America by putting this thing in so people can work away at their own problems-new ideas and services and helps and aids and jobswhatever is brought to help them get that job done, and in the process of doing the job, they are lifting themselves out of it and away from it, and that is what the land-grant extension research model did for rural America. And, as I say, my hope is that a Justin Morrill will come down the pike one of these days to apply these concepts to all, just not the District but to all urban America. Senator MORSE. Dr. Miller, I am going to close the hearing today on a very high plane to which you have carried us in excellent testimony. I thank you very much. We stand in recess until Monday. (Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a m., Monday, August 28, 1967.) AUTHORIZATION OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (S. 1999) MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1967 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH, EDUCATION, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:10 a.m., in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Morse presiding. Present: Senator Morse. Also present: Chester Smith, staff director; Richard Judd, professional staff member; Owen Malone, associate counsel; James Medill, assistant counsel; and Howard Abrahams, assistant counsel. Senator MORSE. The subcommittee will come to order. This is a further hearing on S. 1999. We opened the hearing last Friday afternoon. The chairman's opening statement is already a part of the hearing record. We are privileged to have as our first witness the Honorable John B. Duncan, a member of the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners: accompanied by Dr. Murray Grant, Director, District of Columbia Department of Public Health; Mrs. Winifred Thompson, Director, District of Columbia Department of Public Welfare; and Mr. Robert Kneipp, Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. How is the laryngitis this morning, Dr. Grant? Dr. GRANT. Very much better. Senator MORSE. I am glad to hear that. We will be glad to hear from you now, Commissioner Duncan. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. DUNCAN, MEMBER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. MURRAY GRANT, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; MRS. WINIFRED THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE; AND ROBERT KNEIPP, CHIEF ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, with respect to S. 1999, I am sure you are aware, the Board of Commissioners, on August 25, 1967, issued this letter directed to the chairman of the committee, the Honorable Alan Bible. In there, the Commissioners took the position in support of S. 1999. Senator MORSE. The letter from the Commissioners dated August 25, 1967, will be made a part of the record at this point. (The letter dated Aug. 25, 1967, addressed to the Honorable Alan Bible, chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, and signed by Walter N. Tobriner, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, is as follows:) Hon. ALAN BIBLE, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. AUGUST 25, 1967. DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report S. 1999, 90th Congress, a bill "To amend title II of the District of Columbia Public Education Act." S. 1999 amends title II of 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 title a section 206 providing that the Washington Technical Institute established pursuant to title II of that Act shall be considered to be a college established for the benefit of agriculture and mechanic arts in accordance with the provisions of the Morrill Act approved July 2, 1862, as amended, thereby enabling the Institute to be entitled to benefits under various stated Acts. The Commissioners understand that the proposed amendment of the District of Columbia Public Educaion Act will make it possible for the District of Columbia 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. The Commissioners are of the view that S. 1999 has great potential for the people of the District of Columbia, particularly the hard-to-reach poor. The Commissioners are of the view that S. 1999 could be improved in some respects. Both the Washington Technical Institute and the Federal City College established under the District of Columbia Public Education Act are presently in process of being organized. It may well be that either or both of these institutions could carry on the programs authorized by the Acts specified in the bill. It might also be that for some time neither of these institutions will be in a position to carry on such programs, making it desirable that the District of Columbia have authority to choose some other institution of learning to provide the necessary services. If this were done, whichever of the available institutions were to be chosen would, of course, be a matter of discussion with appropriate Federal officials. For these reasons, the Commissioners recommend that in lieu of the phrase "the Washington Technical Institute authorized by this title", there be inserted the phrase "an institution or institutions of learning designated by the Commissioner after consultation with the heads of appropriate Federal agencies". This proposed change also requires the insertion of "or colleges" immediately after "college" at the end of line 14 on page 2. The foregoing suggestion makes it necessary, however, in the interest of consistency, for the section 206 which S. 1999 adds to title II of the District of Columbia Public Education Act to be restated as a title IV of that Act, with the caption "Land-grant college programs in the District of Columbia", the language of the title to be identical with the language of such section 206, with the amendments suggested in the preceding paragraph. The reference to the "Commissioner" in the change proposed above also makes it necessary that a section be added to the bill providing for vesting in the present Board of Commissioners the function of designating the institution or institutions of learning to provide the extension services, in the event the bill is enacted prior to the effective date of Part IV of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967. Accordingly, the bill should be further amended by adding the following section 2: "SEC. 2. If, on the date of enactment of this Act. Part IV of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 (32 F.R. 11671 et seq.) has not taken effect, the functions conferred on the Commissioner of the District of Columbia by this Act shall be deemed to be vested in the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia until the effective date of that Part IV and shall on the latter date vest in the Commissioner." The Commissioners are informed that there may be some need to amend existing law in such manner as to provide funds to carry out the purposes of the bill. They understand that the Departments of Agriculture and of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Federal agencies most directly concerned with the programs which the bill extends to the District of Columbia, will develop language to provide that the District of Columbia is to be treated equitably with the fifty States and Puerto Rico. The Commissioners further understand that while whatever is done in this regard will insure equitable treatment for the District, no government or institution now participating in the programs authorized by the Acts specified in the bill will suffer a decrease in the funds to which it is presently entitled. The Commissioners have no objection to the inclusion of language to this effect. In the belief that the bill will operate to improve greatly the condition of many of the residents of the District of Columbia, and particularly the poorer residents, the Commissioners recommend the enactment of S. 1999, with the amendments they have suggested. The Commissioners have 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, WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia. Mr. DUNCAN. We have Mr. Robert Kneipp here with us this morning, who is prepared to speak in detail, if necessary, Mr. Chairman. Senator MORSE. We are glad to have you here. You may proceed. Mr. KNEIPP. The Commissioners' letter of August 25, 1967, indicates their approval of S. 1999. They do, however, recommend three changes, two having to do with the substance to which they relate and one, to a certain extent, is a matter of form. First, the bill presently designates the Washington Technical Institute as an institute of learning to carry out the Federal Extension program for the District of Columbia. The Commissioners feel that there should be some degree of flexibility in the bill. For example, perhaps, the Federal City College in the process of being established might be suitable for carrying out some of the programs operated by the Federal Extension Service, while the Washington Technical Institute might be suitable for carrying out others. At this point, no one knows, but in order to allow some degree of flexibility the Commissioners suggest that instead of "the Washington Technical Institute" there be inserted the phrase "an institution or institutions of learning designated by the Commissioner after consultation with the heads of appropriate Federal agencies." "Commissioner" is single for the time being. Senator MORSE. I would have counsel look into that point and to the point that I now raise. I do not know of any precedent for that. I think the land-grant colleges have been limited to a single institution. I do not recall of any State in which the program is divided among the public institutions of the State. I think that you may run into some very serious difficulties if you try it. I think we are almost going to have to accept one college and make that the land-grant college. You take a college that is going to be considered-although I do not so consider it will be considered pretty much of an urban college, and applying to it the land-grant procedure is one thing. Mr. KNEIPP. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the statute leaves it up to the State legislature. How this works out in practice, I am not really S6-216-67 qualified to say. Perhaps, some of those here today could speak to that point. Senator MORSE. What are you asking me to do is to have such an assumption where all of the precedents are against it. I have to get the votes for the bill. What I need is to get those votes. We have an Extension Service program that I think is of vital importance to the people in the District of Columbia, and if you will read the record that we made last Friday, I made the plea here that in the District of Columbia you have special needs for the types of services in the field of home economics and in the field of technical trades, the industrial arts, and land-grant colleges have been doing a magnificent job over the years in the rural areas. It should not be limited to the rural areas at all. I gave as one example Montgomery County, in which the 4-H Club work really is serving the needs of boys and girls who, in effect, live in metropolitan areas. They speak of Montgomery County really as predominantly rural county which just denies the domicile of many of the young people who are served by the land-grant college programs. I would raise this as a caveat. If what you suggest could be worked out, I am for working it out. On the other hand I do not want to let the hearing record pass without pointing out that unless counsel can find that there are exceptions to what I think is the case, land-grant colleges are limited to a specific school. It may put us in a condition where to gain acceptance we should select one or the other, whether it is the Federal City College or the Technical Institute. We put the Technical Institute in the bill because it seemed to us that the overall purpose of the Technical Institute is for the vocational approach, the training of people for employment in those skills in which there is a lack of these skills at the present time, but, Mr. Counsel, if you will look into it, if you can accommodate Mr. Kneipp's reservation I want to do it; but I want to put in this reservation pending your research. Mr. KNEIPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then, the designation of the institution by the single Commissioner makes necessary the inclusion in the bill of what might determine some reorganization boilerplate, to take care of the transition period. The bill might go through before the new District government is formed, or it might go through after it is formed. So that the Commissioners' report proposes the addition of the section which would take care of the problem that was created by the reorganization plan of 1967. And, then, finally, the third amendment, one of form, suggests that this whole matter be covered in title IV of the District of Columbia Public Education Act, rather than in title II which establishes the Washington Technical Institute. I have nothing more than that, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps Dr. Grant, or Mrs. Thompson has something to say. Thank you very much. Mrs. Thompson, do you have anything to add? Mrs. THOMPSON. I would like to support the bill, Mr. Chairman, and to say that where I see it is helping most is in the use of the home economics services to work especially with the food stamp program. About 35 percent of the public assistance families who are eligible |