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 openend law. Mr. HARSHA. 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 respective Committees. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. SISK. 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. Dr. WIEGMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SISK. All right, without objection his statement will be made a part of the record. STATEMENT OF DR. RUSSELL THACKREY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 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 LandGrant 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 are available for a wide range of instructional programs. The legislation 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 University of Hawaii, in view of the nonavailability 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 agreement is planned with the Washington Technical Institute, under which instructional funds made available under this provision will be available for use in certain programs of the technical institute. This seems to be sound procedure, in that it provides funds for support of programs 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 institutions 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 programs 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 heavily involved in urban areas with helping city families make wide use of their food dollars in terms of cost and sound nutrition; with working with 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 extension 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 agricultural production and rural population. In conclusion, may I repeat my enthusiastic support of the proposed legislation, and express appreciation to the members of your committee for their past and continued interest in providing educational opportunity for the residents of the District of Columbia. 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. McMillan, signed by Mr. Fletcher. Without objection, this will be made a part of the record. (The letter from Mr. Fletcher follows:) Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, March 13, 1968. Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for report 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 approved November 7, 1966 (Public Law 89-791; 80 Stat. 1426) so as to add at the end of such Act a title IV providing that the Federal City College shall be considered 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 to 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 Service 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, particularly 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 OF THOMAS MOYER, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF 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 giving the District Government an opportunity to testify on H.R. 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. The District believes that Congress showed great wisdom when it created the Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute to serve the students and citizens of the District of Columbia. We know from what we have already seen that the College and the Institute will contribute substantially to the progress and development in our Nation's capital. The Government of the District of Columbia favors H,R. 15280 and S. 1999 without reservation. We believe the citizens of the District of Columbia should be entitled to the benefits of the land grant college. I have been informed that the District of Columbia is the last remaining area in the United States, including Puerto Rico that is not covered by programs that come with land grant college status, the Morrill Act, the Bankhead-Jones Act, the Smith-Lever Act and the Agricultural Marketing Act. Land grant college authorization will allow the Federal City College to expand its curriculum and reach out to service more families in the District. We see the College administering familycentered 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 impoverished 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 the individual may acquire habits, ideals, attitudes, images and examples, 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, cooperating with the Washington Technical Institute, to offer at least on the two-year level, instruction in such fields as horticulture, forestry, 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 opportunity because he happened to be born in an area not having a land grant institution. It has been difficult, and in recent years, impossible for a student in the District of Columbia to enroll in an institution of higher learning in other States due mostly to the crowded conditions at these colleges. Under land grant college status, not only will students have an opportunity to study in certain fields that would not be offered without land grant college funds and authorization, but will also be able to transfer, on the college senior and graduate level, to sister land grant institutions in the 50 States. We believe 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 benefits 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. HARSHA. 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 of this statement and has a lot more background in this. I noticed that figure was used in the Senate report. sir. Dr. WIEGMAN. In the 4-H program 9 to 19 is the typical age; yes, 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 Agriculture 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 believe that this is appropriate for the District under these circumstances. Mr. HARSHA. 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. HARSHA. 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. SISK. 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 attempt 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 |