is the reason for that, sir? PAGENO="0026" 22 Dr. RALSTON. Well, I think the reasoning and logic behind it is- and maybe these gentlemen can answer it more effectively than I can, but most of the financial support for the District comes from Congress, whereas in the states we have state funds and their tax authorities and all of this so they ask that the state match whatever funds are appropriated. As a matter of fact, in our Smith-Lever Act at the present time about 38 percent of our total funds are federal, about 42 percent is state, and about 20 percent is county, so you see we have a. multiple financing arrangement in the original Smith-Lever Act which would be very much different I think than was felt could be handled effec- tively here in the District of Columbia. Mr. HARSTIA. Well, how much do you anticipate will be needed? Dr. RALSTON. Well, I guess I really cannot answer this honestly until we sit down with the Federal City College to start to determine how much of a program and what kind of a program, when you get right down to specifics, we should try to conduct within the District of Columbia. But I think as Dr. Wiegman indicated, and as has been I think rather traditional of the Extension Service, we would think we ought to start with rather small funds and find our way and work through and let this grow dependent upon its success, and so forth, and report this back to appropriating bodies so they can determine the extent of the programs `that should be carried on. As Dr. Wiegman indicated, somewhere between $100,000 and $7- or $800,000 for this first year we might see as a figure that we could set about really having three kinds of staff: A staff who would administer the pro- grams; then a specialist staff who would be part of the subsequent matter departments of the university probably, and then a field staff who would actually have offices in the District and become very much a part of those communities and neighborhoods that get access to those people. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. SISK. Well, if I understand now, that-of course, the amount that might be available under the Smith-Lever Act would have to be a specific amount which is earmarked and appropriated by the appropriate committee of the Congress as approved by-for example, it would fall under the regular `agricultural appropriation and be examined as an item. Dr. RALSTON. Yes, sir; this is my understanding. Mr. SIsK. For example, Congressman Whitten of Mississippi is Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee; this would be a mat- ter-it would have to be justified as an item in the budget. Dr. RALSTON. Yes, sir. Mr. SI5K. Now, I might say, by the way, that the Appropriation sub- committees are now in session, are now holding hearings, are very busily engaged in what actually you asking for. I would assume that you must have a figure already; if not, at what point do you expect to have it, if you are going to have funds in fiscal year `69. Dr. RALSTON. Well, sir, we do not have a figure because we do not know what would be the disposal of this legislation. As a matter of fact- PAGENO="0027" 23 Mr. SISK. Well, I recognize that you do not have any legislative au- thority at the present time, but you know we have a habit around here that when the Administration submits a budget, it submits a budget contino~ent upon Congress passing certain authorizing acts. And some- times some of those acts, there are items as in the budget today that we have not even authorized, and I am dc~ubtfuI that we are going to authorize, but they are still earmarked in the budget for a stipulated amount of funds. I am curious to know at what stage of the game you will ask for funds. Are you going to wait until, let us say, this becomes law? Hopefully we can go ahead soon and move this. I am not trying to indicate that there is going to be substantial delay, but it seems to me that at some point we should have some pretty good figure in mind as to what you might be able to or expect to come up with. Now, this estimate of $100,000 to $700,000 or $800,000 of possible funds from the Smith-Lever Act is a pretty wide range. Dr. RALSTON. Yes, sir. Mr. SI5K. `I am not here trying to pin you to the wall. Dr. RALSTON. Yes, sir, I would just have to say very honestly we have not worked out in detail. As a matter of fact, I am testifying before Mr. Whitten tomorrow afternoon as far as our Smith-Lever Act is concerned. So I think wha~t we will really have to do is perhaps go back through the Department and contact that Committee again so that we are completely in the clear and everybody understands very forthrightly what it is all about. I would hate at this point in time to really bring it up to the Com- mittee without being more precise about the whole situation right now, and as a matter of fact, we would appreciate any suggestions you. might have as to how we might----- Mr. SISK. Well, I appreciate the position you are in, Dr. Ralston. I am not trying to put you on the spot. You may proceed. I)r. RALSTON. Well, I think the only concluding statement, that I will make is that the Department of Agriculture believes that the~ citizens of the District of Columbia are entitled to the benefits of the Coopera- tive Extension Service and their programs, particularly 4-H and Home Economics work that are now enjoyed by the 50 states and the territories of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam, and we believe that these programs can assist materially in providing much greater fulfillment for the people in the District. We also believe that the Federal City College as the cooperating institution of higher learning should have the appropriate research and teaching activities to support an effective Cooperative Extension Service. And let me just make a comment on this. One of the reasons why we would favor the Federal City College is because we believe over time they will be doing the kind of educational teaching and be enter- ing into certain kinds of research work over time which would more directly support the kind of activities Extension will really have to do in the District for it to really be effective. Knowledge is no better than its research because, and this is why we feel this is important. PAGENO="0028" 24 (The complete statement of Dr. Ralston follows:) STATEMENT BY DK N. P. RALSTON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUlTURE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we wish to thank you for the opportunity to meet with this committee to present the U.S. Department of Agriculture's favorable views on HR. 15280, a bill which amends the District ~f Columbia Public Education Act that establishes the Federal City College as a Land Grant institution of higher learning. The U.S. Department of Agricul- ture has jurisdiction over two parts of the amendment with reference to the Act of May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 372; 7 U.S.C. 341-346, 347a, 348. 349) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1087; 7 U.S.C. 1621-1629). The Smith-Lever Act has the greater application. The bill would authorize the United States Department of Agriculture to make available to residents of the District of Columbia the Cooperative Ex- tension Service's pool of professionally trained leaders for Extension, particu- larly in home economics, youth work, and in marketing. The Department of Agriculture has long been one of the world's great institu- tions of research and education. It has worked cooperatively with numerous Federal agencies, State departments and agencies-specifically those of agri- culture, the land-grant universities-and with private organizations, to help equip the best informed, best trained, and most productive agricultural clientele in history. Their proficiency has freed a major percentage of our workers to produce other goods and services that have benefited all people of this country and the world. Secretary Freeman stated in a recent address, "The Rural Challenge to the Cities", at the 25th Anniversary of Fairleigh-Dickinson University, "Research and education are not enough. The city system should include an urban exten- sion service, made up of trained men and women, who, like the county agei~t, carry the results of applied research to its actual users-the people who need help. The extension agents would serve in another major fashion. They would report the needs of the people back to local governments and to universities for research and action." smith-Lever Act In the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, Congress established the Extension Service, which has been truly a cooperative organization in its mutually beneficial rela- tionship with the States, the universities, and the public. Through its vast net- work of educational and informational services, the Department has made readily available to all citizens the findings in research (foods, diet and nutrition, mar- keting, etc.). The result has been that when emergencies have arisen-whether major national conflicts, the great drought of the 1930's, or the more recent advent of mechanization-the leadership and technological know-how of the Ex- tension Service has modified the blow of what otherwise might have been disas- ter for large areas of the Nation. Since World War II, the Extension Service, in response to the demands of the people, has been expanding its programs into urban areas. The following quote from the report of the House Appropriations Committee on the Fiscal Year 1968 Agriculture Appropriation Bill is illustrative of this trend: "In view of the many agencies of the Department and the entire Federal Government en- gaged in community development activities, the Committee feels that the addi- tional funds can be used most effectively in programs which work directly with the youth of this Nation. The wholesome effect of 4-H Club activities has been so beneficial to rural youth that additional efforts to bring 4-H programs to young people in the congested and deprived urban areas of the United States would make an invaluable contribution to the moral, spiritual, and economic strength of this Nation." Agric~ltaral MarketilW Act The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 authorizes the promotion through research, studies, experimentation, and cooperation of a scientific approach to ~arketing, transportation, and distribution of agriiculturhl products. Seetinn 204(b) of that act authorizes the Department to make allotments to State departments of agriculture, State bureaus and departments of marketing, State agricultural experiment stations, and other appropriate State agencies for cooperative projects in marketing service and marketing research. Designating PAGENO="0029" 25 the Distr~ct ~of Oo1um~i4a as a "State" for the purpose of this authority would permit a)IJ1otments to appropriate agencies of the District of Columbia. Allotments under section 204 (b ) are required to be matched by non-Federal funds. In addition to moneys available for allotment to States under Section 204(b), appropriations are also authorized for use by the Department `of A'gricu'lture in cooperating with State agencies and others, inicludiing ~ers'o'n's or corporations engaged in the production, transportation, storage, processing, marketing, and di'sti4butio'n of agricultural products. As to this' aitthlo'rity, the De~art'ment of Agricuitare can presently cooperate with appropriate organizations in the District of Columbia. Work in nonrnral areas Many cities have made effective use of the Cooperative' Extension Service- especially 4-H youth development and Extension home economics p'rogramis. Extensio'n~guid'ed home eou'nse'lin'g service's and youth development programs have been initiated in recent mo'nths~ through Land-Grant `un,iver'sities to pr~ovide leadership in public housing projects in such cities as Pr,oiddence, Rhode Island; Portland, Oregon; Kansas `City, Missouri; Hartford, Manchester, and Now Haven, Connecticut; Newark, New Jersey; Buffalo, New York; and Warren, Ohio. Similar self-help, `learning-by-doing program's are urgently needed for the thousands of families in the District's public housing `developments' and `in many other low-income neighborhoods. Extension `has ,demon~strat:e,d that it can fulfill a unique rhie of w'o~kin'g with families and youth to help them raise their as~pir~atioiis and make effective use of the service's `or the `many specialized agencies. At the same time, `Extension would h'ave collaborative and mutually beneficial relati'onshi'p~ with schools, em~ploym,ent services, an'd other `community agencies. The cooperating universitV Another phase of this relationship that warrants consideration is the role of each designated university which carries out Cooperative Extension programs. Such a university heeds :the call for help from the community, reviews the prob- lems, and helps local organizations plan for youth development programs, for adult education, for teaching of homemaker skills, for child health, and for other needed programs. A university that sponsors an Extension Service lends its prestige and many of its mort eminent professors to the job of helping the entire community. Ex- posure to the problems of the community enriches the vitality and expands the objectives of any educational institution. The professional staff of the university has an opportunity to participate with all other Land-Grant institutions in numerous relevant subject-matter seminars, workshop, etc., which contribute to their professional growth and development. This relationship would s'trengthen the knowledge base for the District of Co- lumbia Extension program. What ewtension can do for families in the District Extension has more than 50 ye'ars of experience which would be utilized to help families, including their youth, to improve their home situ'ations and man- age their reso'urses; to be productive in employment situa'tions; and to develop values of good citizenship. Extension is a "family-centered" program. One of its objectives is to reach adults and youth who do not take advant'age of existing educational oppor- tunities', and to motivate them `to learn `the skills, attitu(leS, and knowledge neces~ sary for successful family living. Extension aims to help disadvantaged families and youth learn to secure and use goods and services in such `as way as to achieve the greatest satisfaction for all family members. Children and adults would participate in learning experiences that would re- inforce each other-information on nutrition, sanitation, and personal hygiene, for example. They would learn to use community resources of benefit to the family and would become involved in community organizations. Homemakers would develop home management skills; good housekeeping prac- tices; buymnanship; care and use of foods, clothing, household furnishing and equipment; as well as better child development and human relationships. Husbands would become involved in the learning experiences Extension pro- vides to homemakers and youth. PAGENO="0030" 26 Families would develop a feeling of self-reliance and an appreciation for the beueflts gained from using knowledge to improve family well being Eventually they would establish immediate and long-term goals which are compatible, prac- tical, and attainable. Eel en$ion program and learning eaperiences in home economies Extension work in home economics can focus on critical problems. Educational programs could be provided in- Food selection and preparation to provide adequate diets at minimum cost; food storage to prevent spoilage and contamination; production and pres- ervation of food where feasible; Use of donated and purchased foods; Housekeeping skills; Money management and consumer education; Sanitation, safety, and use of available health services; Improvements in housing storage sleeping facilities and kitchen ariange ments; Construction of home furnishings; improving appearance of home through use of ingenuity instead of money (might include reupholstering, repairing, refinishing); Clothing selection, care, and repair; remodeling used clothing; Family relationships-particularly in the area of child and youth develop- ment. (The quality of the home environment has a profound effect on the psychological and physical development of the children.) Personal appearance (in our culture cleanliness and good grooming are im- portant assets in school and in the world of business and industry.) ; and Manners and poise-essential in adjusting in an upwardly mobile situa- tion. Betension programs and learning eceperiences with youth Experiences with 4-H educational programs in a number of cities involving low-income youth and their families indicate that many of these program learn- ing experiences are of interest and value to these boys and girls. Among these are: niaking and repairing clothing; woodworking; flower growing; home and appli- ance repairs; automotive care and safety; electronics; amateur radio operation; conservation; health and safety; home nursing; home improvement; teen leader- ship; and child development. Food preparation and learning better nutrition are basic programs for them. Science projects in plant and animal biology, chemistry and engineering have appeal. Money management; community beautification; home management; photography; vegetable growing; bicycle care, repair and safe riding; basics of rocketry; better grooming and clothes care; reading; per- sonal development; citizenship; and public speaking help them to develop skills. Also, it has been shown that contacts between youth and professional people have stimulated youth in career planning. Other programs can be based on specific situations, needs, and interests of youth in any neighborhood. The interest of youth in project work motivates them to participate in related, carefully designed learning experiences based upon educational objectives directed toward specific needs and problems. Because youth are confused and frustrated by experiences which are too different from their present way of life or which seem unattainable, projects are planned to provide a progression of experiences. The first experiences are those within the neighborhood of the youth. As the children indicate readiness, the ex- periences move out into the larger community. Special learning experiences designed to help with specific problems of teenage youth are related to the prob- lem of planning for and securing employment. Opportunities to see places of employment are provided in the project. This approach makes the experience specific, realistic, meaningfuL The focus is on the workers-the kinds of positions they hold and the skill levels, education, and training required for such positions. Employees who talk with the youth are carefully selected to demonstrate such things as opportunity to advance in positions and opportunity for members of minority groups to attain higher- skilled positions. The experience is planned to teach the process of studying employment opportunities in relationship to one's self. Panels of workers at 4-H meetings tell about their work; their education and training, and how they secured it; what to expect from an employer; what the employer will expect. PAGENO="0031" 27 Information and materials are provided on business and industries, empha- sizing employment and the impact of changing technology on adequately pre- paring for employmeilt. They help youth to gain greater understanding of the world of work. Information dealing with school dropout problems includes ways of gaining training other than in school. To increase the number of' youth who use employment services, persons from public and private employment agencies are enlisted to inform youth of the help available. Their offices are visited. Training is given in preparing for and conducting one's self at an employment interview. Supervised practice in filling out an employment application blank is provided. In a study completed recently it was shown that only 5 percent of low-income teenagers in Washington, D.C., participate in nationally known youth organiza- tions. However, 95.4 percent of the low-income teenagers said they have heard of 4-H. The study further pointed out that, since teenagers have strong feelings of wanting to belong, a well-known Organization such as 4-H has a distinct advantage in interesting young people in the cities. In summary, the first and perhaps the greatest contribution of the 4-H program has been to help children to be niore successful in school `by reinforcing `their school experiences. The voluntary nature of the program, the smaller informal groups, the home-and-life-related experiences, may be major reasons for this SUCceSS. This is best summed up by `the words of an older girl who had bee'n in 4-H for three years and who was employed as a summer assistant: "These chil- dren need love, personal attention, and a personal relationship more than sub- ject matter. At least, they need these before `they will respond to subject matter." Parents who urged `their children to join 4-H explained, "We have seen `that 4-Fl does things with them, not jus't for them. You help them do more for themselves." Methodology Educational methods for the District of Columbia will be patterned after those which have been tested and found effective in Extension's developmental projects recently carried out `in low-income areas. 1-lome visits and personal contacts will be used extensively in the initial efforts of Extension because the hard-core poor typically do not activ'ely seek ou't educa- tional opportunities, and they are not accustom'ed to meeting in groups. Such contacts will aid in gaining the confidence of `the people, identifying problem's and level of knowledge, and acquainting local residents with program opportunities. Eventually, individuals will be involved in group learning experiences, because research shows that people learn some things better in a group situation. Also, the time of the Extension worker is' spent more efficiently in group work. The total family approach will be used. Educational experiences will be di- rected at the various `family members simultaneously, although they may be in different groups. Programs by radio and TV, newsletters, and leaflets will be directed to the family. Educational materials will be placed in `such centers as libraries, doctors' wait- ing rooms, laundromats, beauty parlors, barber shops, grocery stores, youth cen- ters, and neighborhood I'iouses. T'ours of `supermarkets and thrift shop's featuring secondhand clothing will `be used to teach comparison shopping. Local advisory groups and potential participants will be used to' identify prob- lems so that the program will be responsive to local needs. Other relevant Govern- ment agencies and local organizations will be involved by `serving on advisory groups, providing entree into homes, identifying problems and participant's, reinforcing learning, and serving as volunteers. Extension administration in the District of Columbia Extension work in the District of Columbia would be administered similar to the method authorized by `the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341-346, 347a, 348, 349). The Secretary of Agriculture should be authorized to adapt Extension programs to the needs of the District of Columbia. A memorandum of understand- ing would be' signed `between the President of the Federal `City College and the S'ecretary of Agriculture. It would set forth mutual working relationships and responsibilities. PAGENO="0032" 28 Administration and programing The director of the Distiict of Columbia Cooperative Extension Service would b~ located on the campus of the institution of higher learning designated to implement the programs. He would relate to the institution's administration and organization so as to have access to the expertise of the institution not only in home economics and youth çlevelopment work, but also in other fields. It is envisioned that the Cooperative Extension staff of the institution would be made up of three components-administrative and program leaders; subject-matter specialists in all appropriate academic departments; and field staff located in area offices in different areas of the city. Cost of the pro gro~m This bill authorizes appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to extend the provisions of the Act of May 8, 1914, to the District of Columbia. Such sums to be appropraited shall be in addition to and not in substitution for, sums other- wise appropriated under such Act, or otherwise appropriated for agricultural extension work. Four per centum of the sum so appropriated for each fiscal year shall be allotted to the Federal Extension Service, Department of Agriculture, for administrative, technical, and other services of the Department in carrying out th.e purposes of this section. The District of Columbia shall not be required to offset allotments authorized under this section. Conclusion The U.S. Department of Agriculture `believes that the citizens of the District of Columbia are entitled to the benefits of Cooperative Extension programs, par- ticularly in 4-ij---youth development and home economics, which are now enjoyed by citizens in the 50 States Puerto Rico Virgin Islands and Guam We believe these Extension programs can assist materially in providing greater fulfillment for the people working and living in our national city. We also believe that Federal City `College, as' the cooperating institution of higher learning, should have appropriated research and teaching activities to support effective coopera- tive extension work. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Dr. Ralston. Does that conclude your state- ment? I `have only one question in line with the question I had asked earlier. You, representing the Department of Agriculture, of course, will have certain jurisdiction over approval of some of these funds or transfer of funds. Do you have any question with reference to the legal position of the Federal City College as the language is at present written in the bill in connection with its cooperative effort with the Technical Institute in making funds `wail'tble to them ~ Do you h'vve any reservations at all ~ Dr. RALSTON. We have no objection to this at all. Our Memorandum of Understanding would be with the Federal City College, and we would `work that program out together so that if there were questions and concerns, I am sure these could be resolved on this kind of a basis. Mr. HARSHA. Doctor, I do not mean to `belabor this point about ap- propriations, but the bill provides for what we sometimes call an open- end appropriation, and we run into problems on the floor with it. And just authorizing the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary kind of leaves the door wide `open, so thi~t `we are going to be confronted with this as we try to get the bill passed on the floor That is why we were hoping to find appropriate answers with which we could advise the `other members of the House. Since you do not have any suggestion as to what sums will be needed at this time, how do you arrive at the .04 percent conclusion for administrative and technical expenses of the Department. PAGENO="0033" 29 Dr. RALSTON. This again follows the format of Smith-Lever law. Mr. HARSHA. Does it? Dr. RALSTON. And, incidentally, the Smith-Lever law also is an open- end law. Mr. HAnsijA. Is it? Dr~ RALSTON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Well, that is some help. Dr. RALSTON. So that, as a matter of fact, this is why we appear before the Committee to justify what it is we are doing, and this kind of thing so that complete control we think is in the hands of the re- spective Qommittees. Mr. HA1~SHA. Thank you. Mr. SI5K. Well, Dr. Ralston, we thank you, very much for a very excellent statement. I think it was quite explanatory and certainly was helpful to the Committee. Thank you for coming over. Our next witness is Dr. Russell Thackrey, Executive Secretary of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Dr. WIEGMAN. He was unable to make it today, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SIsK. Will he ha~e a statement? Dr. WIEGMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SISK. All right, without objection his statement will be made a part of the record. STATEMENT OP DR. RUSSElL T'HAcKREY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES Dr. THACKREY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Russell I. Thackrey. My occupation is, and has been for the past 21 years, that of executive director of the National Association of State Universities and Land- Grant Colleges. My statement is submitted as an individual resident of the District of Columbia, since the appropriate committees of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges have not had opportunity to take formal action authorizing me to offer testimony on behalf of the association. The association has, however, consistently supported the legislation authorizing the establishment of the Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute. As a resident of and taxpayer in the District of Columbia I am strongly in favor of measures to increase educational opportunity for the young people of the District, and to provide educational services to the people of the District characteristic of those which the land-grant and other public universities and colleges have long provided for the various States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, House bill 15280 and Senate Bill 1999 would make funds available to the Federal City College for two major programs: campus instruction and cooperative extension work. CAMPUS INSTRUCTION H.R. 15280 and S. 1999 would make available to Federal City College annual appropriations for the "further endowment" of institutions established under the Morrill Act of 1862 or the Morrill-Nelson Act of 1890-1907 as subsequently amended and supplemented. These funds PAGENO="0034" 30 are avail able for a wide range of instructional programs. The legisla- tion would place the District of Columbia on the same basis as the 50 States and Puerto Rico in receiving support. for such programs. The legislation properly increases the statutory ceilings on appropriations for these purposes, so that the District of Columbia may share in them without reducing the funds available to the States and Puerto Rico.. The legislation also authorizes appropriation of a sum for permanent endowment of the Federal City College, in lieu of the endowment deriving from the sale of Federal lands as provided under the Morrill Act of 1862. The provision is comparable to that made for the Univer- sity of Hawaii, in view of the nonavailabilit.y of Federal lands for the original purpose, and is based on a formula similar to that approved by Congress in the case of Hawaii. My understanding is that a memorandum of understanding or agree- ment is planned with the Washington Technical Institute, under which instructional funds made available under this provision will be avail- able for use in certain programs of the technical institute. This seems. to be sound procedure, in that it provides funds for support of pro grams which are completely within the purposes of the act, and at the same time avoids most complex and serious problems which would be raised by the designation of the technical institute as a land-grant institution. There are many precedents for the procedure proposed~ under which the land-grant institution of a particular State has by cooperative agreement utilized the facilities and staff of other institu- tions to carry out its authorized programs. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK The provisions of H R 15280 with respect to cooperative extension work in the District of Columbia seem to me to be sound. They provide for the direct Federal funding, entirely outside the formula generally used for cooperative extension work, for the conduct of such pro- grams as are appropriate to the needs of the District of Columbia and are agreed on by the Federal City College and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Certainly there is a great need within the District for work on problems of home and family life, nutrition, and in the field of youth work Although the problems of agricultural production do not exist in the District of Columbia, the cooperative extension service is also he'tvily m~oh'ed in uib'tn `~reas nith helping city fimi1ie~ v'ike wide use of their food dollars in terms of cost and sound nutrition, with working wit.h food processors and retailers in improving the quality and reduce the cost of their operations; and in youth work. Cornell University, the land-grant institution of the State of New York, has a substantial extension staff in New York City through the New York State College of Agriculture, for example, and the same is true of many other metropolitan areas. The formula under which ex- tension funds are made available to the various States and Puerto Rico would, however, not be appropriate for the District, since it is based heavily on `wricultural production and iural population In conclusion, may I repeat my enthusiastic support. of the proposed legislation, and express appreciation to the members of your commit- tee for their past and continued interest in providing educational op- portunity for the residents of the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0035" 31 Mr. SISK. Next, we have Mr. Thomas Moyer, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the part of the City government. We appreciate your being here this morning, Mr. Moyer. If you have a statement, why proceed to make your statement. We have here a letter directed to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. M'cMillan, signed by Mr. Fletcher. Without thjeotion, this will be made a part of the record. (The letter from Mr. Fletcher follows:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, March 13, 1968. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, UJS~. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dinui Mn. MCMILLAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for re- port H.R. 15280 and S. 1999' (passed by the Senate on December 8, 1967), 90th Congress, identical bills "To amend the District of Columbia Public Education Act." Each of the bills amends the District of Columbia Public Education Act ap~ proved November 7, 1906 (Public Law 89-791; 80 Stat. 1426) 50 as to add at the end of such Act a title IV providing that the Federal City College shall be con- sidered to be a college established for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts in accordance with the provisions of the Morrill Act approved July 2, 1862, as amended, thereby enabling the college to be entitled to benefits under various stated Acts. The District Government understands that the proposed amendment of the District of Columbia Public Education Act will make it possible for the District to be eligible ito receive the benefits of programs administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture relating to land-grant colleges. In particular, it would allow the Federal Extension Serv- ice of the Department of Agriculture to extend its programs for home economics and 4-H youth development to the District of Columbia. We are of the view that the `bills have great potential for the people of the District of Columbia, par- ticularly the hard-to-reach poor. In the belief that the bills will operate to improve greatly the condition of many of `the residents of the District of Columbia, and particularly the poorer residents,~ the District Government recommends the enactment of one of them. The Government of the District of Columbia has 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, (s) Thomas W. Fletcher, THOMAS W. FLETCHER, Assistant to the Commissioner, (For Walter E. Washington, Commissioner). STATEMENT OP THOMAS MOYER, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, D'ISTRI~T OP COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT Mr. MoYER, Thank you, Mr. `Chairman. For the record, my name is Thomas Moyer; I am Assistant Corporation Counsel, and I have been designated to present the views of the government of the District of Columbia on this legislation. I have a brief statement in addition to the letter which you have made a part of the record. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for giv- ing the District Government an opportunity to testify on FLR. 15280 and S. 1999, bills to provide the District of Columbia with its own land grant institution. The bills would amend Public Law 89-791, which created the Federal City College, naming this college as the land grant institution for the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0036" 32 The District believes that Congress showed great wisdom when it created the Federal City College. and the Washington Technical Insti- tute to serve the students and citizens of the District of Columbia. We know from what we have already seen that the College and the Insti- tute will cOntribute substantially to the progress and development in our Nation's capital. The Government of the District of Columbia favors H.fl. 15280 and S. 1999 without reservation. We believe the citizens of the District of Columbia should be entitled to the benefits of the laud grant college. I have been informed that the District of Columbia is the last remain- ing area in the United States, including Puerto Rico that is not covered by programs that come with land grant college status, the Morrifl Act, the Bankhead-Jones Act, the Smith-Lever Act and the Agricultural Marketing Act. Land grant college authorization will allow the Fed- eral City College to expand its curriculum and reach out to service more families in the District. We see the College administering family- centered extension service programs in the District, particularly to the hard-to-reach poor. There are about 96,000 youngsters between the ages of 9 and 19 in 49,000 families in D.C. who live in circumstances approaching abject poverty. This legislation would provide urgently needed supplemental assistance to youngsters, through well known and proven programs of the 4:-H, and to their families who are hopelessly caught up in impov- erished circumstances by informational, educational and vocational inadequacies. The family unit is considered to be the most important instrument in the process of developing the individual. Through this primary group t~e individual may acquire habits, ideals, attitudes, images and exam- ples, which both stimulate and motivate him `toward being a responsible citizen. However, many families in congested areas of Washington have been unable to provide for their children the kind of home life which fosters good health and good citizenship. Often this is beyond their control and even beyond their understanding. Parents from many low-income groups are not familiar with adequate nutrition, good housekeeping standards, the care and development of children, and the need to foster sound values within the home. They presently lack skills in maintaining their homes~ furnishings, and equipment. This legislation would authorize the Federal City College to establish an extension program in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture to assist families to provide better way of life for themselves and for others. Land grant college status will permit the Federal City College, co- operating with the Washington Technical Institute, to offer at least on the two-year level, instruction in such fields as horticulture, for- estry, conservation and beautification, to mention a few, that would not be offered otherwise. We believe a young man desiring to become a forest ranger or `soil conservationist should not be denied this op- portunity because he happened to be born in an area not having a land grant institution. It has been difficult, and in recent years, im- possible for a student in the District of Columbia to enroll in an in- stitution of higher learning in other States due mostly to the crowded conditions at these colleges. Under land grant college status, not only PAGENO="0037" 33 will students have an opportunity to study in certain fields that would not be offered without land grant college funds and authoriza- tion, but will also be able to transfer, on the college senior and grad- uate level, to sister land grant institutions in the 50 States. We be- lieve this is very desirable because it provides opportunities to young people that have not existed before. You can see why we endorse this bill without reservation. The bene- fits that land grant institution status will do for students and citizens of the District of Columbia will be, over the years, immeasurable. We are convinced that the Federal City College will be able to carry our responsibilities of land grant college contributing to the illustrious history of these institutions. Mr. SIsK. Thank you, Mr. Moyer, for a very good statement. Does the gentleman from New Mexico have any questions this morning? Mr. WALKER. No. Mr. SIsK. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSTIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moyer, I notice that you mentioned some 96,000 children from the ages 9 to 19. Would these people between the ages 9 to 19 participate in this program? Mr. MOYER. Mr. Harsha, I would like to defer to Dr. Wiegman who aided in the preparation o~ this statement and has a lot more back- ground in this. I noticed that figure was used in the Senate report. Dr. WIEGMAN. In the 4-H program 9 to 19 is the typical age; yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What is the Corporation Counsel's position on this 100 percent contribution by the Federal Government to this program, as opposed to the 50-50 formula used in the other states. Mr. MOYER. The District has been in contact with officials of the Agri- culture Department and in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the bill as was finally passed by the Senate is agreeable to the District Government as well as to these federal agencies. We be- lieve that this is appropriate for the District under these circumstances. Mr. HARSIJA. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. Mr. MOYER. Thank you, sir. Mr. SIsK. That concludes the list of witnesses which the Chair has before it. Is there anyone else in the room that desires to be heard on this particular piece of legislation? Mr. HARSIIA. Could I ask just one question, Mr. Chairman, of the college group? Is there any opposition to this legislation that you are aware of? Dr. WIEGMAN. Mr. Harsha, I have encountered none. There was none in the Senate; no opposition has been listed that I am aware of. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. SI5K. I thank all you gentlemen for being here this morning and for making a good case for your cause on this occasion. Let me say that as soon as the transcript has been prepared, the Committee will take a look at it. And I will a:ttempt to assure you, Dr. Farner and Dr. Wiegman-I know your interest in time-that we will try to proceed as rapidly as possible and get into Executive Session as soon as possible. Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to interrupt you, but in view of the gentleman's statement that there is no opposition to this PAGENO="0038" 34 legislation, either that he is aware of or in the Senate hearing, if you would like to go into Executive Session this morning on it, I have no objection, sir. Mr. SI5K. Well, I appreciate that. Actually, let me say this. I think in view of the fact that we had several members here tins mornmg who had to go to other meetings, it might be just as well-we have got two or three other things that we have got to go into Executive Session on, and I hope later this week if we could. But I appreciate your willing- ness to move on it. We will try to move very quickly. With that the Committee stands adjourned subject to call of the Chair. (The departmental reports referred to on p.1 follow:) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, March 19, 1968. Hon JOHN L. MOMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for a report on HR. 15280 `and S. 1999 (as paused by the Senate), identical bills "To amend the District of Columbia Public Education Act" The bills would, among other things, add a new title IV to the District of Columbia Education Act (Public Law 80-791, 80 Stat. 1426 D.C. Code § 31-1601) under which the Federal City College authorized by that Act would be considered a college established for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts in accordance with the provisions of the first Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 301-305, 307, 808), and the District of Columbia `also would be deemed a "State," in the ad- ministration of the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326, 328), section 22 of the Bankhead-Jones Act (7 U.S.C. 329), and the so-called Retirement Act for land grant colleges (Act of March 4, 1940, 7 U.S.C. 331), as well as for purposes of other enumerated acts administered by the Department of Agriculture. In order to `allow for the `addition of the District to the coverage of §22 of the B'ankhead-Jones Act without reducing the share.s of the States and Puerto Rico, the bill would increase the appropriation authorization for the uniform annual appropriation under that section by $150,000, and would increase the appropria- tion authorization for allotments based on population by $20,000. Finally, in lieu `of extending to the District of Columbia the provisions of the first M'orrill Act, the bill, following the precedent of § 14(e) of the Hawaii Omnibus Act, would authorize to be appropriated to the District a lump~sum ap- propriation `of $7,241,706, `subject to the provisions of that Act concerning pro- ceeds `of sale `of public land's or land-scrip. (The District of Columbia does not contain public lands suitable for donation, `and the use of land scrip as an al- te'rn'ative has long ago been discontinued.) The Senate report on 5. 1999 sets forth th'e reasons for the particular lump-sum amount proposed to be authorized, as follows: "If the original provisions of the first Morriil Act were extended to include the District `of Columbia and `a capital grant were based on current populations, 120,000 `acres of land or equivalent scrip would be required. Equitable use of this formula, however, seems impossible. Rather, it is proposed that the method provided for the State of Hawaii be used `as the base for determining a grant which would `be fair to all of the States and the District of Columbia. "Hawaii was the first instance in which a direct cash appropriation was made in lieu of some form of land or land-scrip. As a result of an analysis of States whose populations, situations, and land-grant college characteristics closely approximated th'at of Hawaii, an endowment of $10 million was proposed. In addition, it was shown that seven of the last 10 States admitted to the Union, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, had land grants valued in excess of $6 million (using a value of $50 an `acre). "Public Law 86-624, the Hawaii Omnibus Act, provided an authorization of $6 million, which in view of all considerations has been accepted by your commit- tee as a base for developing a capital grant for the District of Columbia. While there exist factors which support higher endowments for Hawaii and the Dis- `trict of Columbia and characteristics with degrees of variance, the mast appro- PAGENO="0039" 35 priate overall formula is to obtain a grant amount in terms of the Hawaii grant and the ratio of populations of that State and the Distric.t of Columbia. Using data of the 1960 census, this method yields an amount of $7,241,706 for a capital grant fund for the District of Columbia. "The sum of $7,241,706 is small in comparison *to the total needs but is an amount which compares fairly to that granted to each State." (S. Rep. No. 888, p.8) The Land-Grant College program is the only educational program adminis;- tered by this Department under which the District of Columbia is not eligible for benefits. We think it is desirable to include the District of Columbia in that program, and therefore recommend favorable `action on *the above-mentioned provisions of these bills. (We defer to the views of the Department of Agricul- ture on the other provisions of the bill's.) We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, WILBUR J. ~OHEN, Acting $e'cretary. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., March 20, 1968. Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the' District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is' in reply to your letter of March 12, 1968 asking for a report on H.R. 15280 and S. 1999 to am'end `Title II of the District of Columbia Public Education Act. The proposed `bills would e'sta'blish the Federal C:ity College as a land-grant institution in accordance with the provisions of the Morrill Act of July 2, 1862. The Acts administered by this Department referred to in the bills are the Smith- Lever Act of May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 372; 7 U.S.C. 341-346, 347a, 348, 349) ; and the Agricui't.urai Marketing Act o'f 1946 (60 Stat. 1087; 7 U.S.C~ 1621-1629). We recommend enactment of the Bills as they relate to th'e provisions which would be administered by the Department of Agriculture. The Bills would extend the benefits of the Smith-Lever Act through the Federal City College to the people of the District of Columbia. We believe that the citizens of the District of Columbia are entitled to the benefits of the Cooperative Extension Service programs, particularly in 4-H youth development and home economics which are effectively carried out in the 50 States and Puerto Rico. T'he Bills authorize funds for Extension programs in the D'istrict that are in addition to present appropriations under the Smith- Lever Act, thereby n'o't reducing the Federal payments for such work to the 50 States and Puerto Rico. The formula provisions of the Smith-Lever Act pro- vide that additional funds since 1962 be distributed among the States 20 perc'ent equally and the balance on the basis of farm and rural population. Since the District of Columbia is urban instead of a rural community, under the formula it would share only in the 20 percent. Hence, this Department strongly favors the provisions of the Bills authorizing such additional sums without regard to the formula as may be necessary to extend Cooperative Extension programs to the District of Columbia. `The designation o'f the District of Columbia as a State would permit allot- ments under Section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act o'f 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(h)) to appropriate agencies o'f the District `o'f Columbia for `cooperative projects in marketing research and marketing services. We make no recommendation regarding provisions of th'e Act `which would `be administered by the Department of Health, Education an.d Welfare. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no `objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, JOHN A. SOITNITTKER, Acting $ecrctary. PAGENO="0040" 36 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE Disnucr OF COLUMBIA, Washington, March 1~, 1968. Hon. HAROLD HOWE, II, Commissioneir of Edncation, Department of Health, Edncation, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. Djc~uc CoMMIssIoNJcn HOWE: This Committee is presently considering H.R. 15280 and S. 1999. In connection therewith, it will be helpful to the Committee if you will furnish a tabulation showing the extent of the participation of the P. 0. Goverrjment in programs administered by your Office of Education for the fiscal year 1966, 1967, and 1968. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, JOHN L. MOMILLAN, Member of Congress, Chairman. (Subsequently, the following tabulation was received from the Office of Education:) OFFICE OF EDUCATION OBLIGATIONS INCURRED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year 1966 obliga- 1967 obliga- 1968 final lions tions allotments I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS Elementary and secondary educatipnal activities: Assistance for educationally deprived children (ESEA I): Basic grants ` $5, 575,276 $5, 642,037 $5, 933,620 State administrative expenses 1 75,000 75,000 150,000 Grants to States for school library materials (ESEA 11)1 345, 817 347,914 336, 897 Supplementary educational centers and services (ESEA Ill)' 74,267 1,027,298 857,785 Strengthening State departments of education (ESEA V): Grants to States 1 2 130,934 2 167,435 206,022 Grants for special projects Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling (NDEA Ill): Grants to States 1 175,294 176,432 171,298 Loansto nonprofit privateschools' 25,097 State administration' 350,000 350,000 10,000 Guidance, counseling, and testing (NDEA V): Grants to States 1 81,278 81,690 83,354 Institutes for counseling personnel Institutes for advanced stqdy (NDEA Xl) 341,839 110,092 School assistance in federally aftected areas: Maintenapce and operations (Public Law 81-874) 1 4,653,238 5,299,235 4,618,402 Construction (Public Law 81-815) 1 Teacher Corps 147,921 397,076 Higher educational activities: Program assistance: Strengthening developing institutions (HEA Ill) 14,600 31,900 Colleges of A. & 5. arts: Second Morrill Act ` Bankhead-Jones Act' Undergraduate instructional equipment and other resources (HEA VI): Television equipment' 1 123 325 f 5,171 11,203 Other equipment' J ` 1 80,497 97,092 Construction: Undergraduate public community colleges and technical insti- tutes (HEFA I, sec. 103)' 115,866 Other undergraduate facilities (H EFA I, sec. 104)1 2, 598,771 2, 180,238 1, 203,447 Graduate facilities (H EFA II) 78, 166 2,392,096 State administration (HEFA I, sec. 105) ` 30, 738 78,752 78,272 Teacher education: Elementary and secondary teacher programs (HEA V-C): Experienced teacher fellowships Prospective teacher fellowships 156,800 237, 100 Strengthening graduate schools 116,349 College teacher fellowships (NDEA IV) 714,575 979,700 Institutes in the use of equipment and other teaching aids (HEA VI) Student aid: Educational opportunity grants (HEA IV-A): Grants to higher education institutions' 520, 708 832,650 ~427, 836 Encouragement of educational talent 55,000 Direct loans (NDEA II): Contributions to loan funds 1 1 Loans to educational institutions 1,841, 197 1,711,032 1,686,226 Cancellation of student loans See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0041" 37 OFFICE OF EDUCATION-Continued OBLIGATIONS INCURRED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBiA-Continued Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year 1966 obliga- 1967 obliga- 1968 final tions tions allotments Insured loans (HEA IV-B): Advances for reserve funds ` $37, 667 $49, 818 Interest payments on insured loans College work-study program (FlEA V-C) ` $596, 138 721, 707 652,969 Expansion and improvement of vocational education: Vocational Education Act of 1963: Grants to States 1 447, 871 546,495 543,244 Work-study programs I 75, 214 30,964 31, 280 George-Barden and supplemental acts 1 _ 226, 183 226, 183 228,058 Grants to States under the Appalachian Regional Development Act (sec. 211) VocatIonal student loan assistance: Advances for reserve funds 1 10, 000 Interest payments on insured loans Smith-Hughes Act' Libraries and community services: Grants for public library services (LSCA I) I 184, 001 224,762 224,762 Interlibrary cooperation (LSCA Ill)' 7,075 40,571 State institutional library services (LSCA IV-A) ` 7,075 38,000 Library services to the physically handicapped (LSCA IV-B)' 4,735 23,750 Construction of public libraries (LSCA 11)1 203,970 138,579 College library resources (HEA li-A) 42,000 104,927 Librarian training (FlEA Il-B) 97,800 University community service programs (HEA I)' 105,000 119,584 119,584 Adult basic education (Adult Education Act): Grants to States 1 174,214 99, 040 196, 191 Special projectS and teacher training 1,055,000 1,450,239 Educational improvement for the handicapped: Preschool and school programs for the handicapped (ESEA VI)' 20, 000 100,000 Training programs for teachers of the handicapped 419,208 505, 762 Handicapped research and demonstrations 446,950 854,743 Captioned films for the deaf and media services 619, 123 504, 312 Research and training: General education research (ESEA IV) 1 Training of educational researchers (ESEA IV) 688,281 1, 176, 212 Construction of educational research laboratories (ESEA IV) Vocational education research (Vocational Education Act of 1963)_ -- 583, 235 373, 098 Foreign language education research (NDEA VI) - 239,300 189,277 Educational media research (NDEA VII) ~__~ 312,396 294,965 Library improvement research (HEA Il-B) 19,800 372,827 Higher education construction loan fund (HEFA III) 3,605,000 6,469,000 Civil rights educational activities: Institutes for school personnel 1 85 000 Grants to school boards I ` Arts and humanities educational activities: Instructional assistance: Grants to States ` 1, 217 976 995 Loans to nonprofit private schools ` 237 Teacher training institutes 57,212 International education programs: Advanced training in foreign languages (NDEA VI): Language and area centers 102, 308 140, 000 Fellowships 92,973 90, 561 Foreign language training and area studies (Fulbright-Hays) 42,897 164, 180 II. TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES Manpower development and training activities 1, 194, 753 258, 546 Area redevelopment activities Educational television facilities 386,939 Assistance to refugees in the United States: Cuban student loans 90,850 71,845 Civil defense educational activities 45,895 51, 592 Supplemental Appalachian grants for construction of and equipment for facilities (sec. 214) Total 29, 815, 460 37, 348, 055 18,410,455 i State allocated programs administered by State agencies. 2 Includes title X of NDEA. 3 Includes State supervision. 4 Amount represents initial-year awards only PAGENO="0042" 38 (Subsequently, the following letter was received from the Federal City College:) FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, Wa$hington, D.C., March 15, 1968. lion. B. F. SI5K, U.E~. Ho'ase of Represeatati'ves, llayb'urn Ho~use Office B'wUding, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SIan: Thank you for calling bearings on H.R. 15280 and S. 1999 to establish a land grant college in the District of Columbia. Dr. Wiegman and I appreciated the opportunity to present a statement on behalf of the Federal City College regarding the legislation. We want to make clear the funding procedure of the Smith-Lever Act, that part of the land grant college that establishes cooperative extension services between the Federal Government and the States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its report, recommended a yearly appropriation to the Federal City Coflege for extension programs based on a plan of work rather than the formula used in the Smith-Lever Act. This was done because the formula allocates Department of Agriculture funds to a land grant college based on forty percent farm population, forty percent rural population and twenty percent overall population of a State. This formula permits the District of Columbia to participate in only twenty per- cent of the Department funds, since the District has no rural population. The Department of Agriculture recommended, therefore, a yearly appropriation sub- ject to review by the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee for extension services in the District of Columbia, based on a program of work agreed to by the Secretary oct Agriculture and the President of the Federal City College. The Department of Agriculture appropriation would be partially matched from the general educational funds of the Federal City College, as is done in the other fifty States. Presently, the college is paying salaries of personnel in the college extension services and will continue to do so. We believe this procedure is right and in keeping with the Smith-Lever Act. Sincerely yours, FRANK FAnNER, President. (Whereupon, at 11:10 o'clock a.m., this date, the Committee was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.) 0