LIBRARY SERVICE IN RURAL AREAS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1952 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met at 9 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 226, Old House Office Building, Hon. Boyd Tackett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Tackett, Howell, and Greenwood. Also present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk; and Russell C. Derrickson, investigator. Mr. TACKETT. Some of the members are going to be a few minutes late in getting over here, but because everybody has to read this record anyway, and we have so many witnesses, let us proceed. Mr. DERRICKSON. Dr. Fuller? Mr. TACKETT. You may proceed with your statement, Dr. Fuller. STATEMENT OF DR. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS Dr. FULLER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear here to testify in favor of H. R. 5195 and its companion bills on behalf of the National Council of Chief State School Officers. The members of the council I represent are the State superintendents and commissioners of education in States, Territories, and island dependencies. They are perhaps better acquainted than anyone else with the educational conditions in the rural areas of their respective States. They often have special obligations for rural education, and in that connection they know at first hand how seriously deficient library service is in many rural areas. In fact, Mr. Chairman, library service is merely another of many cultural and educational areas in which our rural populations are underprivileged. Rural people continue to get slower and less adequate service in mass media such as newspapers, periodicals, movies, and AM radio; FM radio and television are often not yet available at all. The schools and other cultural institutions remain seriously inadequate in many rural areas; among these both school and public library resources are almost always inferior to similar services in large towns and cities. Yet here are disproportionately large numbers of children, major adult education problems, and some of the Nation's least enviable social conditions which can be improved only on the basis of widespread education. 39 The bill itself is wisely drawn. It provides, appropriately, for Federal administration through the United States Office of Education and for State administration by the State library agency. Its provisions for development of State plans for rural library services will stimulate local and State library service quite apart from the Federal assistance provided. There are adequate limitations on Federal administrative discretion written into the law to insure State autonomy The proposed legislation takes into account both the geographical area of the States and the economic ability of the people, as well as the number of people to be served. The $40,000 minimum annual aid to each State, matching provisions to produce a 66-33 range of equalization and the proposed total appropriation of $7,500,000 each year for 5 years are all fully defensible in view of the circumstances. The sums are almost picayune and the beneficial results prospectively very large. Mr. Chairman, we hope your committee will report H. R. 5195 favorably, and that the Congress will enact it into law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TACKETT. Dr. Fuller, I notice that the name of your organization is National Council of Chief State School Officers. Dr. FULLER. That is correct, sir. Mr. TACKETT. Explain that just a little bit, will you? Dr. FULLER. The National Council of Chief State School Officers is an organization with one member in each State, each Territory, and each island dependency. They number like the Heinz' brand of soups, 57 varieties. In some States they are called State commissioners of education, in other States they are called State superintendent of education or State superintendent of public instruction. Then the principal school officer in each of the island dependencies and Territories is also a member of our organization. Those include Alaska, the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, American. Samoa, District of Columbia and two in the Virgin Islands. Mr. TACKETT. The supervisor of State education within the State of Arkansas, for instance, would automatically become a member of this organization, is that correct? Dr. FULLER. They are members ex officio, and after long deliberation they set up the council as an independent educational organization, completely divorced from any other national educational organization. The organization is of those State officials, just 57. I suppose the organization which is most analogous to ours is that of the Council of State Governments, which is the organization of the governors of the respective States. Mr. TACKETT. Has there been a meeting and a resolution adopted by your organization? Dr. FULLER. Yes, we have discussed this from time to time in our meetings, and I believe we have testified before, at least we have filed statements before on similar legislation. So this particular legislation falls squarely within the principles and policies of our organization. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that beginning about 1945 our council developed statements of general policy regarding education and allied activities in the States. Among those policies are some which deal with State and local autonomy in education, others deal with, I believe, all the major issues in education. The reason that I am glad to appear here today and to testify in behalf of this bill is that this bill as it is now drawn is fully in accord with all of those general policies which have been adopted by the Chief State School Officers. Mr. TACKETT. You think, then, that this bill does meet the unanimous approval of the membership of your organization, with its limited provisions governing the program. In other words, because of the fact that it does have provisions that preclude the Federal Government from governing the program. Someone said yesterday that it had been inferred it would allow the Federal Government to govern the thinking of the country through the means of libraries. You think that with that restriction it would meet with the unanimous approval of the whole membership of your organization? Dr. FULLER. I am certain that it would. I might amplify that point just a little with your permission, Mr. Chairman. The primary purpose of our organization's office here in Washington is to deal with the administrative agencies of the Federal Government and with other professional organizations which have offices here in the city. In dealing with the organizations of the executive department of the Federal Government we have had more experience than any other organization concerning Federal control of education. For instance, our members in the States administer vocational rehabilitation and deal with the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. They administer Vocational education and deal with the Office of Education in regard to that. They administer the school-lunch program in the States, which is a tremendous program, as you know, and deal with the United States Department of Agriculture in regard to that. They deal with the Treasury Department on school bonds and savings. They deal with the Department of Defense on veterans' education. I could go on and on. Most of the educational programs which originate at the Federal level come through our members in the States as the State officials for education. For these reasons we have had a very great deal of experience on these issues of Federal control, and we understand perhaps better than any other group what is a Federal control and what is not. We know that Federal controls, for instance, can be imposed in reporting systems. We know that Federal controls can be attached to financial contributions by the Federal Government in connection with a program which also has State and local funds involved. For instance, the school-lunch program has some such controls. Our policies, developed as I described a few moments ago, take account of that issue perhaps more than any other single issue so far as the Federal Government is concerned, and I can say that this bill is drawn in accord with the principles which would make Federal control of library service as unlikely as in any bill that could be drawn. It has our complete approval in that way. Mr. TACKETT. That was the point I was trying to get to. Mr. GREENWOOD. I am sorry I was late. Mr. Tackett is the only Congressman who starts on time. Regarding the Smith-Hughes bill and vocational education, has there been any sign of Federal control over the States when that allotment was made to the States? Dr. FULLER. I didn't catch that. Mr. GREENWOOD. Has there been any sign of Federal control and Federal persuasion, or whatever you might call it, from Washington here in the giving out of funds for vocational education under the Smith-Hughes Act? Have you ever noticed anything of that kind? Dr. FULLER. The Smith-Hughes Act was passed in 1917, a very long time before the State officials or any of us knew very much about these problems. Mr. GREENWOOD. I got my second salary in the public-school field under the Smith-Hughes Act, and that is the reason I am a bit interested. Dr. FULLER. The Smith-Hughes law of 1917 did impose some Federal controls on the States in the statute itself. Those were imposed by the Congress. If we had it to do over again today and were testifying here today on the Smith-Hughes Act written as it was in 1917, we would raise objections to some things which are at present in the act. I would like to amplify that just a little. When I was a State commissioner of education I was on a national committee for an entire year to write policies in vocational education. We reviewed the Smith-Hughes and George-Deen administration in great detail over a period of a year. In 11 different places, as I recall it, we relaxed the Federal controls over vocational education. This was done during the year 1947. In fact, ever since 1917 or at least since, say, 1920 or 1922 there have been relaxations of Federal control over vocational education. The trend is in that direction. That trend has accelerated in recent years. Mr. TACKETT. Rather than to be an effort to federalize, there has been an effort to relax any Federal controls. Dr. FULLER. That has been the trend, although we have been very seriously disturbed by the Porter Hardy subcommittee report on the House side here, because the implications of that report have been that the Federal Government ought to send its men right into the local school districts and follow those Federal dollars to make sure how they are spent. Our reaction to that is very clear, and I have written this to Representative Hardy, and he has reassured me that there was no intention to attach additional Federal controls to vocational funds. Our reaction is that the Federal vocational funds amount to about one-half of 1 percent of the school budget, and that the States and local school districts have set up prudential controls and bookkeeping systems to protect the other 99% percent of the funds which is their own money. Our position is that anything that is good enough for a community's own money to the extent of 99%1⁄2 percent is good enough for the other one-half percent that happens to come from the people through the Federal Government. We stand on that, I think, without dissent among the State superintendents and commissioners of education. We don't think the Federal Government ought to send policemen down and affect the whole program in a local school district just because one-half of 1 percent of the school support happens to come through the Federal Government from the people. So any tendency to affix the Federal controls of education-and that would apply also to this library bill-will be resisted vigorously by the States, and if I am any judge of what the attitude of the people is, I think that that position would be upheld in any section of the country. In the South they say they are the most "States' rights" people there are. Up in New England they deny that. They say, "No, we are the most 'States' rights' people there are.' You go up to Michigan or Illinois and Ohio and they say, "They are both wrong. We believe more in local and State control than anybody." So the sentiment being that way, we feel that our position of opposition to Federal interference in school affairs is a very sound position. Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you. Mr. TACKETT. I am in 100-percent accord with you and when it comes to which State believes most in States' rights it is just a subject that is involved at that particular time. In the South we are very liberal on some things and on some things we holler loud. Dr. FULLER. In education there is the greatest stake in freedom that there is in any field. Education was not mentioned in the Federal Constitution. It was a responsibility reserved to the States. Legally it is a State function. Practically, the State legislatures have delegated to local school districts much of the authority to operate in education, but it still remains legally a State function, and even a local school board, as you know, legally is a State agency selected locally, and it is not a part of the municipal government. When we think of Hitler and Stalin and the centralized school systems in prewar Japan and other places which have led to dictatorships, I think all of us realize at least we realize and I believe most of the people realizethat keeping the school systems and the educational facilities such as libraries strictly under State and local control is a great safeguard of democracy as we know it in this country. That is the reason we take our position on Federal interference in matters which concern education, library services, and thought control. Mr. GREENWOOD. You would say political interference as well, wouldn't you? Dr. FULLER. Oh, yes; we would extend it to the political field. We would also extend it to a large extent, I bleieve, to the economic field, although we recognize of course that interstate commerce requires some economic controls, and there are issues which the States. can't handle themselves. Mr. TACKETT. You also know, Doctor, that we have to distinguish between Federal assistance or public assistance and Federal or local control. This doesn't have to be placed on a national basis. For instance, we will just pick out a little place down in Arkansas because I can talk about that better than any other place. I have never believed that just because a child happened to live in a metropolitan area of Arkansas, where there were more people and more money to pay more taxes to furnish a better education, he is entitled to any more of those educational opportunities than the child who happens to live 10 miles away, whose parents were actually responsible for bringing about that locality where those metropolitan people live. For that reason, we have an equalization system in Arkansas which does provide that we shall have equal school facilities over the State. To broaden that a little bit, I happen to represent Texarkana, the only town in the United States where the post office sits right in the middle of the street and we are always squabbling over who shall be the postmaster, a Texan or an Arkansan. Anyway, let's suppose and it is true that Texas is a lot richer than the State of Arkansas. Let's suppose there is a child who happens to live one block over in the State of Texas and that child has for his playmate a child who lives a block away in the State of Arkansas, a poorer State. Let's say Arkansas is just so poor they cannot afford any |