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 similar 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 long-established public policy of designating 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 memorandum 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 December 6, 1967. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department 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. SISK. 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, and 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 OF HON. FRANK HORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to co-sponsor the bill now under consideration, H.R. 15280, along with our colleagues, Congressmen Nelsen, Mathias and O'Konski; and I am gratified that this Subcommittee has undertaken the first step toward enactment, hopefully, 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

encourage centers of learning to explore the mysteries of agriculture. The Morrill Act of 1862 was the beginning. We need only 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 institutions 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 tailored 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, including instructor 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 annually through HEW for the support of land-grant colleges. The Federal City College would receive an equal share of an annual national 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 authorizes 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 Extension 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 additional appropriations to extend the provisions of the extension program to the people of the District of Columbia through the Federal City College;

(4) Qualify under the Agricultural Marketing Act for Department 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 diminished would have to be restored by their District of Columbia. This grant is in lieu of the land grants made to other colleges in earlier years under the first Morrill Act of 1862.

91-313-68-2

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 peoplea population larger than 8 States-at least it is a step in the right direction. Thank you.

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. 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. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Zwach. And without objection, your statement will be made a part of the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. ZWACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. ZwACH. Mr. Chariman, H.R. 15280 designates that the Federal City College become the land grant college for the District of Columbia, by amending the District of Columbia Education Act. It also bestows certain stipulated sums under previous authorization and appropriation laws relating to land grant institutions as it affects agriculture 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.R. 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.

1

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 responsibility 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 Columbia Extension Program."

I do support the passage of H.R. 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

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 gentlemen 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.

And I 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 OF DR. FRANK FARNER, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, AND DR. EUGENE WIEGMAN, DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION, FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES A. HORSKY, ESQ., PRESIDENT, BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF 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 matter of extending 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 Washington; and then move directly to the issue that was mentioned earlier,

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 H.R. 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 statment 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 coming 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 country. 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. SISK. 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 District. 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 the other colleges in the state many of the land-grant functions through a Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, being consistent with