The library services bill is of nonpartisan nature. For several years it has been supported by Republican and Democratic Members of both Houses of Congress.

B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

A movement for Federal participation in the support of public libraries began at least as early as in 1929.3 A precedent for Federal promotion of library services was established soon thereafter.

Although work relief rather than the improvment of library services was the primary purpose, the Federal Government did provide financial aid for library projects during the depression of the 1930's.1 Federal agencies which supplied substantial amounts of Federal assistance for library purposes included the Public Works Administration, the National Youth Administration, and the Work Projects Administration.

The WPA used its library funds specifically "to assist established library agencies in stimulating local reception of complete and permanent library service as a regular public function." 5 In 1940 this Federal agency alone was providing large amounts of financial aid annually for miscellaneous library projects throughout the Nation. Besides giving aid, like the Public Works Administration, for the construction and repair of library buildings, the Work Projects Administration promoted the preparation and publication of bibliographies and indexes, binding and repairing of worn library books, surveys of community library resources, extension of the service of established libraries, and establishment of library services in formerly unserved localities."

The Advisory Committee on Education appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 reported back in 1938 with a number of recommendations including one that "special Federal grants to the States should be provided for the extension of library services to rural areas."

The Committee recommended for this purpose a Federal appropriation of $2 million for the first year, $4 million for the second, and $6 million for each of the 3 succeeding fiscal years.'

Based upon the findings from research by the Advisory Committee, a Federalaid-to-education bill introduced in the 76th Congress (1939-40) included grants for libraries.

8

A public library demonstration bill was first introduced in Congress on March 12, 1946. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon. Emily Taft Douglas, of Illinois, and in the Senate by Hon. Lister Hill, of Alabama. This bill was the forerunner of the Library Services Act now pending consideration in the 84th Congress.

House and Senate hearings on the public library demonstration bill were held in 1946. The bill was not reported in the House. In the Senate it was favorably reported and placed on the Consent Calendar, but was passed over.

The bill was reintroduced in the 80th Congress, in the House of Representatives by Hon. Thomas A. Jenkins, and in the Senate by Senators Lister Hill and George D. Aiken. Hearings were again held in the House and Senate. Again the bill was not reported in the House. On February 25, 1948, it passed the Senate on the Unanimous Consent Calendar.

In the 81st Congress the bill was introduced in the House by Representatives Ray Madden, Wright Patman, and Augustine B. Kelley; and in the Senate by Senators Lister Hill, George D. Aiken and Paul Douglas. On March 9, 1950, it was debated for 5 hours in the House of Representatives and was defeated by a vote of 161 to 164. It came up on the Senate Consent Calendar but was passed over.

In order to meet some of the objections raised during the House debate on the measure in the 81st Congress, the bill was revised and introduced in the 82d Congress as the library services bill. The new bill proposed a greater freedom of action by the States to develop their library services. It contained a definite

3 Miles, Arnold, and Lowell Martin. Public Administration and the Library (Chicago), the University of Chicago Press, 1941, p. 210.

The Federal Government and the Public Library. A report prepared by the special committee on Federal-State relations of the American Library Association, processed, 1954, p. 11.

U. S. Work Projects Administration, Operating Procedure No. G5, sec. 20; Library Service Projects, revised May 1941, p. 1.

6 Stanford, E. B.. Library Extension Under the WPA (Chicago), the University of Chicago Press (1944), p. 249.

7 The report of the committee, p. 140.

8 75th Cong., 3d sess., S. 419, title 3.

statement regarding maximum cost and set a definite period during which the permissive legislation would be in effect. It also changed the distribution formula so as to require contribution to the program by the States on the basis of their respective rural populations and abilities to pay.

In the 82d Congress the new library services bill was introduced in the House by 8 Members and in the Senate by the same 3 who had introduced it previously. At least partly because of the great pressure of labor legislation, the bill was not reported in the House. It came up on the Senate Calendar four times but was passed over each time.

C. DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE 83D CONGRESS (1953-54)

Early in the 1st session of the 83d Congress 6 Republican and 7 Democratic Members of the House introduced bills identical with the library services bill of the 82d Congres. These bills were referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. No action was taken on the proposals.

In March 1953 the bill was also intproduced in the Senate, with 5 Republican and 4 Democratic Senators acting as cosponsors. No action was taken on this bill which had been referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

During the 83d Congress a special committee on Federal-State relations of the American Library Association canvassed the status of public-library service in the United States. The committee gathered facts regarding the current support of public libraries by States and local communities, and studied the extent of Federal responsibility for assisting the States in the provision of adequate public-library services for all citizens. In 1954 the committee published a report entitled "The Federal Government and the Public Library."

Representatives of the State library associations and directors of the State library agencies met during the annual summer conference of the American Library Association in June 1954 to discuss the library services bill and needed changes. The group agreed upon features of the new proposal and urged its enactment.

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.

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 referred 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 public-library 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.

9

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.

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.

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

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 is 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.

Mr. RICHARDS. I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. LANDRUM. I hope you will pardon us for appearing to be in a rush, but we have got to meet a deadline.

The next witness will be Hon. Cleveland Bailey, Member of Congress from the State of West Virginia, and a member of the full Committee on Education and Labor. We will try to hear Mr. Bailey briefly before we recess for lunch.

You may proceed, Mr. Bailey.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the record, I am Congressman Cleveland M. Bailey from the Third District of West Virginia. My primary purpose in appearing today is to urge your committee to take favorable and early action on H. R. 2806 or similar legislation cosponsored by quite a number of my colleagues who, I am sure, will urge you to make a favorable report.

May I digress from my formal statement at this point, Mr. Chairman, to say that if there is a member of this subcommittee sponsoring a library bill, or if the committee decides to write a committee bill, that is perfectly all right with me. I am asking no preference for the bill I introduced.

I am interested, of course, in seeing that a favorable piece of legislation is reported by this committee.

The history of library legislation is not something new on your committee agenda. In 1951 I sponsored legislation of this kind which was reported favorably and failed of passage in the House by a margin of only two votes.

Let me say at that time that that legislation had the support of a sizable majority of the Committee on Education and Labor. It was supported on the floor by the chairman of the committee, Mr. Barden, and, I believe, Mr. Chairman, supported by your predecessor in office from the State of Georgia.

As I recall the reason for the defeat of the legislation back in 1952 it was that the sponsors were unable to say just what it would cost in the way of appropriation by the Congress. It also had no time limit. and fell under the category of permanent legislation. I am sure this situation has been corrected in the bills now before you. If there are any other imperfections in the legislation I am not aware of them.

I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion of the committee members with the witness who has just testified, in which it was indicated that $154 million was being spent annually by local communities, and $6 million-plus by the States. And, under the terms of this bill, you are being asked for about $712 million annual appropriation by the Congress.

Let us keep in mind, if you have examined the bill, that there is a provision in it for a grant to the Territories and for a flat grant to each State that would consume approximately $212 million of the total of $72 million that is being asked.

After this flat grant has been made to the States, providing the States raise an equal amount, if you examine the bill you will find it is on a matching 50-50 basis. The purpose of this request for $72 million is largely an incentive for the States to get into the library movement more on their own, and the purpose of it is largely for the purpose of carrying on demonstrations for a period of 5 years. That is the life of the bill.

It is hoped that these demonstrations would convince the States and the local communities that they should take over and do the major financing after the time of this legislation has run out.

It is not to be considered as permanent legislation. It is legislation that will get the library movement on its feet, carrying it into every community of the Nation.

63164-55- -5