Another objection is that the inclusion of additional donees would be an open invitation for literally hundreds of other worthwhile organizations to seek recognition, and thereby defeat the orderly disposition of surplus for educational, health, and civil defense purposes. I cannot take this objection too seriously, since the Congress has allowed the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and similar groups to receive surplus property in increasing amounts through the Defense Department. Furthermore, such an abuse could not arise if donees were selected on the basis of need.

There is a further objection. That is: If the Indians come into the program, their participation will adversely affect existing health, education, and civil defense programs which depend upon the use of surplus property. In my opinion, the needs of the Indians can be met without jeopardizing seriously any other program. There just isn't that much demand from Indians, nor any present evidence that their needs will grow to that extent.

I am convinced that Indians can and must be made eligible to participate in this program.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to make this statement. I hope the committee, after careful consideration, will report favorably on S. 2244.

Senator GRUENING. Miss Germaine Krettek, American Library Association.

We are very happy to have you here. We consider libraries very important in the life of a nation, a civilized nation. We would be happy to hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MISS GERMAINE KRETTEK, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

Miss KRETTEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Germaine Krettek. I am director of the Washington office of the American Library Association, a nonprofit, professional association of more than 23,000 members, consisting of librarians, trustees, and friends of libraries interested in the development, extension, and improvement of libraries as essential factors in the educational program of the Nation. Librarians of schools and institutions of higher education form a large proportion of the association's membership.

The American Library Association urges your favorable consideration of S. 155, a bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 so as to permit the donation of surplus property to tax-supported libraries.

Under the present Surplus Property Act, school, college, and university libraries can benefit from surplus property, both real and personal, but public libraries can receive only real property since they are not specifically named for personal. This is an inconsistency because public libraries are basically educational in character.

Public libraries have been designated as educational institutions by State laws, congressional action, Federal regulations, and numerous official reports. These documents have consistently placed public libraries in the category of educational institutions, even though they do not conform to the restricted concept of education as schools with formalized teaching and a fixed curriculum.

These substantiations are submitted in support of the position that public libraries should be eligible to receive surplus personal property along with schools, colleges, and universities, and many more could be entered:

1. Many States, recognizing their educational significance, have placed the development of public libraries under the State Department of Education, as in the cases of New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado, and others. 2. States uniformly have passed legislation which has enabled public libraries to organize as governmental units and to receive tax money for maintenance and operation. The phrase "public schools, public libraries, and other educational institutions" frequently appears in State laws.

3. The report of the President's Advisory Committee on Education, Staff Study No. 11, stated in 1938:

In the United States today, it is accepted as axiomatic that the (public) library is an essential and integral part of the educational system of the Nation.

4. During the Korean crisis in 1951, the controlled materials administration considered that public libraries were educational institutions and placed them, along with schools, colleges, and universities, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Office of Education to receive allotments of building and equipment materials in short supply. Such allocations came from the supply reserved for eduactional institutions.

5. The Congress, in passing the Library Service Act of 1956, specifically recognized the educational character of public libraries. The congressional reports on this legislation, which authorized a total grant of $37,500,000 to the States for a period of 5 years, $7,500,000 annually, frequently stated:

There can be no question that the free, tax-supported library, where it has been adequately supported, is an integral part of public education in the many communities where it exists (H. Rept. 1587, 84th Cong., 1st sess.).

And

The library with its various services is basic to the processes of education, recreation, and the dissemination of information (S. Rept. 775, 82d Cong., 1st sess.).

6. During the hearings on this act, educators stressed the role of public libraries as educational agencies. For instance, U.S. Commissioner of Education Studebaker in the 1947 House hearings before the Subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee declared:

Public libraries are an essential instrumentality of education in a de mocracy Our youth, our adults, our teachers, our community leaders require facilities for continuing education, not only for the tasks of their vocations but also for the duties of citizenship. The public library can supply these facilities.

And in the 1952 hearing, U.S. Commissioner of Education McGrath stated:

The (public) library is one of our great educational institutions in the United States. Our statesmen, beginning with George Washington and coming down through the years, have said that the well-being of a democracy depends upon the dissemination of knowledge among the people, and certainly the (public) libraries of this country play an important part in keeping our people informed about public issues and also they render very valuable service to individuals in their private lives.

7. The public library is an outstanding free agency for the selfeducation of adults and young people. It gives universal service and makes library materials and service easily accessible to all members of the community. The founders of the first public libraries thought of them as essential continuations of the public school system. In 1852, the first board of trustees of the Boston Public Library said:

We consider that a public library is of the utmost importance as a means of completing our system of public education.

We maintain that public libraries are educational institutions, just as schools, colleges, and universities are, and that as tax-suported agencies they should be entitled by law and regulation to receive such donable materials as:

1. Tables, chairs, desks, shelving, filing cabinets, book carts, fans, and typewriters and other equipment suitable for library purposes.

2. Vehicles, particularly trucks, which could be converted into bookmobiles and in some cases bookmobiles themselves, motor vehicles which could be used for transporting books between the units of a public library system.

3. Books of a general nature, fiction and nonfiction, which are declared surplus to the armed services, and in some instances where a military installation has closed it could be an entire library. Although these books are presently available to school, college, and university libraries, they are not suitable for these institutions. Installation libraries serve the man in the Armed Forces with informational, recreational, and reference materials purchased for the adult reader. It is generally the recreational material which is made available as surplus. These books could be used by public libraries to increase their collections for the general public.

We maintain further that the inclusion of public libraries does not mean that the benefits of the surplus property are being opened up to another category of agency, but, rather, an agency is being included which rightfully belongs with educational institutions. Public libraries are educational agencies.

I appreciate very much the opportunity which you have given me to present the views of the American Library Association.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much, Miss Krettek. You made a very fine statement. We are happy to have it.

Mr. Gray, would you come forward-I would like to question you on the subject of this statement, please.

I take it the Department is opposed to this legislation.

Mr. GRAY. The Department did make an adverse report on the parallel bill which was introduced in the House. I would say to you at this time that since that report was made the Secretary has expressed some concern about the inconsistency in the real property provisions and the personal property provisions of the law, and has directed that a further study and review be made of that situation for his consideration.

Senator GRUENING. You mean the department might modify its stand on some of these bills?

Mr. GRAY. Well, that is a possibility. Obviously, I cannot predict what his final judgment might be. He has simply said he wants this explored further in relation to the differing provisions on real and personal property, as it relates to libraries.

Senator GRUENING. How do you justify making a distinction between university libraries and public libraries?

Mr. GRAY. Well, of course, the distinction has been made in terms of the law as it is written on the personal property side. The section 203 (j) of the law specifically limits eligibility to school systems, schools, colleges, and universities. So you are left no choice under the present law.

Senator GRUENING. I know that. But all this bill does is to seek to amend the law, so as to extend the surplus property and make it available to other types of libraries, as well as those that are now eligible. And I wonder how the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare can justify its stand in opposing this, as merely an extension of education, isn't it-libraries are certainly a form of educational institution.

Mr. GRAY. Well, our position was basically the same on this as it was on other bills, that is, it is a question of if you favor extension, where do you draw the line? There are welfare activities, for example, that are very important to our department-that is in our field. And our position has simply been based on the difficulty of drawing a line and saying, "Well, yes, we can admit libraries, but this is all we can admit."

Senator GRUENING. Well, don't you feel that there is a distinction between extending the benefits of this act to new and additional agencies, and merely extending it to a part of the same type of agency which is now receiving the benefits? In other words, some libraries are getting surplus property. And all this bill asks is that other libraries, public libraries, get it. Don't you think there is a distinction between extending it to other libraries and extending it to Indians and a lot of other agencies not now receiving it?

Mr. GRAY. Well, I think you might make a distinction there; yes. This is closely related to your other educational programs.

Senator GRUENING. Well, certainly this would simply be a wider and perhaps more justified interpretation of the present act which permits extension of the donation of surplus property for purposes of education. I don't think anybody would challenge the statement that a library is essentially an educational institution-also partly recreational, but I think its larger purpose would be considered education.

I would suggest that the Department review its position on this bill, whatever it may do on other bills.

Mr. GRAY. Yes. As I have stated to you, the Secretary has indicated that he does want to again review it. I, of course, am in no position to predict what his ultimate decision might be.

Senator GRUENING. We would appreciate getting a report on the status of a proposed revision, whether it takes place or not, within about a week, when the record will be closed. We will keep the record open for a week or so, and we would appreciate if you could get us a statement, either restating the present opposition, or apprising us of any change.

Mr. GRAY. I will so advise the Secretary.
Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much.

(The information requested is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, August 10, 1959.

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, your Special Subcommittee on Donable Property has been holding hearings on a series of bills proposing the extension of the surplus property donation program, and in certain cases also the surplus real property disposal program, to certain types of organizations and activities (secs. 203 (j) and 203 (k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act).

We have, so far, reported only on four of the bills involved, i.e., S. 1018, S. 1210, S. 1265, and S. 1766. These were the only bills on which we had received requests for reports, and, for the reasons stated in our report of July 17, we were unable to recommend their enactment.

We had not, however, been requested to report on S. 155, a bill which would amend section 203 (j) of the act "so as to permit donations of surplus property to libraries which are tax supported or publicly owned and operated.” At the hearing held on July 30, while Mr. J. Wendell Gray, Chief of our Surplus Property Utilization Division, was testifying on behalf of the Department, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gruening, requested that the Department submit, for inclusion in the record, a statement of its position on the proposal to extend the program to libraries.

Our adverse report on S. 1018 and other bills, while recognizing the worthiness of the organizations and activities involved, set forth at leangth the considerations underlying our opposition to these proposals, especially the difficulty of drawing a defensible line against further extensions if the law were opened up at all. We have, however, for some time, been increasingly troubled by the anomaly of the fact that, under section 203 (j) (3) of the present law, schools, colleges, and universities are eligible to receive property donated for purposes of education, while libraries not operated by these institutions but open to the public are not eligible. This anomaly is made more obvious by the fact that libraries are recognized as eligible "educational institutions" under the surplus real property disposal program (sec. 203(k) (1)). As you know, public and other nonprofit libraries, while incidentally serving recreational purposes, are in a very real sense an adjunct to and resource for the schools whose students they serve as well as highly useful instrumentalities for adult education generally. We would, therefore, be agreeable to an amendment which would do away with the present anomaly, with respect to both public and other nonprofit libraries. While not objection to a properly drafted amendment which would bring libraries as such into the personal property donation program, we would consider it more appropriate to extend clauses (A) and (B) of section 203 (j) (3) of the act to "other educational institutions," a phrase intended to have the same meaning as the term "educational institutions" has in section 203 (k) (1) of the act, and, moreover, not to be confused with the special meaning accorded to the term "educational activities" in section 203 (j) (2) of the act by the Department of Defense. (Specifically, this would be accomplished by inserting the phrase "and "other educational institutions," a phrase intended to have the same meaning "universities" in clause (B), of sec. 203 (j) (3) of the act.)

S. 155, in its present form, would be objectionable because limited to libraries "which are tax supported or publicly owned or operated," and because it would insert "public information" in section 203 (j) (1) as in itself a permissible purpose for which surplus personal property could be donated, in addition to education, public health, and civil defense. If, however, S. 155 were amended in accordance with the above suggestions, we would recommend its enactment.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that while there is no objection to the submission of this report the Bureau is opposed to amendment of the law along the lines above suggested at this time.

Sincerely yours,

ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, Secretary.