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 Memorandum 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 history this intent.

Mr. HORTON. Very fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. FARNER. Mr. Chairman, I might add, I should have done it before, that Mr. Horsky, the Chairman of the Board of Higher Education, is here also who could answer some of these points as well.

Mr. SISK. 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 services for people in suburbanized areas, I can see great merit in having such an institution in the District of Columbia. I am happy that this bill is moving forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Zwach.

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, while this has been traditionally a rural program, it has been tailored to our urban areas and is doing a wonderful job in Chicago, Philadelphia, Hartford, New Haven, Connecticut; in Kansas City; Canton and Warren, Ohio; Manchester, New Hampshire; Camden, New Jersey; Buffalo, New York; Flint, Kalamazoo, 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 precedents 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 in 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 arrangements 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

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 anywhere 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:)

Hon. B. F. SISK,

U.S. House of Representatives,

2242 Rayburn Building,

Washington, D.O.

FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, Washington, March 14, 1968.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SISK: I would like to supplement my statement of Wednesday, March 13 on the Hearing of H.R. 15280 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 FARNER, President.

(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. Nelsenand 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 institution, to share in these funds. Will they be sharing in the capital grant?

Dr. WIEGMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. To what extent?

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 agreement 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. SISK. 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. SISK. 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?

Dr. 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 times. The Federal City College is the college created by Congress to be a Liberal Arts College in Washington, 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 Department 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. SISK. 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, H.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 history 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. SISK. You would advance through a Memorandum of Understanding to the Technical Institute?

Dr. WIEGMAN. Yes, sir.

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 whatever; 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. Nelsen 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 meetings 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 carrying 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. SISK. The gentleman from Ohio-before we dismiss these witnesses 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 morning. 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 expecting 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

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 landgrants since there are not lands available and would make available to the Federal City College a capital grant of initially $7,241,706, 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 under the Bankhead-Jones Act $170,000. Is that approximately right, Dr. 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 that probably you do not have the capacity for 5,000 students to start with, or whatever amount 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 students 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 further consideration of these two questions and hopefully a final decision 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, further 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 1,000 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 applied 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