Page images
PDF
EPUB

D. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

At the time of this writing, the following bills proposing to promote the further development of public-library services in rural areas are pending in the House of Representatives. These bills were all introduced in January 1955 and were referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.

[blocks in formation]

With the exception of the dates contained in H. R. 3331 all of these bills are identical.

An identical bill, S. 205, was also introduced in the Senate on January 10, 1955, by Mr. Hill for himself and Mr. Aiken, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Carlson, Mr. Ives, Mr. Langer, Mr. Chavez, Mr. Neely, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Eastland, and Mr. Kefauver. This bill was rerred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The proposal embodied in these bills has already been set forth in this report.

The issue appears not to be highly controversial. Most of the material found in the record of the hearings and in other publications over a period of approximately the last 10 years has been favorable to the proposition.

FAVORABLE ARGUMENTS

Arguments advanced in favor of Federal promotion of publiclibrary services in general, and in favor of the proposed Library Services Act in particular, have included the following ideas:

1. The public library is one of the principal institutions of public education, which is basic to the maintenance of our American way of life. Every citizen needs to have lifetime access to sources of information upon which to base sound judgments and wise actions. The library provides a source of continuing education for all citizens in conformity with our democratic processes. It serves the workingman, the businessman, the veteran, the student, the housewife, civic and professional groups and all others who care to utilize its resources.

2. There is a great need in the United States for further extension of public library services.

About 27 million people in this country are without service from local public libraries. About 53 million others have available only inadequate library services. Most of these people are in the rural areas, the fringe around large cities, and areas affected by defense activities and other Federal projects.

New York Times, June 15, 1953. Article by Benjamin Fine.

59922-55

Of the approximately 3,000 counties in the United States, over 400 do not have a single public library within their borders.

The national per capita expenditure for operation of public libraries during the year 1953 was only 96 cents. Careful studies by the American Library Association have shown that a per capita expenditure of $1.50 would be necessary for "minimum" library service and a per capita expenditure of $2.25 and $3 respectively would be necessary for "reasonably good library service" and for "superior library service." No State has reached the goal of even "reasonably good library service" for all its citizens.

The adult population of the United States 25 years of age and over has had an average of only a little over 10 years of formal schooling. This inadequate education of our people to meet the changing needs of the times, vocationally, technically, and culturally, points to an imperative need for public library services to assist in meeting the deficiencies.

3. The provision of essential library services for all citizens is a major concern and partly a responsibility of the Federal Government.

The maintenance of democratic government, the national defense, and the national welfare and progress depend upon having an enlightened citizenry-technically competent and appreciative of the cultural and inspirational aspects of life. Adequate library service contributes to the development of such a citizenry.

The mobility of our population does not stop at county or State lines; consequently it is important to the whole Nation that good library services be widespread.

The Federal Government produces a wealth of factual information for its citizens. Adequate library services would serve as outlets for this information.

4. In the past Congress has recognized the need and established precedent for Federal promotion of non-Federal library services.

During the depression of the 1930's the Congress enacted legislation which made available several forms of Federal assistance for local public libraries. At various times the Congress has made provision for other aids, such as allowance of special postal rates on interlibrary loans, exemption of books from import duties, distribution of public documents to specified libraries, and advisory assistance given to States by the United States Office of Education for the development of school, college, university, and public libraries.

5. The pending library services bill would provide a wholly desirable and effective program of Federal promotion of library services in the States.

[ocr errors]

Since State and local efforts have failed to achieve the goal of universal library service the national interest demands Federal action to assist them in doing so. Enactment of the library services bill would stimulate the States to greater efforts, just as Federal aid has done in the case of vocational education, highway construction, agricultural advancement, public health improvement, et cetera.

The legislation would permit no Federal controls except the routine ones necessary for safeguarding Federal funds and preventing usage of these funds for lands or buildings.

Since it provides that the Federal funds be matched by the States, limits the time to 5 years, and leaves the control in the hands of the

States, the bill meets the criteria for good Federal-State relationships in accordance with established policies.

6. The proposed legislation should be enacted now, for the need is urgent.

The States and their local subdivisions have not been able to provide adequate public library service for all their people although some have been working on the problem for many years. It is necessary therefore for the Federal Government to stimulate the States to achieve this goal.

Without Federal action, deplorable deficiencies in public library services may be expected to continue for years to come. Programs for national defense are now being planned for the next 50 years. We must not delay providing the Nation's children and adults the necessary tools for continued learning. We are spending vast sums to build up our material productive resources and military defenses. It is of even greater importance to develop and maintain our human

resources.

UNFAVORABLE ARGUMENTS

Relatively little argument unfavorable to the bill has been found in sources published within the last 10 years. The following are some of the unfavorable ideas which have been or could be expressed.

1. The provision of public library services in a State and local concern. The Federal Constitution does not assign the Federal Government responsibility for public libraries. It leaves this responsibility to the States and local communities. For many years the Federal Government has been assuming more and more of State and local responsibilities in Government. It is time for a reversal instead of an extension of this trend.

2. Federal grants for public library services would add to the cost of Federal Government at a time when the national debt should be reduced. The national debt is already staggering. The Federal Government cannot afford new expenditures unrelated to the national defense and to the discharge of other functions of Government which are essentially Federal. Since the Federal Government draws all its income from the States and localities, why not let the funds for State and local services remain in the areas from which they come?

3. If this measure is passed it may become a permanent activity of the Federal Government.

There is nothing to prevent later extension of the time limitations contained in the bill. Within recent decades the Congress has often extended legislation which initially was termed "temporary." This legislation may follow the same course. At the end of the 5-year period the claim may be made that the goal sought has not been reached, and there may be repeated pleas for renewal of the law until it is made permanent.

4. There is no need for the requested Federal grant.

The States themselves could easily raise the amounts of money which they would receive from the Federal Government. Why call upon it for small sums for this purpose?

5. The passage of this legislation might lead to Federal control of libraries throughout the country.

In the past Federal grants-in-aid for other purposes have often led to undesirable Federal influence and control over policies and programs. The same might occur in this case. Federal control over libraries would open the door for Federal control over the thoughts of the people.

6. Consideration of this bill should be postponed.

Congress has much more pressing matters before it. This legislation can wait. Particularly it should wait until there is no longer a need for such great expenditures for national defense.

CHAPTER IV. THE "OIL FOR EDUCATION" PROPOSAL

A. NATURE OF THE QUESTION

What has been known for several years as the "oil for education" proposal is, in brief, that revenue from oil and other natural resources of the Continental Shelf lands belonging to the United States be used for the support of elementary, secondary, and higher education.

The Continental Shelf is that portion of the continent submerged under relatively shallow sea, beginning at the low tide line and at the seaward limits of inland navigable waters and extending to the deep The Continental Shelf is separated from the deep ocean basins by the relatively steep Continental Slope.

sea.

The exact nature of the "oil for education" proposal in relation to the Continental Shelf has varied somewhat in different Congresses and in different bills introduced in the same Congress. The basic idea of the proposal introduced by Senator Lister Hill, of Alabama, in 1951, has since been frequently associated with his name.

At the time of this writing the latest form of the Hill proposal is that contained in S. 772, introduced on January 27, 1955, by Senator Hill for himself and 35 other Senators. The same proposal is expressed in H. R. 363, introduced on January 5, 1955, by Representative Carl Elliott.

These bills propose to amend Public Law 212, 83d Congress, which provides for the jurisdiction of the United States over the submerged lands of the outer Continental Shelf and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease such lands for certain purposes. The proposal is that all revenues received under any lease on the outer Continental Shelf be used as grants-in-aid of primary, secondary, and higher education. The bills would create an Advisory Council on Education for National Security, to recommend to the President for submission to Congress a plan for the allocation of the grants-in-aid for education.

The Advisory Council on Education for National Security would be composed of 12 persons appointed by the President of the United States with regard to their experience in the relationship of education to national defense and national security. Six of the members of the Council must be from the fields of education, and research in the natural and social sciences. The Council would be required to plan the allocation of grants-in-aid of education "in such manner as will contribute most effectively to meeting the immediate and long-range requirements of education as it relates to national defense and national security."

During the earlier consideration of the "oil for education" proposal several years ago, it was sometimes incorrectly referred to as an amendment to "the tidelands oil bill." However, the tidelands, namely the lands around the coast which are regularly covered and uncovered by the tides, at no time have been involved in the legislative proposition sponsored by Senator Hill. Even before the enactment of the Submerged Lands Act (Public Law 31, 83d Cong.) there was no

« PreviousContinue »