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 you 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 matte: really other institutions which have strengths in this area.

There are some strengths in the private sector institutions here ir 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 als by having the Federal City College named the land-grant college. The Federa College would enter into a Memorandum of Participation with the Washington City Technical Institute, under which the Washington Technical Institute woul! assume certain academic instruction and extension services in vocational an 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 spia. 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 ju« 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.

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

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 th case. And I think we do have-as you say, the 1960 Omnibus Act fo Hawaii did make this provision, and so it is of record.

I understand that the amount of funds that are expected to b authorized then by the provisions of this bill would be somethin over $7 million, right, on your original grant?

,

Dr. WIEGMAN. This would be the Morrill Act endowment, $7 millio Mr. SISK. In addition to that then you will become qualified fo annual amounts in what sum now?

Dr. WIEGMAN. $50,000 under the first Morrill Act, another $170,00 under the Bankhead-Jones Act. Those are the only two sections unde which we would get an annual appropriation.

Under the Smith-Lever Act we would have to work out yearly memorandum with the Secretary of Agriculture to fund program agreeable between the Department of Agriculture and the Federa City College in extension type programs. This sum could vary any where from a $100,000 to $700,000 a year, which would be charged t the Department of Agriculture appropriation budget.

(Subsequently, the following letter was received for the record, i clarification of participation under the Smith-Lever Act:)

Hon. B. F. SISK,

U.S. House of Representatives,

2242 Rayburn Building,

Washington, D.C.

FEDERAL CITY COLLEGE, Washington, March 14, 1968.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SISK: I would like to supplement my statement of Wedne day, March 13 on the Hearing of H.R. 15280 and S. 1999. The supplement relat to the Smith-Lever Act which authorizes and funds extension services at th Federal City College.

We wish to make it clear that the Department of Agriculture's appropriation for extension services in the District of Columbia will not constitute the enti cost but that the Federal City College will fund from its operating budget certai extension services.

The college is already expending funds for extension services, especial salaries for personnel and we intend that this procedure will continue even aft receiving Smith-Lever funds for extension.

We do not want to leave the Committee with the opinion that the extensio services will be funded entirely by the Department of Agriculture but that ti Federal City College will, as do other land grant colleges, set aside funds 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 th answer to but I have not had an opportunity to look into thorough enough which goes to the matter that I know Mr. Zwach was ver concerned about and the one that was brought out here by Mr. Nelsenand that is this cooperative effort whereby certain of these funds yo expect to share with the Washington Technical Institute. Are the any legal problems in connection with that? I am not opposed to th sharing of funds, but I am curious to know to what extent this h been studied in connection with making the Federal City College land-grant college, to what extent is that also going to qualify t Washington Technical Institute which is, after all, a separate instit tion, to share in these funds. Will they be sharing in the capit 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.Č. 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.