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. SISK. Well, I appreciate that. Actually, let me say this. I think in view of the fact that we had several members here this morning 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 willingness 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 :) Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Chairman, Committee on District of Columbia, March 19, 1968. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for a report on H.R. 15280 and S. 1999 (as passed 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, 308), and the District of Columbia also would be deemed a "State," in the administration 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 Bankhead-Jones Act without reducing the shares 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 appropriation authorization for allotments based on population by $20,000. Finally, in lieu of extending to the District of Columbia the provisions of the first Morrill 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 appropriation of $7,241,706, subject to the provisions of that Act concerning proceeds of sale of public lands or land-scrip. (The District of Columbia does not contain public lands suitable for donation, and the use of land scrip as an alternative has long ago been discontinued.) The Senate report on S. 1999 sets forth the reasons for the particular lump-sum amount proposed to be authorized, as follows: "If the original provisions of the first Morrill 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 that 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 committee 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 District of Columbia and characteristics with degrees of variance, the most appro 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 District 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 administered 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 Agriculture on the other provisions of the bills.) 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, Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN, WILBUR J. COHEN, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, 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 amend Title II of the District of Columbia Public Education Act. The proposed bills would establish the Federal City 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 SmithLever 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). We recommend enactment of the Bills as they relate to the 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. The Bills authorize funds for Extension programs in the District that are in addition to present appropriations under the SmithLever Act, thereby not reducing the Federal payments for such work to the 50 States and Puerto Rico. The formula provisions of the Smith-Lever Act provide that additional funds since 1962 be distributed among the States 20 percent 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 of the District of Columbia as a State would permit allotments under Section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623 (b)) to appropriate agencies of the District of Columbia for cooperative projects in marketing research and marketing services. We make no recommendation regarding provisions of the Act which would be administered by the Department of Health, Education and 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. SCHNITTKER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. HAROLD HOWE, II, Commissioner of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, DEAR COMMISSIONER HOWE: This Committee is presently considering H.R. With kind regards, I am, JOHN L. MCMILLAN, (Subsequently, the following tabulation was received from the Office (Subsequently, the following letter was received from the Federal City College :) Hon. B. F. SISK, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, Washington, D.C., March 15, 1968. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SISK: Thank you for calling hearings 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 College 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 percent of the Department funds, since the District has no rural population. The Department of Agriculture recommended, therefore, a yearly appropriation subject 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 of 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 FARNER, President. (Whereupon, at 11:10 o'clock a.m., this date, the Committee was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.) |