versities; other colleges also lend out books. The State library particularly conducts that service. You certainly must credit the cost of that extension service as State aid to local library services.

That campaign culminated in the Texas State Senate's unanimous appropriation of $200,000 for extension service out of the State library, but the bill was improperly handled in the House of Representatives and the legislative action went no further.

This record sharply illustrates a statement by Governor Allan Shivers in a recent letter to me, which I would like to submit to the committee, approving the aims of this library services legislation, to the effect that we can do these things for ourselves, but we do not do them.

Therefore, leadership, stimulus, the provision of service which will demonstrate to the rural communities the benefits and the practicability of free library service are urgently needed.

Today, the library development committee of the Texas Library Association, in conjunction with the State Library and Historical Commission, and working through the Texas Research League, is looking to the enactment of this library services legislation for extension and improvement in the movement to take books to the people.

With but a comparative handful of exceptions, Texas' problems and Texas' needs are the problems and needs of the Nation. A country in some of whose States the percentage of total population without public library service reaches almost 60 percent, needs the joint endeavor of Federal and State governments to correct this exceedingly deterimental condition.

Through the years we have heard a great deal on the score of what we call educational equalization. It is a smug, mouth-filling term which is dishonored in the breach. As the statistics of low per capita support of local public-library service throughout most of the Nation evidence equality of educational opportunity is chocked off at the door of the schoolhouse.

In communities and areas to which no public-library service is provided, for years we have been presented with the anomaly of spending multiplied millions of dollars to teach our boys and girls how to read and then denying them even a comparably small sum for providing them books to read.

By every sound consideration, it is earnestly to be hoped that this session of the 84th Congress will enact a library-services bill.

Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Harris, this bill provides $7.5 million annually for a period of 5 years. The proponents of the bill say that it will act as a stimulus to the States to commence some support on a State level, and perhaps down on a local level, too.

I wonder if it is your opinion that Texas' 5-year share of this money proposed in here would be sufficient to stimulate the vast State of Texas to get down to spending some of her money and wealth?

Mr. HARRIS. I honestly have to answer yes, and I would want to answer yes either honestly or otherwise; but I do honestly answer yes. From the table prepared by the Library of Congress it appears that Texas' total share would be $320,000. That is $120,000 more than the Texas Senate back at the beginning of the people's library movement appropriated unanimously for this purpose, and by indifference or inefficiency, it was lost in the grand shuffle at the end of the session in the House.

I think that $320,000 would set quite a bit of bookmobiles rolling. When I stop to think that back there in those days we tried to set up the first regional library service in Texas, having in mind the low assessed valuation of the 3 counties upon which we fastened for that establishment, 3 counties in east Texas, we believe that we figured something like $13,000 or $14,000 a year for the operation, and yet the commissioners of those counties were unwilling to take on the burden without direct demand from their people.

We think, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that even the slow, necessarily slow grind you can't flash these things overnight; it takes planning and preparation and scheming- the fact that we have tripled the number of county tax-supported libraries under our people's library movement is a pretty fair indication that we can go on hammering with the combination of stimulus, inducement, demonstration, with the funds to provide that demonstration; that that $320,000 of Texas on expenditure to match the Federal grant would get a lot of county libraries under way.

Mr. LANDRUM. And do you feel that at the end of the 5-year period we might be in a position to abandon this from a Federal standpoint and leave it in the hands of the States?

Mr. HARRIS. If you are not in that position you ought to be abandoned. That is rather begging the question, I realize. If you spend this money, you want to show results for it. You want to show big results and good results, but those of us who are advocating this legislation do have sincere faith that you will be able to show those results in the increased number of county libraries operating on county taxation through libraries on wheels. Otherwise, we wouldn't be coming here from all parts of the country to enter our pleas with your committee.

There was one thing that I overlooked, and if I may have just another minute, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lattimore, State senator of San Antonio, has introduced in the Texas Senate this resolution, a copy of which I would like to leave for the record. Action on it I hoped would be completed before I came up here to Washington, but the Texas Legislature is in the tragic throes of a terrific struggle over new sources of taxation, and you gentlemen know what that means, and they are having a difficult time to come together on the proposition.

So Senator Lattimore's resolution, and all extraneous matters must wait until they get that taxation and appropriation settled.

However, the sentiment is good:

Whereas there are pending in both houses of the United States Congress identical bills entitled "Library Services Bills" that propose an appropriation of $7.5 million annually for 5 years, to be matched by the States, wherewith to initiate the provision of free library service to rural areas which now lack any public-library facilities whatsoever; and

Whereas the basic allotment to each State would be $40,000 and the total Federal allotment to Texas would be $320,722, figured on the proportion of Texas' rural population to the rural population of the Nation; and

Whereas the plan for such library service extension would be drawn by the State library agency and the service itself would be entirely under the authority of that agenev, subiect only to the approval of the plan by the Federal Commissioner of Education; and

Whereas Texas ranks 47th among the States in operating expenditures (26 cents) per capita for local public-library service, 17th among the States in percentage of total population (26 percent) without local public-library service,

with a rural population numbering 2,860,808 by the Federal Decennia Census of 1950: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Senate of Texas hereby records its approval and commendation of the objectives of the said Federal library services legislation and expresses the desire that it be enacted as a necessary means of both juvenile and adult education to the large numbers of this State's population who lack free public-library service; and be it further

Resolved, That in the event of the enactment of such legislation, this State, through its State library and historical commission, should plan to take full advantage of the Federal-State provision for library extension to the rural population of Texas.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to make this statement. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Harris, pursuing a point that the chairman was asking you about, are you not afraid that after 5 years this will become a permanent activity of the Federal Government?

Mr. HARRIS. No, I am not. That is for this reason: I think it can be emphatically and adequately impressed upon the communities that this is simply a demonstration period. That is in order to sell them on the desirability and the practicability of acquiring their own public-library service, just as has been done before.

Now, the simple procedure was this: We would roll one of those bookmobiles down from San Antonio or down from Houston or out of the Panhandle, to the community where we were going to put up our talk in assembly halls of colleges, or churches or whatnot. We would let them see that bookmobile in action. They would look over its contents, and then sooner or later, sooner in the case of some of the communities, and later in the case of others, a local movement would be organized to start either a county or a community library.

It was that way in Wilson County, and Corpus Christi, and in Abilene, and over in St. Angelo they built a splendid new library there. That was the uniform procedure.

The library services evangelists went out over Texas preaching the gospel of books for the people and showing them what it meant, and that is what it was about, practical salesmanship. Heaven knows, you gentlemen have a record as long as your arm on the morals and ethics and propriety and civic obligation, and the patriotic obligation of this thing, but the question which all of you, and particularly the chairman in the last few minutes has stressed, is the question that is sticking in your mind: Is it practicable? Will it get results? Will it make good in the way of acquisition of local library service? My belief and my faith is that it will.

Mr. METCALF. And after we have taken it on, can we get rid of it as a Federal activity?

Mr. HARRIS. I think we can. I think that 5 years would be a very liberal and sensible period, and Heaven knows, if you can't sell them in that period they don't deserve to carry on. That is the fact of the matter. In other words, they have to be told that this is not a handout for keeps, that they are being given a chance to participate and they are being given a chance to cooperate, and if they don't get it, the loss is theirs. This is not going to be Uncle Sam's permanent gift.

Mr. METCALF. Could I ask you one more question: You said a couple of county judge elections were determined on the issue of these library services. Who won, the proponents or the opponents?

Mr. HARRIS. The proponents, the man who wanted to retain the bookmobile, and also the man who wanted to retain the dental demon

stration truck, which the county commissioners, one of whom inquired whether I had books when I was a boy, the county commissioners wanted to abolish the bookmobile; 2 of the 4 county commissioners wanted to do that. They also wanted to abolish the dental truck.

The county judge was unsympathetic on the subject of a dental truck, and rather frigid to the subject of the bookmobile and he was licked.

Judge Anderson, who is still in office and who campaigned for the free public library, was elected by a considerable majority.

Mr. METCALF. That should give some encouragement to some of those of us who are the authors of these bills.

Mr. HARRIS. That is so. Without any personal feeling whatsoever, the only bad taste I am taking back to Texas, and the only bad taste in my mouth is the attitude of the United States Commissioner of Education, especially through the years, gentlemen, because I have been in very cordial and cooperative correspondence with the Chief of the Bureau of Education's Library Service Division. That was every time that we made any progress in striking out over that great State of ours with a new county library here, or a new community library there, we had some trouble in the news columns; and I would send clippings to the Chief of the Bureau of Education's Public Library Division and receive back greetings from him in return.

Somehow or other the light didn't hold out to burn and I don't know why it was. I just regret it. That is with full consciousness of the fact that he has just as much right to his opinion as I have to mine. Is there anything further, gentlemen?

Mr. Coon. I would like to ask you, how much does the State of Texas spend on this? I do not believe you mentioned the amount. How much does the State of Texas provide for library funds?

Mr. HARRIS. The State of Texas appropriates for extension, Congressman, I think it was approximately $56,000, for extension service out of the State library at Austin. We got them $200,000 from the senate, but the house threw cold water on it by inaction and not by opposition. There was no opposition. I think it is approximately $56,000 now.

Mr. COON. How many counties did you say provided funds? Mr. HARRIS. Fifty-two of the two hundred and fifty-four counties, which is an awful lot of counties.

Mr. Coon. It is 1 county out of 5?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes; they have county taxation for library service. In 168 counties of the 254, little libraries in townships or cities or villages are dotted here and there. They are all inadequate, and all merely little token gestures. They are put up by a little group of clubwomen, or parent-teacher groups, and whatnot. They try to use those as a nucleus on which to build a county library.

That was done down in Wilson, right at our back door. A benevolent woman gave $5,000 to acquire a little handful of books, and housed them in a room in the fire station, and that was built into the Wilson County Library. And that is really a characteristic, and it is a typical procedure in that part of the country.

Mr. Coon. I was going to comment that I hope that you are not dismayed in your effort to try to get more from the counties to help the library services in Texas.

Mr. HARRIS. I hope that you are right, Congressman. I cordially agree with you on that proposition.

Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANDRUM. We have three other witnesses who indicated their desire to appear today. It is now 4 o'clock and I am willing to sit myself.

Mr. HUSSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from Congressman Carl Albert, of the Third District of Oklahoma, and he wishes that it be inserted in the record.

I have one also from Mr. Eli M. Oboler, past president of the Idaho State Library Association, which was sent over by the Honorable Hamer H. Budge, of Idaho.

Mr. LANDRUM. They will be received if there is no objection. (Statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT BY HON. CARL ALBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before the committee in behalf of H. R. 2803, a bill I have introduced to improve public library service in rural areas. As you know, this is one of a group of identical bills introduced by Members on both sides of the aisle. It is our hope that enactment of legislation of this character will stimulate greater interest in and enthusiasm for public libraries throughout the country.

My bill would authorize an appropriation of $7.5 million for each of the next 5 years on a Federal-State matching basis, to provide public library service to rural areas that now are without library service or have inadequate facilities. None of this money would be used to purchase or erect buildings or to purchase land for building purposes. It would be used exclusively for library facilities in accordance with plans worked out in cooperation with State and local agencies. The States would retain control over the library plans they formulate. There would be no Federal control except the routine one of safeguarding Federal money.

The 1950 census shows that Oklahoma has a total population of 2,233,000. Of this number 1,035,000, or almost 50 percent of the population, have no public library service. Many of those who do have library service have access only to libraries that are small or inadequate. Almost half of the 116 public libraries in the State have less than 5,000 books. In many instances these books are old, well-used and out-of-date.

At present there are no facilities in Oklahoma for taking books to rural areas. The only bookmobiles in the State are owned by the Tulsa Public Library. Some cities and towns claim to give county library service, but in order to take advantage of the service the residents of the county must visit the library. At times this is not feasible and in many instances, the library is so inadequately staffed and the book stocks are so low that it is impossible to keep the libraries open or to provide reasonable service.

The library extension division of the State library does its utmost to provide service to rural citizens who do not have access to public libraries. Nevertheless, library service for the whole State cannot be provided from the State level, and it is doubtful if it should be, even if that were possible. The State agency should be in a position to support, bolster, and aid local public libraries, but it should not be forced to fill the gap created by the absence of local library service.

Studies have been made in Oklahoma regarding the support of public libraries. All of these studies have come to the same conclusion, namely, that no city nor county can support in adequate fashion a good library. It therefore seems that the most feasible system for Oklahoma is the multicounty library embracing a number of counties and cities. Library resources would be pooled and a system of bookmobile routes, book deposit stations and branch libraries would be established. Purchasing would be done in the central library and with all purchases pooled, a much better discount on books could be obtained.

The Third Congressional District of Oklahoma, which I represent, includes 13 counties with a population of 266,995. Of this number 79,932 have some