drugstore and the shops in Glendive which sponsored the program, books were made available in sufficient quantity to meet the demand this program created.

Many AAUW branches have sponsored similar programs, and we are convinced from their experience that if good books are properly publicized, and if they are available, American children will read them, develop desirable reading habits, and, as a result, become better citizens. This is the most effective and constructive way to counteract the influence of undesirable comics.

Radio and television now reach into most of the rural areas of this Nation. They reach the children in the 400 counties of this Nation where no public libraries exist. Programs such as the radio book quiz mentioned above can reach all of the children; the desire for good reading can be stimulated. But we know that most of the children in these 400 counties would be frustrated in their search for books because they have no libraries to serve them.

We are just as concerned, of course, with the lack of library facilities for adults. The modern public library, with its trained librarian, is more than a repository for books. It provides all the people of large areas with supplementary educational services that cannot be supplied less expensively by any other means.

With funds such as those that would be provided by the library services bills which are now before your committee, citizens in these 400 counties would receive the necessary incentive to establish adequate library service, a service which should be available in every American community. Many have had no experience in using a public library, and are unaware of the contribution it could make to their lives; hence, the value of a demonstration project.

The need for spending money to foster reading habits in America is highlighted by findings of a Gallup poll which showed that the proportion of book readers in America has consistently and alarmingly declined from 21 percent of the population in 1949 to 17 percent in 1953. Until adequate library services are established, we cannot foresee improvements in reading habits. Making books available to communities is the logical first step toward correcting this situation.

To meet their obligations to children, parents and schools need the help now of Federal funds to demonstrate the value of library services and especially to stimulate rural communities to maintain public library services for citizens of all ages.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before them. Mr. LANDRUM. We thank you, Mrs. Pelissier.

Are you submitting that chart for the record or for the committee's files?

Mrs. PELISSIER. If the committee would like to have it we would be happy to leave it.

We would also like to leave with you the pamphlet called Between The Leaves which was prepared by the Glendive, Mont., branch, and which is distributed through AAUW for branches who would like to start similar programs.

Mr. LANDRUM. We will be happy to receive that for the files. Mrs. PELISSIER. Yes. I thought you would like to put that in the files.

(The material furnished by the witness was accepted by the committee, and is available for reference.)

Mr. LANDRUM. Do you have any questions you would like to ask? Mr. METCALF. I am awfully pleased that you selected Glendive, Mont., as one of the examples. I know that my colleague Mr. Fjare, who cannot be here and in whose district Glendive is, will also be pleased when he reads your testimony.

However, don't you believe that perhaps that is the way to approach it, is to have some of these demonstration programs such as this little town of Glendive made on the local effort without any Federal aid?

Mrs. PELISSIER. Well, I think that the program would not have been so successful, and certainly wouldn't have been successful if the books had not been available in the town for the children to read. This town had a library which did have books. But in the rural areas which have no library facilities you could have your radio program but you couldn't get much response to it if you just didn't have the books for the children to read.'

Mr. METCALF. So the whole point is that there are some localities that have neither the books nor the facilities to get the books there even if you do have local encouragement.

Mrs. PELISSIER. That is right. They may be getting radio programs which would stimulate children to use libraries, but there are no libraries for them to use. And so you are losing the opportunity that you could have to guide children into good reading habits. That is why we feel it is so important that, through these Federal funds, you could stimulate these communities to provide libraries.

Mr. METCALF. So you believe that perhaps hundreds of communities over the Nation would be able to do the same thing that they have been able to do in Glendive, Mont.?

Mrs. PELISSIER. Yes; I am sure that they could just as successfully. I think there is a great field for that type of stimulation of reading habits, and certainly if you consider these Gallup poll statistics on the reading habits of Americans today we need to have some kind of stimulation.

Mr. METCALF. Indeed we do.

Thank you very much.

Mr. LANDRUM. Mrs. Green?

Mrs. GREEN. I have no questions, but I would like to say this is a very pleasant opportunity to greet her as a fellow member of the American Association of University Women. And I would like to tell you how delighted I am that that organization is backing this bill. Mrs. PELISSIER. Thank you, Mrs. Green.

Mr. LANDRUM. By your reference to radio programs you do not mean to endorse all those that are being broadcast?

Mrs. PELISSIER. Certainly not. But I think the educational potentiality is good. I think the radio certainly can contribute a lot in an educational fashion just as we hope television will. There are good things on both media.

Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you.

Mrs. PELISSIER. Thank you.

Mr. LANDRUM. The next witness is Mr. Harold S. Hacker, director of the Rochester Public Library, Rochester, N. Y.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD S. HACKER, DIRECTOR, ROCHESTER PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROCHESTER, N. Y.

Mr. HACKER. It is a real pleasure to be here. I will start by introducing myself.

My name is Harold Hacker. I am the director of the Rochester Public Library and the Monroe County Library System in New York State. Today I appear before this committee in behalf of the library services bill as a representative of the public libraries division of the American Library Association.

Mr. LANDRUM. Before we proceed further, Mr. Hacker, will you tell us just exactly what your position of director is, what it amounts to. Are you a fulltime, paid employee?

Mr. HACKER. I am a professional librarian. I am the administrative officer, the chief administrative officer for the Rochester Public Library, and for the Monroe County Library System, which I will be telling you a little more about as I go along.

Mr. LANDRUM. Monroe County, I assume, is the county in which Rochester is located?

Mr. HACKER. That is right.

The major purpose of the library services bill, as I understand it, is to encourage the States and local communities to develop programs to extend quality library service to all of the citizens of this great Nation who do not now have access to such service. The emphasis of this bill is on the rural population of the United States, the people living in towns of less than 10,000 population.

I am particularly pleased with section 2 (b) of the library services bill in which the basic philosophy of this legislation is stated. It reads:

The provisions of this Act shall not be so construed as to interfere with State and local initiative and responsibility in the conduct of public library services. The administration of public libraries, the selection of personnel and library books and materials, and, insofar as consistent with the purposes of this Act, the determination of the best uses of the funds provided under this Act shall be reserved to the States and their local subdivisions.

Mr. LANDRUM. Do you endorse that provision?

Mr. HACKER. I certainly do.

I believe that library service is the responsibility of the local communities and the State, in that order. I do not believe that Federal aid is needed on an indefinite basis to assist in the financing of library service because the cost of a good library program in any State is not, in my opinion, beyond the capacity of the State and local communities to finance.

On the other hand, I believe that the Federal Government does have an important stake in encouraging the extension of good library service to all Americans. Other speakers undoubtedly will emphasize that all of our fellow citizens should have access to educational and informational materials provided by public libraries if we are to continue to maintain a democratic society. The Federal Government should, in my opinion, alert the States to their responsibility for good library service and should spur them on to immediate action through the procedures outlined in the library services bill.

As chairman of the American Library Association's committee on library legislation for the past 2 years, I have been in a position to

observe the library legislative trends in all 48 States. There are many people working on the problem of extending library service to all of the people in the States, and the passage of the library service bill will, in my opinion, have a very salutary effect on the outcome of much State legislation still under consideration.

Permit me to quote from an editorial in the most recent issue of our committee's publication, reporting 1955 State legislative activities. I quote:

In the latter part of this bulletin you will find a summary of the 1955 legislative program of each State association that has reported. An analysis of these programs can be very fruitful to State library planners.

The major trend in library legislation is toward the establishment of larger units of library service, supported in part by State aid. States vary in their methods of securing the support of the State legislatures for such a program. Some States submit specific legislation authorizing the establishment of multicounty or regional libraries, and they usually seek State-aid appropriations, as well. Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington plan this two-pronged program in 1955. Colorado and North Carolina are requesting increased State aid while Idaho and Oklahoma are more concerned with permissive legislation for larger units.

Other States have adopted a different approach. Instead of submitting proposed legislation, they urge the legislature to appoint a commission to study the whole library picture and to make recommendations to a subsequent legislature. The usual reason for this course of action is to offer the legislators the opportunity of participating in the drafting of necessary legislation so that they will be more likely to support it in bill form. California and New Jersey have won the first round of their battle since legislative commissions have been authorized by previous legislatures and are scheduled to file their reports and recommendations in 1955. Indiana, Massachusetts and Wisconsin plan to submit bills in 1955 to authorize the establishment of such commissions. Texas has abandoned its previous effort along those lines and now proposes to request a private organization to make such a statewide study of library service. That State legislatures are becoming more library conscious is evidenced by the interest of the Council of State Governments in recommendations from an ALA committee for model legislation to further the establishment of larger units of service.

Mr. LANDRUM. At that point, would it not be likely that if the Federal Government entered this field, with the States already developed to the point that they are developed, that the States might lose interest and probably come to rely on the Federal Government as so many other interests of the State have?

Mr. HACKER. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that would be the case at all. As a matter of fact, while it sounds rather impressive, the States I have been rattling off, none of them have accomplished anything as yet. They are still trying. The people who are trying are the library trustees, citizen's groups, and librarians who are trying to extend library service.

It is my personal opinion if the States are working on legislation and this library services bill is passed, it will be a great impetus forward for the passage of more of this type of legislation which I think is the whole framework of library service for the United States in the future. Mr. LANDRUM. Then you don't have any fear that we may, at the end of this 5-year period, need to continue for another 5, 10, or 15 years? Mr. HACKER. I do not.

Mr. LANDRUM. You look upon it as a temporary measure only.

Mr. HACKER. I look on this whole program as a temporary measure. If it were otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Mr. LANDRUM. As a fertilization program.

Mr. HACKER. That is right.

Mr. METCALF. Is it not possible that, with this activity among States, that the Federal Government's interference is just going to delay for 5 years their beginning a State and local program?

Mr. HACKER. No; I don't think so at all.

As I would see it, the Federal program, the library services extension program could be used as a springboard for the States to proceed with their own State programs. That is the whole purpose of the State programs that are contemplated, is to extend library service to rural areas and to improve library service in existing areas, both urban and rural.

This library services bill is designed to encourage one of those parts of that program. I personally feel that they are mutually compatible and that, as a matter of fact, the Federal bill will stimulate the passage of the legislation that I have been referring to.

Remember I am not referring to laws but to legislation that was in bill form. And we don't all get our bills passed in 1 year.

Mr. METCALF. Thank you.

Mr. LANDRUM. Proceed.

Mr. HACKER. In my opinion, the climate in the States is just right for the passage of the library services bill by this Congress.

But I wish to tell you today of some of my personal observations made during the last 712 years which I have spent in extension activities in two counties in New York State.

From 1948 through 1953 I was associated with the Erie County Public Library in Buffalo, N. Y. Since January 1, 1954, I have been director of the Monroe County library system, with headquarters in Rochester.

While these two counties are classed as metropolitan counties, I have had many dealings with rural towns as defined in this bill. Of the 25 towns in Erie County, 19 have populations less than 10,000, of which 8 have less than 3,000. Of the 19 towns in Monroe County, 15 have less than 10,000 residents, and 6 of those have less than 3,000 people in them.

County library systems recently have been established in those two counties, thereby extending free library service to all county residents, whether they be urban, surburban, or rural.

The Erie County Public Library was established on January 1, 1948. It is a federation of independent city, town, village, and school district libraries, all financed by county and State-aid funds.

The Monroe County library system was established in July 1952. It is a federation of independent city, town, village and school district libraries financed by local and State-aid funds. The county pays for the cost of bookmobile services.

These two systems have revolutionized library service in their counties.

Now every resident of those two counties has free access to all libraries in the county systems. The reader can use his countywide borrower's card in any library. He can use the Buffalo or Rochester city libraries and his nearest town library interchangeably. He can borrow books from one library, for example, Rochester Public Library, and return them to his town library in Honeoye Falls. Nor does he have to seek out the city library for a book he needs that his town