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 programs to assist homemakers with management skills, good housekeeping practices, buymanship, care and use of foods, clothing, household furnishing 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; Cleveland, Cincinnati and Canton, Ohio; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Los 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 District to better service citizens and cooperate with the Government of the District in implementing 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 problems 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. MBMORANDUM 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 Federal City College would enter into a Memorandum of Participation with the Washington 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 HR 15280 and S. 1999 will make this vision a reality. Thank you. Mr. HARSHA. One of these bills passed the other body, Mr. Chairman? Mr. SISK. Yes, the bill, S. 1999, has passed the other body. Mr. HARSHA. And is it in the same form as we have it? Mr. SISK. Identical, as it passed. It was different as originally introduced there. We have from 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? Mr. SISK. Very well, Dr. Ralston, do you have a prepared statement? 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 establishing the Federal City College and land-grant institution of higher learning. Two parts of that amendment are of concern and interest to the Department 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 Marketing 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 succinctly his position, to quote: Research and education are not enough. The city system should include an urban extension service, made up of trained men and 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 universities 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 service for the people which the university is serving. The Smith-Lever Act, I think, you are familiar with. If there are questions on the Agricultural Marketing Act, I will be happy to answer questions on that. I think Congressman Zwach indicated some of the scope of the cooperative extension work in some of the other urban areas of the country. 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 people advance in the community. We could cite many instances where a professional person from à university has gone into a community and worked with a young person 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 become 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, pr programs 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 productive. 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 memorandum 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 responsibilities of each in carrying out the program. And as Dr. Wiegman indicated, the program is developed jointly so that we are completely planning 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 substitution of what now is already being appropriated for the SmithLever Act but in addition, and that four persons of that would go to the Department for carrying out 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 original 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 SmithLever Act. Mr. HARSHA. Could I interrupt at this point? Mr. SISK. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. What is the reason for that, sir? Dr. RALSTON. Well, I think the reasoning and logic behind it isand 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 effectively here in the District of Columbia. Mr. HARSHA. 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 programs; 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 matter-it would have to be justified as an item in the budget. Dr. RALSTON. Yes, sir. Mr. SISK. Now, I might say, by the way, that the Appropriation subcommittees 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 Mr. SISK. Well, I recognize that you do not have any legislative authority at the present time, but you know we have a habit around here that when the Administration submits a budget, it submits a budget contingent upon Congress passing certain authorizing acts. And sometimes in some of those acts, there are items as in the budget today that we have not even authorized, and I am doubtful 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. SISK. 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 what 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 Committee 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. Dr. 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 Cooperative 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 entering 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. |