[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 18069]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAND GRANT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 
                                  2007

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 28, 2007

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce 
legislation that would put the University of the District of Columbia 
(UDC) on par with all of the other land grant universities around the 
country.
  Land grant institutions play a significant role in ensuring that our 
nation remains the world leader in the production of food, fuel and 
fiber. Through a wide range of research and extension activities, U.S. 
citizens gain useful knowledge on the latest changes in agriculture-
based technology that keeps our food supply safe while providing for 
critical health information on food and nutrition.
  Congress authorized land grant status to the University of the 
District of Columbia in 1974, and since that time the University of the 
District of Columbia has played a major role in these efforts from an 
urban point of view as the only all urban land grant institution in the 
country.
  Many are not aware that the University of the District of Columbia is 
an 1862 Land Grant Institution with specific legislative authority to 
participate in various United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
research and extension programs. More particularly, the University has 
specific statutory authority to participate in research funding 
programs under the Hatch Act, similar to the authority given to other 
1862 Land Grant Institutions. This is not the case, however, for the 
University's extension service activities.
  Extension services at the University are awkwardly authorized under 
Section 208(c) of the District of Columbia Higher Education and Post 
Secondary Act of 1974, rather than Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act. 
While Section 208(c) of the District of Columbia Higher Education and 
Post Secondary Act of 1974 incorporates by reference the specific 
extension activities under Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act, this 
outdated statutory scheme presents significant barriers to the 
University's ability to effectively carry out extension activities. The 
barriers resulting from this statutory scheme present themselves in 
form and substance while raising issues of equity and fairness. USDA's 
implementation ofthe Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program 
(EFNEP) best highlights this inequity.
  EFNEP is a formula-based nutrition education program authorized under 
Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act. In Fiscal Year 2006, the Congress 
appropriated $62 million for the EFNEP program and USDA disseminated 
these funds, without any nonfederal matching requirement, to the 
various land grant institutions in the states and territories, except 
for the University of the District of Columbia. Under current law, 
Smith-Lever EFNEP funding is made only conditionally available to the 
University of the District of Columbia through Section 208(c) of the 
D.C. Postsecondary Education Act, which requires UDC to provide 100% 
matching funds for its EFNEP funding. UDC is the only 1862 Land Grant 
Institution required to do so. The language requiring the 100% match 
for District of Columbia EFNEP programs is clearly a relic of the 
budget and political climate that existed at the time the EFNEP 
provision was enacted for the District of Columbia in 1974.
  Moreover, as a critical threshold issue, the University does not 
currently have access to any EFNEP funding because UDC is not in the 
Smith-Lever Act that guides the appropriations process; no one looks to 
the D.C. Postsecondary Education Act, so UDC is overlooked in the EFNEP 
funding allocation.
  There is no reason why the District of Columbia's children should 
have less access to nutrition education programs than children in the 
states and U.S. territories. It is long overdue to remove this 
inequitable financial barrier. Neither the continued exclusion of the 
University from the EFNEP program nor the mandatory matching 
requirement is supported by USDA's policy goal of ensuring that the 
EFNEP program reaches all predominantly minority low-income youth and 
families with nutrition education that leads to sustainable behavior 
changes.
  The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem along 
with other barriers to the University's participation in the 
agricultural research and extension programs, and provides the 
authority needed for the University to participate in capacity building 
and facilities programs now being administered at the United States 
Department of Agriculture. The University of the District of Columbia 
functions with very limited resources in comparison to the large 
endowments of most other land grant institutions. Accordingly, a 
reduction in the current matching requirements for the Hatch Act state 
agricultural experiment station programs and the other Smith-Lever 
extension programs, similar to the reduction and waiver provisions 
authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill for some of the smaller 1862 Land 
Grant Institutions would be equitable and fair. For this reason, this 
legislation would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce and 
waive the nonfederal matching requirement if the Secretary finds that 
the University will not be in a position to secure nonfederal funds.
  Finally, this legislation would allow the University to participate 
in USDA's competitive capacity and facilities grant programs. 
Participation in these grant programs would significantly enhance the 
University's teaching and agricultural research capacity building 
resources, and its ability to upgrade its research, teaching and 
extension facilities, thereby recognizing the importance of the 
University as the only all urban land grant institution performing 
valuable urban agricultural research and extension services to the 
District of Columbia community and a predominately African American 
student population. It is only fair that the University of the District 
of Columbia is afforded the same opportunity to compete for capacity 
building and facilities opportunities that the other small, minority-
serving institutions are eligible to pursue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________