INTRODUCTION OF THE McINTIRE-STENNIS ACT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EQUALITY ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 170
(Extensions of Remarks - October 28, 2019)
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTRODUCTION OF THE McINTIRE-STENNIS ACT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EQUALITY
ACT
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Monday, October 28, 2019
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the McIntire-
Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act, which would amend the
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act (Act) to make the District of
Columbia eligible for funding. The District is treated as a state under
federal programs, with a few exceptions, most of them simply oversights
or failures to update. This legislation would rectify the exception in
this Act, ensuring equitable treatment for the District and allowing
the District to benefit from the funding opportunities available under
the Act.
The Act provides U.S. states and territories with formula funds to
support state-designated institutions' cooperative forestry research
programs. The Act defines ``State'' to include Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands and Guam. The District's notable, but faulty, absence from this
definition makes it ineligible for grant funds that would support
research at the District's state-supported university, the University
of the District of Columbia's (UDC) College of Agriculture, Urban
Stability, and Environmental Science, a program that complements the
city's ongoing forestry efforts. UDC is the nation's only urban land-
grant university.
We appreciate that Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam are
included under the definition of ``State,'' even though, unlike the
District of Columbia, their residents do not pay federal income taxes.
It would be particularly troubling if the District, whose residents pay
the highest amount per capita in federal taxes, which support farm and
other federal programs, were to continue to be excluded.
It has been argued that the District should be excluded because of
its lack of local timber production. However, the Act says, ``[i]n
making such apportionments, consideration shall be given to pertinent
factors including'' local timber production. Proximity to timber is,
therefore, only one in a non-exclusive list of factors that are part of
the larger analysis regarding the apportionments. Excluding the
District from the definition of ``State'' merely because it is not
located in an area with a timber industry runs counter to the intent of
the Act. While timber production can be a factor in determining the
amount of state allocations, there is no reason that the District
should be excluded from the Act.
We believe, therefore, that the omission of the District must have
been the result of an oversight during the original drafting of the
Act. However, as you can imagine, this omission has serious
consequences for the District, rendering UDC ineligible for these
formula grant funds. Passage of this bill would allow students and
researchers in the nation's capital to take part in this important
forestry program.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
____________________