It is proposed: 1. That the State be divided into three regions for the purpose of concentrating the fieldwork and other extension services of the State library. 2. That a thoroughly competent field consultant be assigned to each region for intensive work aimed at strengthening existing rural-library services and extending library service to unserved rural areas. An additional roving consultant should be obtained as technical specialist to give service in any region where needed to free the time of the principal regional consultants. Presently available funds are adequate to provide at least 2 of the proposed 4 consultants. While these consultants are carrying on a broadspread, continuous program in their respective regions, with emphasis on the extension of library service to unserved areas, it is further proposed: 3. That a bookmobile demonstration be set up in at least one region on a county or multicounty basis. 4. That a multicounty demonstration of cooperation between existing libraries on a basis of federation be set up in at least one region. This may well be an expansion of a four-county project in adult education on a cooperative basis that has been underway during the past year in northern Indiana. 5. That a series of institutes or workshops for librarians and trustees be set up in connection with, and in support of, the program of rural library development in general and the federation demonstration-item 4-in particular. (The map referred to is as follows:) Mr. HUSSEY. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. MERLIN M. MOORE (Little Rock, Ark.). Mr. Chairman, it is inevitable that the witnesses who have appeared here should, in the halls, discuss the conduct of these hearings. And, without exception, the witnesses have been very complimentary and very grateful to the members of the subcommittee for the gracious manner in which these hearings have been conducted and for their very intelligent questions and evident interest. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mrs. Moore. I am sure the committee appreciates that, and I speak for them. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to insert in the record the following letters from Montanans in support of the library services bill: (The letters referred to follow :) MONTANA STATE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, Helena, Mont., May 23, 1955. Hon. LEE METCALF, The House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. My DEAR MR. METCALF: The Montana State Library Association is in favor of the library services bill introduced in the Senate earlier by Senators Hill and Aiken and other good library friends and in the House by 27 sponsors. As you well know, Montana with its vast areas and relatively sparse population has never had what might be called adequate public-library service. It is true that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, some 454,000 people did have some kind of library service; at least they were living within a tax unit that did devote some funds varying from .2 mill to 3.5 mills; but much of that service should be considered minimal. There is also to be considered that segment of almost 137,000 people who have no library service at all. The library services bill with its 5-year program would give our State library agency, the Montana State Library Extension Commission, a real opportunity to demonstrate what truly adequate library service along the most economical lines could be. We must through the commission and the active support of Montana's librarians show the entire State the scope of basic services that the public library should bring every citizen, no matter where he lives within the tax unit. It will be a tremendous challenge for the library forces of the State to justify this program; but the association is more than eager to accept this challenge. May I count on you to insert this statement of the Montana State Library Association in the record of the hearings? DEAR REPRESENTATIVE METCALF: The Montana Federation of Women's Club is deeply interested in the extension of library services by the States into rural areas now without such services or with inadequate services. We respectfully call to your attention H. R. 2804 which deals with this problem. You are familiar with the conditions existing in Montana and we are certain that you will feel that you can give this matter your support and attention. Our organization as a part of the General Federation of Women's Clubs has been responsible for establishing 85 percent of the public libraries and as such we heartily endorse this proposal. Thanking you for giving this matter your attention, I remain Respectfully yours, Mrs. ERNEST A. NEATH, Chairman, Legislation Division. MONTANA STATE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. Hon. LEE METCALF, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. METCALF: The members of the Montana Library Association, meeting in convention at Miles City on May 7, voted to solicit your efforts in behalf of the library service bill, especially in your position as a member of the subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Public Welfare. The librarians of the State and their lay friends who met with them are very aware of what the passage of this bill can mean to Montana in initiating the establishment of adequate library service in our rural areas and thus insuring that our rural people have the same advantages as most of the urban residents of our country now enjoy in the way of ready access to books, newspapers, magazines and other sources of information. They are also aware that such service is very necessary to a democracy in furthering the continual education of an informed citizenry to the end that it will be capable of making sound judgments and taking wise actions on the problems facing us today. Sincerely yours, MARGUERITA MCDONALD, Secretary. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to insert in the printed record a letter from Ann Whitmack, Billings, Mont., in opposition to the bill. Mr. LANDRUM. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The letter referred to follows:) PARMLY BILLINGS MEMORIAL LIBRARY, Billings, Mont., March 15, 1955. Hon. LEE METCALF, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I appreciate your social consciousness and your desire to increase the growth and development of men and women, but I wish to go on record of not approving the library services bill S. 205 at this time. Why? 1. All States, if they wish to, can support improved library service, as witness Louisiana for example. Montana could put into the dissemination of knowledge through books much more than it does. But if the national program goes into effect, Montana will send out of the State more money than it receives, which would be all right, if we in turn had achieved better welfare services within the State. We need special education, more mental hygiene clinics, remedial work with the maladjusted, etc., and which so far we have thought too expensive. 2. If S. 205 is passed, there aren't enough trained librarians to implement the program. All professional people are in short supply and will be for about 10 years (due to few babies in the thirties and too many babies in the fifties) and nobody will be able to pass a miracle and produce more teachers, more nurses, more secretaries, and more librarians. 3. Federal programs are like acts of God-what the Lord gives He can take away, but in the meantime a great many people put down roots in their work, and they and their families suffer traumatic experiences when their work is abolished, as witness men in reclamation at this time. 4. Now I know that the higher echelons in library work plan this to be permanent, but in my thinking, librarians do not have the priorities that adequate educational facilities and health programs have. 5. In this day of good books in 25- and 35-cent paper backs, there is no excuse for even the most isolated not having his own-he can buy them in grocery and drug stores, and Sears, Roebuck. (By the way, it costs librarians about 20 to 30 cents to circulate 1 book.) And the postal service is available to practically everyone by dropping a postcard in the mail to a central agency, and I believe all States have one. We in Billings are planning a $13,500 bookmobile to carry books to housewives and children. In time we hope for a county library for 2,635 square miles of wide open space. But, with about two cars for every family in the county, we already have county and school borrowers (county schools pay $3 per room for as many books as they need). Why can't local initiative be encouraged? ANN WHITMACK, Librarian. Mr. METCALF. In addition to the above, I have also received letters endorsing the library services bill and recommending its passage from Mrs. Alma S. Jacobs, librarian, Great Falls, Mont., Public Library; Ruth O. Longworth, president, Montana State Library Association. Mr. LANDRUM. I have received the following letter from the American Home Economics Association, which we will include in the printed hearings: (The letter follows:) Hon. PHIL LANDRUM, AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Special Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. LANDRUM: As president of the American Home Economics Association and on behalf of its members, we request that you and the members of your subcommittee give favorable consideration to and report out the library services bill. Our association is made up of 23,000 members, all college-trained home economists. Our program of work outlines proposals for action for the well-being of individuals and families, for the improvement of homes, and for the preservation of those values significant to home life. Our work in helping families and individuals obtain and use the latest information in the areas of food and nutrition, textiles, child development, family relations, housing, family economics, and household equipment, brings us into a close relationship with them. We are interested in all families, those who live in the smaller rural communities as well as those who live in the larger urban areas. Many of our home economists, especially the home demonstration agents and specialists of the cooperative extension service devote their time to disseminating the findings of the latest research and in aiding families and individuals to attain a better home and family life. They are concerned with the cultural needs as well as the practical needs of families living in rural areas which, of course, includes library services. Our association's legislative program commits our members to the support of legislation which provides for extended library services to areas not now covered. We therefore commend the plan for bringing public library service to the almost 27 million people in the United States who are now without it. In the development of programs for effective family living adequate public service is important. Such services provide opportunities for continuous programs of education. We like the provisions of the library services bill which allow each State to devise its own plans for the further extension of library services to rural areas. We like the definite nature of its provisions which outline the functions of the Federal and State Governments. We believe that the formula by which funds are allocated under the bill is equitable and practical. We know that adult education programs have increased the economic status of farm families, have contributed to the enrichment of family life, and have provided for participation in activities at the community level. Library facilities would supplement and complement the educational opportunities of rural areas and no doubt provide lasting benefit to this part of our population too long neglected. Again we urge that the committee favorably consider this legislation and report it to the full committee within a short length of time. We would appreciate your including this statemeent in the record. Sincerely, CATHERINE T. DENNIS, Pres 'ent. Mr. LANDRUM. The committee will now adjourn until further call of the chairman. The printed proceedings will remain open for insertion of statements and letters from interested parties until June 20. 63164-55-15 |